532 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



mechanic with another. The mechanic pro- 

 duces a hat, for example, by muscular ac- 

 tion; and the autbor produces a book by 

 brain action. In both cases the result rep- 

 resents vital power continuously expended ; 

 there has been exhaustion of the bodily en- 

 ergies in both cases alike. The blood rep- 

 resents the stock of vital power, and it is 

 drawn upon in muscular action by the la- 

 borer and in cerebral action by the author. 

 An author, too, has need for a large amount 

 of blood to sustain his thinking. Physiolo- 

 gists tell us that the brain is more imme- 

 diately dependent upon a copious supply 

 of blood than any other part of the system. 

 They say that, although the"average brain is 

 but one thirty-sixth the weight of the body, 

 it demands one fifth of all the blood to keep 

 it in working order. Ideas, then, are bod- 

 ily products, and are at the expense of the 

 blood ; and the books containing them rep- 

 resent the life-forces and spent vitality of 

 their authors. The elements of blood come 

 from the market and have their price. Food 

 and clothing, and the conveniences of living, 

 are neither sent to authors from heaven, nor 

 are they furnished gratuitously by govern- 

 ment. Like other people, those who make 

 books depend upon their labor to live, and 

 they have an equal right with other people 

 to the fruits of their labor. 



Because ideas go forth in a subtile way, 

 and are widely diffused, is no reason for re- 

 garding them as "free as the light," to be 

 appropriated by anybody without paying 

 their originators. If they are real and tan- 

 gible enough to steal, they are capable of 

 protection as property. It is in no sense a 

 question of the form or quality of the things 

 produced, for these are but accidents. If an 

 author is to be robbed because his property 

 is in an ethereal shape, why not rob the 

 milkman becaiise his property is in a liquid 

 shape ? Whether a man devote his powers 

 to the elaboration of thought or the elabora- 

 tion of matter is perfectly immaterial so far 

 as concerns the question of his property 

 right in the thing produced. 



But we may go further and ask what 

 property can have so sacred a right of recog- 

 nition as that which is the product of man's 

 highest faculties ? The creations and con- 

 structions of the brain, as they have a far 

 higher value to the world than the mere 

 products of material manipulation, have also 

 a more transcendent and inviolable claim to 

 the protection of law. The hand is but the 

 servant of the intellect. All knowledge, art, 

 science, literature, discovery, invention, all 

 that redeems man from barbarism and cre- 



ates civilization, are but results of brain- ex- 

 ertion ; and are we to discredit this noblest 

 form of effort and outlaw the men whose 

 lives have been consumed by it, while all 

 the guards of legislation are thrown round 

 the grosser forms of manipulative industry? 

 But it will be said all this is clear enough 

 — why multiply wearisome commonplaces? 

 Most true, and if our practice conformed to 

 these professions, nothing would need to be 

 said. But our practice is a direct contradic- 

 tion to admitted and self-evident justice, 

 and this is a state of things that can not be 

 let alone. We affirm an author's right in 

 his work, and then we proceed systemati- 

 cally to rob him of it. We are not only 

 thieves, but thieves proclaiming in open 

 day that we know ourselves to be so. To 

 be sure, it is foreign authors whom we rob, 

 but this does not affect the case, as the 

 rights of private property are coextensive 

 with civilization. It will hardly do to ob- 

 ject to a "foreigner" when we appreciate 

 his work so highly as to covet it and take it 

 from him wrongfully. His case against us 

 is clear enough. He says : " I have pro- 

 duced my book at much expense and with 

 hai'd labor. I have created property in it ; 

 you want it, and in taking it you attest its 

 value ; you appropriate it to enrich your- 

 selves without giving me a just equivalent ; 

 you steal it, and your Government protects 

 you in it as if it were an innocent act." 

 The logic is short and decisive, and it leaves 

 this country in no very enviable position in 

 the community of nations. Claiming to be 

 civilized, enlightened, and even Christian, 

 we practice an ethical code in this matter 

 not higher than the standard of savages. 

 Were our Government founded in usurpti- 

 tion and injustice, as we assert the European 

 Governments to be, there would be a kind 

 of consistency in maintaining this admitted 

 wrong ; but, while the monarchical countries 

 have cleared themselves of all complicity in 

 it, it is reserved for the people who boast of 

 the " best government on earth," and who 

 fill the world with their boasts about " hu- 

 man rights," to maintain an organized sys- 

 tem of literary brigandage in which private 

 rights are unscrupulously violated, and the 

 highest products of man's exertion are the , 

 objects of indiscriminate plunder. It is a 

 case, moreover, in which meanness is added 

 to dishonesty. We take from its owner that 

 which he is powerless to protect. We steal 

 that which is confided to the public honor, 

 and, as if this were not enough, we add 

 hypocrisy to meanness by putting forth pa- 

 lavering pretexts for our action. There are 



