﻿The 
  Blackwell 
  Litigation. 
  57 
  

  

  The 
  first 
  is, 
  that 
  the 
  plaintiffs 
  sent 
  out 
  business 
  envelopes 
  

   and 
  business 
  cards, 
  giving 
  the 
  year 
  ISGO 
  as 
  the 
  date 
  of 
  the 
  

   establishment 
  of 
  their 
  enterprise. 
  In 
  the 
  absence 
  of 
  explana- 
  

   tion, 
  this 
  might 
  well 
  impugn 
  the 
  bona 
  fides 
  of 
  the 
  plaintiffs, 
  

   as 
  in 
  their 
  bill 
  they 
  fix 
  it 
  no 
  earlier 
  than 
  1865. 
  But 
  was 
  this 
  

   statement 
  by 
  mistake 
  or 
  design 
  ? 
  Have 
  the 
  plaiuliffs 
  failed 
  

   to 
  account 
  for 
  it? 
  A 
  junior 
  member 
  of 
  the 
  firm 
  was 
  examined 
  

   and 
  showed 
  how 
  it 
  all 
  occurred 
  innocevthj, 
  and 
  without 
  intent 
  

   to 
  deceive. 
  He 
  ordered 
  the 
  ]irinting 
  and 
  gave 
  the 
  date 
  ; 
  soon 
  

   after 
  the 
  packages 
  were 
  received 
  and 
  opened 
  in 
  the 
  presence 
  

   of 
  Dr. 
  Blackwell 
  : 
  the 
  latter 
  saw 
  the 
  error 
  of 
  the 
  date 
  and 
  

   corrected 
  it; 
  and 
  the 
  witness 
  stated 
  that 
  he 
  proceeded 
  to 
  cor- 
  

   rect 
  the 
  misdate 
  by 
  writing 
  the 
  figure 
  (5) 
  over 
  the 
  cipher 
  in 
  

   1860, 
  so 
  as 
  to 
  make 
  the 
  date 
  1865, 
  as 
  corrected 
  by 
  Dr. 
  Black- 
  

   well, 
  but 
  that 
  some 
  might 
  have 
  gone 
  out 
  before 
  the 
  correc- 
  

   tion. 
  The 
  exhibits 
  made 
  by 
  the 
  defendant 
  of 
  these 
  envelopes 
  

   and 
  cards 
  corroborate, 
  rather 
  than 
  conflict, 
  with 
  the 
  witness. 
  

   That 
  should 
  not 
  be 
  taken 
  for 
  fraud 
  which 
  is 
  proved 
  b}' 
  an 
  

   unimpeached 
  witness 
  to 
  have 
  been 
  a 
  mistake 
  on 
  his 
  part. 
  

   Besides, 
  there 
  was 
  no 
  reasonable 
  motive 
  for 
  such 
  misrepre- 
  

   sentation 
  ; 
  the 
  plaintiffs 
  had 
  nothing 
  to 
  gain 
  by 
  it, 
  but 
  much 
  

   to 
  lose 
  on 
  the 
  hypothesis 
  of 
  the 
  counsel 
  for 
  the 
  defendant. 
  

   The 
  next 
  is 
  a 
  charge 
  of 
  falsehood 
  in 
  representing 
  that 
  the 
  

   label 
  was 
  secured 
  by 
  copyright. 
  There 
  is 
  not 
  a 
  particle 
  of 
  

   proof 
  to 
  that 
  effect. 
  Argument 
  and 
  ridicule 
  alone 
  are 
  relied 
  

   on 
  to 
  show 
  the 
  inapplicability 
  and 
  absurdity 
  of 
  a 
  copyright 
  

   for 
  snch 
  a 
  print. 
  The 
  language 
  of 
  the 
  statute 
  is 
  certainly 
  

   comprehensive 
  enough 
  to 
  embrace 
  a 
  label 
  of 
  this 
  kind. 
  (Act 
  

   of 
  July 
  8, 
  1870, 
  § 
  86, 
  U. 
  S. 
  Stats, 
  at 
  Large, 
  vol. 
  16, 
  p. 
  212.) 
  

   The 
  object 
  of 
  sucli 
  copyright 
  is 
  to 
  secure 
  to 
  " 
  the 
  author, 
  

   inventor 
  or 
  designer" 
  of 
  any 
  such 
  " 
  print" 
  the 
  sole 
  liberty 
  of 
  

   printing 
  and 
  vending 
  the 
  same. 
  It 
  forbids 
  the 
  surreptitious 
  

   use 
  and 
  the 
  illegal 
  sale 
  of 
  his 
  labels. 
  This 
  is 
  a 
  perfectly 
  legit- 
  

   imate 
  resort 
  to 
  copyright 
  in 
  such 
  a 
  case 
  and 
  for 
  such 
  a 
  pur- 
  

   pose. 
  It 
  would, 
  indeed, 
  hj 
  absurd 
  and 
  ridiculous 
  if 
  the 
  

   object 
  were, 
  as 
  sarcastically 
  portrayed 
  b}-- 
  counsel, 
  to 
  protect 
  

   the 
  designer 
  against 
  the 
  unlawful 
  multiplication 
  of 
  such 
  

   ycleped 
  works 
  of 
  art. 
  The 
  dealer 
  seeks 
  merely 
  by 
  his 
  copy- 
  

   right 
  to 
  keep 
  the 
  printing 
  and 
  vending 
  of 
  his 
  labels 
  in 
  his 
  own 
  

   hands 
  and 
  under 
  his 
  control. 
  It 
  has 
  been 
  resorted 
  to 
  in 
  other 
  

   cases, 
  as 
  for 
  instance, 
  in 
  the 
  case 
  of 
  Wolfe 
  v. 
  Goulard, 
  Cox's 
  

   Am. 
  Trade-Mark 
  Cases, 
  page 
  227, 
  for 
  the 
  label 
  of 
  "Schiedam 
  

   Schnapps." 
  There 
  is 
  nothing 
  unreasonable 
  or 
  incredible 
  iu 
  

  

  