28 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. X. No. 232 



especially since no such legislation can be retroactive so as to com- 

 pensate them for past losses ? 



As to American literature, I may repeat, that the constitutional 

 right of Congress to provide an international copyright with Eng- 

 land is based on the constitutional clause, when interpreted to mean 

 that Congress has the right, not to encourage authors quoad 

 authors, but to encourage the growth of literature and the arts per 

 se ; and this (though I have them not by me) I understood to be the 

 gist of the arguments of my esteemed friend, E. L. Andrews, Esq., 

 before a committee from one of the houses of Congress, and of Mr. 

 Thor\-ald Solberg in a late letter to Science. I rather doubt, my- 

 self, if the framers of the Constitution were thinking, at that precise 

 date, of future flights in literature and art, instead of the new bom 

 nation for which they were drafting organic laws, or if the pre- 

 sumption is not that they were thinking of the latter ; but, at any 

 rate. I am of opinion that the absence of an international copyright 

 with England is rather more of an incentive to emulation on the 

 part of our American authors than its presence could possibly be. 

 Just as the highest standard produces the highest scholarship, so, it 

 seems to me, the fact that, other things being equal, the American 

 publisher prefers to print the Englishman's work rather than the 

 American's, is a tremendous inducement to the American to make 

 things ?^«equal in his own favor. Said a writer of novels, an 

 American, to me the other evening, " The public buy novels, — not 

 your novels, nor my novels, but novels, — and I ought not to be 

 obliged to compete with stolen goods. — But if that be the case," 

 said I, " it appears that you are not competing with stolen goods 

 necessarily, but with vour brother novel-writers. Stolen goods are 

 the accident, no doubt, of your trade, but not to a larger proportion 

 than of any other trade. Your remedy, it seems to me, is not to 

 petition for international copjTight, but to give your goods such a 

 character and reputation that consumers will take none but yours. 

 If you assume a commercial standpoint, you must take the conse- 

 quences of it." 



However, in dealing with the gxiild of authorship, we must never 

 forget that all the members, indiscriminately, of that guild, deseri'e 

 our grateful recognition ; and this is equally, I think, the public 

 sentiment of this continent ; and besides, as to any of the craft, 

 alien or native, in these questions one should always remember that 

 authors and dealers in literar}- property do not exactly stand upon a 

 bread-and-butter basis. As to the author, he is a gentleman who 

 has deliberately selected the worst-paid and least-thanked of the 

 professions, — a profession w-hich not only attracts the minimum of 

 commercial attention, but practically unfits him for ever leaving its 

 walks for any other, — and therefore he should be treated, if not 

 with that benign munificence which the law extends to sailors and 

 infants, at least with the consideration and self-abnegation of his 

 fellow-men. 



So far as the question of an international copjTight with England 

 goes, I personally have never abandoned my belief in its righteous- 

 ness. However doubtful of the constitutional powers of Congress 

 to enact one by special statute, I am able to see no reason why the 

 present statute cannot be amended (say, by substitution of the word 

 ' person ' for the words ' citizen of the United States ') so as to 

 practically enact one : or treaty made with Great Britain, which, under 

 the treaty-making power, might shield itself from any judicial ques- 

 tion whatever. As to an international cop\Tight with France, Ger- 

 many, or other continental nation, it is needless to add. the con- 

 siderations I have suggested above do not in any wise apply. 



Appleton Morgan. 



THE IN'CREASE OF STATE INTERFEREN'CE IN THE 

 UNITED STATES. — III. 

 We have now before us what is said in a general way by repre- 

 sentative men among the economists and students of political sci- 

 ence with respect to the character of recent legislation, so far as it 

 bears upon the question as to the increase of State interference. 

 We have sufficient data to justify the opinion that laws having a 

 tendency to interference are on the increase, and that this increase 

 is pretty general throughout the countr)-. It remains to discuss the 

 views entertained by our correspondents as to the advisability of 

 such legislation. These views are extremely diverse, and show very 



clearly the absence of any organized body of widely influential 

 economic thought in this countr)'. Sixteen per cent of our corre- 

 spondents are unreser\'edly in favor of the unlimited extension of 

 State control : they are therefore logically State socialists. We be- 

 lieve, howe\-er, that this proportion is far larger than that which 

 obtains among either professed economists or the people at large. 

 Twenty-seven per cent of our correspondents are in a general way 

 favorable to the extension of State control, but would guard such 

 extension carefully. Twenty-four per cent view State control with 

 disfavor as a principle, but would admit it in certain cases. Thirty 

 per cent are unreser\-edly, some of them violently, opposed to State 

 control, and express themselves with much directness and force. A 

 comparatively small number rest their opposition on laissez-faire 

 as an economic doctrine, the larger number assigning other reasons.. 

 Three per cent express no opinion, and are therefore classed as 

 non-committal. 



In noticing the able pamphlet of Prof. Henry C. Adams, ' The 

 Relation of the State to Industrial Action ' (Science, ix. No. 222), 

 we pointed out that he lays down three guiding principles for the 

 regulation of State interference. It will be well to recall these prin- 

 ciples, and keep them in mind for comparison with what is said on 

 the subject by others. The principles referred to were, (i) the 

 State may determine the plane of competitive action, (2) the State 

 maj' realize for society the benefits of monopoly, (3) social har- 

 mony may be restored by extending the duties of the State. 



Professor Cooper of Carleton College, j\Iinnesota, says, " I be- 

 lieve the State should interfere to control powerful monopolies, but 

 this power cannot be wisely used by such men as are chosen to our 

 State Legislatures." 



Frank R. Morrisey of the Omaha (Neb.) ^£-ra/(/ strongly opposes 

 State interference. He would check it by " the education of public 

 sentiment to the fallibility of majorities through the columns of the 

 press, the pulpit and the rostrum, infusing a broader knowledge of 

 the privileges of personal liberty, and impressing upon the citizen 

 the necessity' for the consideration of every other citizen's, 

 opinions." 



William Alvord of San Francisco believes in amendments to the 

 State constitutions, forbidding the enactment of local or special 

 laws. He says, that, since the adoption of the new California con- 

 stitution, the bound volumes of session-laws have decreased from 

 over 1 ,000 pages to 270 pages or thereabouts. 



Prof. Jesse Macy despairs of any reform so long as thinkers and 

 teachers beat the air, and keep out of speaking-distance with the 

 people who are in governmental difficulties. 



Prof. Henry C. Adams thinks that the increasing attention no\v 

 being devoted to political science will in time produce less unsatis- 

 factor)' legislation. 



C. Cavemo, Esq., of Lombard, 111., is very optimistic. He finds 

 in the increasing interference only renewed adaptation to the social 

 environment. " In my judgment," he tells us, "our legislation is 

 predominantly wholesome : the work of man rarely appears to sa 

 good advantage as therein." 



Herbert L. Osgood of Brookl)Ti, N.Y., says, " Take the world 

 over, political theories at the present time tend strongly toward the 

 advocacy of more State interference. This is doubtless in response 

 to a real need. The statutes of this nation, as well as those of 

 Europe, will probably yield to this impulse to a certain extent ; but 

 theories always far outrun practice. The Republic does not neces- 

 sarily lead toward individual freedom, but the spirit of private 

 enterprise is too strongly developed in this countrv^ to yield to a 

 paternal government. I believe the restrictions upon the freedom of 

 the individual coming from public opinion and social custom are in 

 this countrj' more dangerous than those to be feared from the laws.'" 



Assemblyman E. H. Crosby of New York City believes that the 

 increase of legislative interference is the result of a popular demand 

 for it. This demand, to be intelligent, must be directed by sound 

 political science, and the dissemination of this is the need of the 

 hour. 



Morris F. Tyler of Connecticut is a representative of those who 

 think that unlimited laissez-faire will work a cure in time. Prof. 

 A. T. Hadley does not believe it worth while to try to check it, 

 but would let extremists pass such laws as they please. These 

 could not be enforced, and would either be repealed or become a. 



