an equal chance with the English publisher, which he could not have if this measure is put upon any other basis. We say let the English publisher come over and compete with us if he wishes to. All we ask is equal terms, and that he shall not be given that fatal advantage of us which he would get by an unrestricted copyright.
But it may be said that tins is an illiberal policy; and that, when all the tendencies of international intercourse are in the direction of freedom and expansion, such a scheme as this is narrow and obstructive. The "Times" virtually charges this, in saying "the gross delusions of protection may extend to cover the book-selling business as well as the making of cotton cloths and the forging of iron." And yet the burden of English complaint for the last fifty years has been that our trade in English books is quite too free, and our policy liberal and lax to a most scandalous extent. What they have demanded is, that we contravene this freedom of commerce by restrictive legislation. Copyright is the antagonist of free trade. Were perfect liberty of commerce proclaimed to-morrow between nations (as it now exists between the States of this nation), international copyright would make books an exception by protecting them from all competing production and open traffic. The author by his copyright invests his publisher with a monopoly, by which he controls and restricts the trade in his book to any extent that pleases him. With an unqualified international copyright, and the fullest freedom of trade otherwise, the London publishers would rule the market in this country for all the works of English authors. American publishers would be excluded from competition with them. We hold that the principle of copyright is wise, as it is the only practical way yet devised by which an author can have secured to him the available right of property in his book, and we demand that English authors shall have the full benefit of it, but on no principle of liberal trade arrangements can we be asked to subject our book markets to the exclusive control of English manufacturers.
The "Times" says that the great American houses have been driven into this position of favoring an international copyright, by the interference of "some Chicago men" who are cutting into and underselling the established firms of New York and Philadelphia. That cutthroat proceeding, as it is a natural consequence of the existing system, is certainly a valid reason for condemning the system and putting an end to it. But the "Times" misrepresents the facts in saying that this is the origin of the plan of international copyright now under consideration. Its own columns might have been consulted for a confutation of the statement. The project of international copyright, in behalf of English authors, was urged long before the Chicago raids referred to were undertaken, and it was explicitly presented to the English people by ah American publisher writing in the "Times" as early as 1871.
The writer objects that, by the plan proposed, "the English author is not to be allowed the rights of an ordinary possessor of property." But does it expect that the Americans will go further than the English themselves, in protecting the rights of their authors? Is it not now, and has it not long been, the policy of the English Government to deny to its authors "the rights of an ordinary possessor of property" in his literary creations, and does it not protect them as mere favors and transient privileges which are left to expire after a few years? Again, the writer in the "Times" accuses us of robbing the author of half his rights. He may, if so minded, take the remainder, as "half the recognition of a right must have some value." To be paid the full price for his work, according to contracts that he may make with any publisher among
