Chapter XX: Part I: , Group 2, issued monthly with more condensed entries,--containing (2)

In the winter of 1889-1890, the first Pan American conference was held in Washington, and at this a committee, of which Andrew Carnegie was the United States member, reported in favor of the adoption of the Montevideo convention. No action seems to have been taken, but it is probably this convention which is referred to as the first Pan American copyright treaty. The second Pan American copyright treaty, according to this numeration, was that adopted at the Pan American conference in Mexico City, signed January 27, 1902, at the same time with the patent and trade-mark treaty. This copyright convention was modeled somewhat on the lines of the Berne convention. At the Pan American conference in Rio de Janeiro, 1906, what is spoken of as the third Pan American copyright treaty, was adopted, and signed August 23, 1906, but this was really not so much a new treaty, as a supplementary convention providing for the development and regulation of international bureaus at Havana and Rio de Janeiro, and its provisions were never put into operation. A fourth Pan American copyright treaty, distinct from patent and trade-mark protection, was adopted at the Pan American conference at Buenos Aires in 1910 and signed August 11, 1910. The Mexico copyright convention was not ratified by the Senate of the United States until 1908 and was proclaimed by the President, April 9, 1908; the Rio convention has never been accepted by the United States; the Buenos Aires convention, replacing that of Mexico, was promptly approved by the U. S. Senate, February 16, 1911, but is yet to be acted upon by the other countries.

{Sidenote: Mexico City conference, 1902}

At the Pan American conference held in Mexico City in 1902, the second copyright convention was signed January 27, 1902, by representatives of Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and the United States, the delegates of Nicaragua, Paraguay and the United States acting _ad referendum_.

{Sidenote: Mexico convention, 1902}

The first article of the Mexico convention formed the signatory states into "a Union for the purpose of recognizing and protecting the rights of literary and artistic property," which was defined (art. 2) as including "books, manuscripts, pamphlets of all kinds, no matter what subject they may treat of and what may be the number of their pages; dramatic or melodramatic works; choral music and musical compositions, with or without words, designs, drawings, paintings, sculpture, engravings, photographic works; astronomical and geographical globes; plans, sketches and plastic works relating to geography or geology, topography or architecture, or any other science; and finally, every production in the literary and artistic field, which may be published by any method of impression or reproduction." Copyright was defined (art. 3) as the exclusive right to dispose of the work, to publish, to sell and translate it or authorize translation, and to reproduce it in any manner, in whole or in part.

{Sidenote: Indispensable condition}

The "indispensable" condition of copyright was (art. 4) a petition from the author or his representative to the proper office, presumably of his own government, with two deposit copies, and if he desired recognition in other countries, with additional copies for each country designated, which copies were to be forwarded to the respective governments accompanied by a copy of the certificate of registration. Authors were secured (art. 5) in each country the rights granted by their own government within the term of protection of the country of origin--in works published in installments, the term of copyright to date from the publication of each part. The country of origin was defined (art. 6) as that of first publication, or in case of simultaneous publication, that having the shortest period of protection. The name or acknowledged pseudonym on a work (art. 9) was accepted as indication of the author except on proof to the contrary.

{Sidenote: Special provisions}

Authorized translations or those of non-protected works (art. 7) could be copyrighted as original works, but not to the exclusion of other versions of the latter. Newspaper articles might be reproduced (art. 8) on acknowledgment of source and author's name, if given; addresses before legislative assemblies, court or public meetings (art. 10) might be freely reproduced, and extracts made (art. 11) in publications devoted to public instruction or chrestomathy.

"Unauthorized indirect use" or reprint under pretext of annotations or criticism (art. 12) was specified as unlawful reproduction. Pirated copies might be seized (art. 13) in any of the countries, without prejudice to other punishment of the infringer. Each country was to exercise (art. 14) police power in its own jurisdiction. The convention was to become effective for each signatory power three months after communication of its ratification to the Mexican government, and any participant might withdraw after one year's notice of denunciation, the convention to remain binding on the other powers. The signatory powers were to declare (art. 16) whether they would accept accession from countries unrepresented at the conference.

{Sidenote: Ratification}

The Mexico convention of 1902 was ratified by Guatemala (1902), Salvador (1902), Costa Rica (1902), Honduras (1904) and Nicaragua (1904), and by the United States (1908), perhaps also by the Dominican Republic and Cuba, and does not seem to be operative in the other countries whose representatives signed the treaty.

{Sidenote: Rio de Janeiro conference 1906}

At the third Pan American conference, held at Rio de Janeiro, in 1906, a convention was signed August 23, 1906, to protect patents of invention, drawings and industrial models, trade-marks and literary and artistic property, thus binding in one document patent and copyright protection. This is usually referred to as the third Pan American treaty, but it has not been accepted by the United States, partly because of objections to patent provisions and the combination of copyright provisions with them.

{Sidenote: Rio provisions}

This Rio convention re-adopted (art. 1) the Mexico treaty, with modifications as stated in the convention. These provided for two international bureaus (art. 2) for the centralization of registrations (art. 3), one at Havana for the United States, Mexico, Central American states, Panama, Colombia and Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti and San Domingo, and one at Rio de Janeiro for Brazil, Argentina and the other South American states, both to have (art. 4) identical systems and books, and to exchange monthly authenticated copies of documents, so that the two should practically constitute one bureau. The proper bureau was to receive (art. 5) from each country authenticated copies of its own registrations of patents and copyrights for transmission (art. 6) to the other countries, where they should be given full faith and credit, unless the proper bureau be notified to the contrary within one year. The registration in one country (art. 7) should have the same effect in each other country, as if made in all, and the term of protection was made that provided by the legislation of the country "where the rights originated or have been recognized," or, if no term is specified, then for patents fifteen years, for designs ten years, both subject to renewals, and for literary and artistic copyright life and 25 years. The expenses of the bureau were to be guaranteed (art. 8) by the several countries in the same proportion as for the bureau of American Republics (now called the Pan American Union) at Washington; the two bureaus were placed under the protection of Cuba and Brazil under identical regulations, made by concurrence of the two governments with the approval of the other countries; and an additional registration fee, equivalent to $5, collected in the country of original registration, was to be equally divided for the maintenance of the two bureaus. The bureaus were authorized (art. 9) to (1) collect and publish information, (2) print an official review, (3) to advise the respective governments of defects, (4) to arrange for future international conferences, (5) to make yearly report, (6) to exchange publications with other institutions, and (7) to act as cooperative agents for each of the governments concerned. The convention was to become effective (art. 10) on the establishment of one of the bureaus for such countries as should accede to the new convention, the other countries remaining bound by the former convention; and each of the bureaus was to be established (art. 11) as soon as two thirds of the countries in its own group should ratify the convention, and the first bureau established might act temporarily for the other countries. It was finally provided (art. 12) that Brazil should be the intermediary for exchange of ratifications.

{Sidenote: Ratification}

The Rio convention of 1906 was ratified only by Guatemala (1907 and 1909), Salvador (1907), Nicaragua (1908) and Costa Rica (1908), and by Chile (1910); and it never became effective.

{Sidenote: Buenos Aires conference and convention, 1910}

At the fourth Pan American conference, held at Buenos Aires in 1910,--twenty powers, including all the South American countries except Bolivia, being represented,--the fourth copyright convention was signed August 11, 1910. It undertakes to "acknowledge and protect the rights of literary and artistic property," and includes (art. 2) with dramatic and musical works those of a choregraphic character. It retains (art. 4) the definition of the scope of copyright. The provision as to the indicated author is continued (art. 5) in more precise language. It substitutes for the previous cumbrous method the simple provision (art. 3) "the acknowledgment of a copyright obtained in one State, in conformity with its laws, shall produce its effects of full right in all the other States without the necessity of complying with any other formality, provided always there shall appear in the work a statement that indicates the reservation of the property right." It continues (art. 6) the Mexico provisions as to copyright duration. The country of origin is further defined (art. 7) as "that of its first publication in America," and in case of simultaneous publication in several of the signatory countries, then that having the shortest term of protection. It specially provides (art. 8) that a work shall not acquire copyright through subsequent editions. It continues also (art. 9) the provisions for copyright in translations. It provides (art. 11) for the protection of "literary, scientific, or artistic writings, ... published in newspapers or magazines." But other articles may be freely reproduced, on acknowledgment of the source, which, however, is not required for "news and miscellaneous items published merely for general information,"--the provisions as to extracts in journals for public instruction or chrestomathy (art. 12) and those as to public addresses (art. 10) subject, however, to the internal laws of each state, being continued. The provisions as to unlawful reproduction (art. 13) are continued, and seizure of pirated copies (art. 14), police powers (art. 15) and provisions for ratification (art. 16) are the same as in the Mexico convention, except that the ratifications and denouncements are to be communicated to the Argentine government. This treaty, approved by the United States Senate, February 16, 1911, and signed by the President, waits other ratification to become effective.

{Sidenote: Attorney-General's opinion on ratification}

{Sidenote: Relation with importation provisions}

The Mexico convention was signed by the United States delegates _ad referendum_, and before submitting it to the Senate for ratification, the President obtained through the Secretary of State an opinion from the Department of Justice, as to any reason against its submission for ratification, especially with reference to the act of 1891. Acting Attorney-General Hoyt replied in a confidential report of June 3, 1902, since made public, after quoting the prohibition of importation in section 3 of the act of 1891: "In the convention now in question there is no inhibition against such importations as are prohibited by said section 3, unless it can be said that such convention is 'an international agreement which provides for reciprocity in the granting of copyrights, by the terms of which agreement the United States of America may, at its pleasure, become a party to such agreement,' as provided in section 13 of the same act. It is a matter of grave doubt whether this convention, made by the United States originally, is such an 'international agreement.' It is therefore quite probable that its ratification would except the authors of the nations signing it from the provisions of said section 3 of the act of March 3, 1891, leaving the authors of other countries still subject to such provisions. Your attention is directed to the fact that an affirmative answer to article 16 of the convention would also except from the provisions of said section 3 all countries that might hereafter adopt said convention. There appears to be no legal impediment to the ratification of this convention, nor would it constitute a breach of faith toward other countries; and in pointing out the probable effect of some of its provisions I do not intend thereby to express or intimate an opinion that it ought not to be ratified." The question of the relation between treaty provisions and domestic legislation especially affects copyright arrangements and has been the subject of discussion and a matter of difficulty in England and other countries as well as in the United States. The Senate did not act finally upon the Mexico convention until 1908, when it was duly ratified, and this precedent opened the way for more prompt ratification of the Buenos Aires convention.

{Sidenote: United States international relations}

The United States, as a party only to the Pan American Union and not a member of the International Copyright Union under the Berne-Berlin conventions, has not secured for its citizens general rights of copyright in other countries, without repetition of formalities, and such rights are secured only in the countries designated by Presidential proclamation and according to the formalities of their domestic legislation. It seems, however, that citizens of the United States may obtain general protection throughout the unionist countries by publishing in a unionist country simultaneously with first publication in the United States, and thus coming under the protective provisions of the Berlin convention. The Mexico convention permits citizens of the United States to obtain copyright in other countries ratifying that convention, by deposit at Washington of extra copies for transmission to countries designated, with certified copy of the registration. When the Buenos Aires convention is ratified by other powers nothing more will then be required than the usual application and deposit at Washington and notice of the reservation of rights, preferably in connection with the copyright notice, of which "all rights reserved for all countries" is the most comprehensive form.

{Sidenote: "Proclaimed" countries}

Under section 8 of the act of 1891, the President "proclaimed" from time to time the existence of reciprocal relations with other countries, which permitted their citizens to obtain copyright in the United States under the act, and American citizens to obtain protection under their respective copyright laws. The question of the _status_ of these countries under the act of 1909 was solved by the proclamation of the President on April 9, 1910, stating that "satisfactory evidence has been received that in Austria, Belgium, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain and her possessions, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands and her possessions, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland, the law permits ... to citizens of the United States the benefit of copyright on substantially the same basis as to citizens of those countries," and proclaiming "that the citizens or subjects of the aforementioned countries are and since July 1, 1909, have been entitled to all the benefits of the said Act other than the benefits under section 1, (_e_), thereof, as to which the inquiry is still pending"--the exception being as regards mechanical music. To this list of countries, Luxemburg was added by proclamation of June 29, 1910, and Sweden by that of May 26, 1911.

{Sidenote: Mechanical music reciprocity}

Under date of December 8, 1910, the first proclamation with respect to the international protection of mechanical music was made by the President, declaring the existence of reciprocal relations with Germany. Belgium, Luxemburg, and Norway were added by proclamation of June 14, 1911.

It may be repeated, to make the list complete, that by the ratification in 1908 of the Mexico City convention of 1902, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Salvador, as well as Costa Rica, have reciprocal copyright relations with the United States, making in all twenty-four countries (including Japan under the treaties excepting translations, and China under the limited provisions of the treaty of 1903) with which the United States has international copyright relations.

XIX

THE INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT MOVEMENT IN AMERICA

{Sidenote: Initial endeavor in America, 1837}

Simultaneously with the earliest legislation for international copyright among European states, there was a movement in the same direction in the United States. In the Twenty-fourth Congress, February 2, 1837, Henry Clay presented to the Senate an address of British authors asking for copyright protection in this country. This petition was signed by Thomas Moore and fifty-five others, and was later supplemented by additional signatures and by an American petition to the same effect.

{Sidenote: The British address}

The text of the address is as follows, the reference in paragraph seven being to a letter by Dr. M'Vickar, printed in the New York _American_, November 19, 1832:

"The humble address and petition of certain authors of Great Britain, to the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, in Congress assembled, respectfully showeth--

"1. That your petitioners have long been exposed to injury in their reputation and property, from the want of a law by which the exclusive right to their respective writings may be secured to them in the United States of America.

"2. That, for want of such law, deep and extensive injuries have, of late, been inflicted on the reputation and property of certain of your petitioners; and on the interests of literature and science, which ought to constitute a bond of union and friendship between the United States and Great Britain.

"3. That, from the circumstance of the English language being common to both nations, the works of British authors are extensively read throughout the United States of America, while the profits arising from the sale of their works may be wholly appropriated by American booksellers, not only without the consent of the authors, but even contrary to their express desire--a grievance under which your petitioners have, at present, no redress.

"4. That the works thus appropriated by American booksellers are liable to be mutilated and altered, at the pleasure of the said booksellers, or of any other persons who may have an interest in reducing the price of the works, or in conciliating the supposed principles or prejudice of purchasers in the respective sections of your union: and that, the names of the authors being retained, they may be made responsible for works which they no longer recognize as their own.

"5. That such mutilation and alteration, with the retention of the authors' names, have been of late actually perpetrated by citizens of the United States: under which grievance, your petitioners have no redress.

"6. That certain of your petitioners have recently made an effort in defence of their literary reputation and property, by declaring a respectable firm of English publishers in New York to be the sole authorized possessors and issuers of the works of the said petitioners; and by publishing in certain American newspapers, their authority to this effect.

"7. That the object of the said petitioners has been defeated by the act of certain persons, citizens of the United States, who have unjustly published, for their own advantage, the works sought to be thus protected; under which grievance your petitioners have, at present, no redress.

"8. That American authors are injured by the non-existence of the desired law. While American publishers can provide themselves with works for publication by unjust appropriation, instead of by equitable purchase, they are under no inducement to afford to American authors a fair remuneration for their labours: under which grievance American authors have no redress but in sending over their works to England to be published, an expedient which has become an established practice with some of whom their country has most reason to be proud.

"9. That the American public is injured by the non-existence of the desired law. The American public suffers, not only from the discouragement afforded to native authors, as above stated, but from the uncertainty now existing as to whether the books presented to them as the works of British authors, are the actual and complete productions of the writers whose names they bear.

"10. That your petitioners beg humbly to remind your Honours of the case of Walter Scott, as stated by an esteemed citizen of the United States, that while the works of this author, dear alike to your country and to ours, were read from Maine to Georgia, from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, he received no remuneration from the American public for his labours; that an equitable remuneration might have saved his life, and would, at least, have relieved its closing years from the burden of debts and destructive toils.

"11. That your petitioners, deeply impressed with the conviction that the only firm ground of friendship between nations, is a strict regard to simple justice, earnestly pray that your Honours, the representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, will speedily use, in behalf of the authors of Great Britain, your power 'of securing to the authors the exclusive right to their respective writings.'"

{Sidenote: Henry Clay report, 1837}

The British address was referred to a select committee, whose members were Clay, Webster, Buchanan, Preston and Ewing, which reported favorably a bill for international copyright. The report took high ground in favor of the rights of authors:

"That authors and inventors have, according to the practice among civilized nations, a property in the respective productions of their genius, is incontestable; and that this property should be protected as effectually as any other property is, by law, follows as a legitimate consequence. Authors and inventors are among the greatest benefactors of mankind.... It being established that literary property is entitled to legal protection, it results that this protection ought to be afforded wherever the property is situated.... We should be all shocked if the law tolerated the least invasion of the rights of property, in the case of merchandise, whilst those which justly belong to the works of authors are exposed to daily violation, without the possibility of their invoking the aid of the laws.... In principle, the committee perceive no objection to considering the republic of letters as one great community, and adopting a system of protection for literary property which should be common to all parts of it."

{Sidenote: A prophecy of world union}

The address of British authors and the Clay report called forth a little volume of "Remarks on literary property" by Philip H. Nicklin, a Philadelphia publisher, printed by his own firm of "law booksellers" in 1838, and dedicated to Henry C. Carey, which, though somewhat caustic in its criticisms of some of the arguments put forward by the British authors, heartily favored international copyright. The volume, in fact, contains a glowing prophecy of what was realized in large measure in the convention of Berne a half century later, the more interesting as coming from an American publisher, who was perhaps first to realize in thought the world-wide possibilities of the movement then in its beginnings. He suggested that Congress should empower the President to appoint commissioners to meet in Europe with similar representatives from other nations "to negociate for the enactment of a _uniform_ law of literary property, and the extension of its benefits to all civilised nations. It should be a new chapter of the _Jus Gentium_, and should be one law (_iisdem verbis_) for all the enacting nations, extending over their territories in the same manner as our law of copyright extends over the territories of our twenty-six sovereign states; so that an entry of copyright in the proper office of one nation should protect the author in all the others."

{Sidenote: "One just law"}

"Public opinion has made such progress in the various civilized nations, as would justify a great movement in favour of establishing a universal republic of letters; whose foundation shall be one just law of literary property embracing authors of all nations, and being operative both in peace and war. Besides the great impulse that would be given by such a law, to the improvement of literature and intellectual cultivation, the fellowship of interest thus created among the learned men throughout the world, would in time grow into a bond of national peace. Authors would soon consider themselves as fellow-citizens of a glorious republic, whose boundaries are the great circles of the terraqueous globe; and instead of lending their talents for the purpose of exasperating national prejudice into hostile feeling, to further the views of ambitious politicians, they would exert their best energies to cultivate charity among the numerous branches of the Human family, to rub off those asperities which the faulty legislation of the dark ages has bequeathed to the present generation, and to extend the blessings of christianity to the ends of the earth."

{Sidenote: Clay bills, 1837-42}

The Clay report, presented February 16, 1837, was accompanied by a bill drawn by Clay, extending copyright to British and French authors for works thereafter published, on condition of the issue of an American edition simultaneously with the foreign edition or within one month after deposit of the title in America, but it never came to a final vote, though reintroduced by Clay in successive Congresses December 13, 1837, December 17, 1838, January 6, 1840, and January 6, 1842. In 1840, January 8, the bill was reported back from the Judiciary Committee without recommendation or approval. The bill was also introduced into the House of Representatives by John Robertson, July 7, 1838, and by J. L. Tillinghast, June 6, 1840, but here also there was no action.

{Sidenote: Palmerston invitation, 1838}

An invitation was extended by Lord Palmerston in 1838 for the cooperation of the American government in an international arrangement with Great Britain, but nothing came of it.

{Sidenote: Efforts 1840-48}

Dr. Francis Lieber, a well-known publicist, addressed to Senator Preston, in 1840, a letter "On international copyright," prepared in cooperation with George Palmer Putnam, and issued in pamphlet form by the house of Wiley & Putnam. Charles Dickens's tour in 1841 stimulated interest in the subject, and there were high hopes of some result. In 1843 Mr. Putnam procured the signatures of ninety-seven publishers, printers, and binders to a petition which was presented to Congress, setting forth that the absence of international copyright was "alike injurious to the business of publishing and to the best interests of the people." A counter-memorial from Philadelphia objected that international copyright "would prevent the adaptation of English books to American wants." No result came from these petitions, nor from one presented in 1848 by William Cullen Bryant, John Jay, George P. Putnam, and others.

{Sidenote: Everett treaty, 1853}

In 1852 a petition for international copyright, signed by Washington Irving, James Fenimore Cooper and others, was presented to Congress; and in 1853 Edward Everett, then Secretary of State, negotiated through the American Minister in London, John F. Crampton, a treaty providing simply that authors entitled to copyright in one country should be entitled to it in the other, on the same conditions and for the same term. This treaty was laid before the Senate in a message from President Fillmore, February 18, 1853. The Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, through Charles Sumner, reported the Everett treaty favorably, but it was tabled in Committee of the Whole. Five New York publishers addressed a letter to Mr. Everett, supporting a convention, providing the work should be registered in the United States before publication abroad, issued here within thirty days after publication abroad, and wholly manufactured in this country. It was in this year that Henry C. Carey published his famous "Letters on international copyright," in which he held that ideas are the common property of society, and that copyright is therefore indefensible. Several remonstrances were also presented against the treaty from citizens of different states. The next year the amendatory article to the Everett treaty was laid before the Senate in a message from President Pierce of February 23, 1854, but no action resulted.

{Sidenote: Morris bills, 1858-60}

In the Thirty-fifth Congress in 1858, Edward J. Morris, of Pennsylvania, introduced into the House of Representatives a bill on the basis of remanufacture by an American publisher within thirty days of publication abroad, but it does not seem to have been considered, though it was reintroduced by him in 1860.

{Sidenote: International Copyright Association, 1868}

The matter slumbered until 1868--after Dickens's second visit in 1867--when a committee consisting of George P. Putnam, S. Irenaeus Prime, Henry Ivison, James Parton, and Egbert Hazard issued an appeal for "justice to authors and artists," calling a meeting, which was held under the presidency of William Cullen Bryant, April 9, 1868. An International Copyright Association was then organized, with Mr. Bryant as president, George William Curtis as vice-president and E. C. Stedman as secretary, whose primary object was "to promote the enactment of a just and suitable international copyright law for the benefit of authors and artists in all parts of the world." A memorial to Congress, asking early attention for a bill "to secure in all parts of the world the right of authors," but making no recommendations in detail, was signed by one hundred and fifty-three persons, including one hundred and one authors and nineteen publishers.

{Sidenote: Baldwin bill and report, 1868}

In the Fortieth Congress, in accordance with instructions to the Committee on the Library, moved by Samuel M. Arnell of Tennessee, January 16, 1868, to report on international copyright "and the best means for the encouragement and advancement of cheap literature and the better protection of authors,"--a bill was introduced in the House, February 21, by J. D. Baldwin of Massachusetts, which provided for copyright on foreign books wholly manufactured here and published by an American citizen. The Committee's report said: "We are fully persuaded that it is not only expedient, but in a high degree important to the United States to establish such international copyright laws as will protect the rights of American authors in foreign countries and give similar protection to foreign authors in this country. It would be an act of national honor and justice in which we should find that justice is the wisest policy for nations and brings the richest reward." The bill was, however, recommitted and never more heard of.

{Sidenote: Clarendon treaty, 1870}

In 1870, what has since been known as the Clarendon treaty was proposed to the American government by Lord Clarendon on behalf of the British government, through Sir Edward Thornton, then British Minister at Washington. This was modeled on the treaties existing between Great Britain and other European nations, and provided that an author of either country should have full protection in the other country to the extent of its domestic law, on the sole condition of registration and deposit in the other country within three months after first publication in the country in which the work first appeared, the convention to continue in force for five years, and thence from year to year, unless twelve months' notice of termination were given. This was later criticised in Harper & Brothers' letter of November 25, 1878, as a scheme "more in the interest of British publishers than either of British or American authors," on the ground that British publishers would secure American with British copyright, and give no opportunity to American houses to issue works of English authors.

{Sidenote: Cox bill and resolution, 1871}

The next year the following resolution, offered by S. S. Cox, was passed by the House, December 18, 1871:

"_Resolved_, That the Committee on the Library be directed to consider the question of an international copyright, and to report to this House what, in their judgment, would be the wisest plan, by treaty or law, to secure the property of authors in their works, without injury to other rights and interests; and if in their opinion Congressional legislation is the best, that they report a bill for that purpose."

Mr. Cox had himself presented in the Forty-second Congress, December 6, 1871, a bill for international copyright on a basis of reciprocity, providing foreign works should be wholly manufactured in the United States and published by American citizens, and be registered, deposited and arrangements for such publication made within three months of first publication in the foreign country. This bill was supported in Committee of the Whole by speeches from Archer Stevenson, Jr., of Maryland, and J. B. Storm, of Pennsylvania, but opposed by William D. Kelley, of Pennsylvania.

{Sidenote: The Appleton proposal, 1872}

Mr. Cox's resolution was acted upon in 1872 by the new Library Committee, which invited the cooperation of authors, publishers, and others interested in framing a bill. At meetings of New York publishers, January 23 and February 6, 1872, a bill prepared by W. H. Appleton and accepted by A. D. F. Randolph, Isaac E. Sheldon, and D. Van Nostrand, of a committee, was approved by a majority vote. It provided for copyright on foreign books issued under contract with an American publisher, "wholly the product of the mechanical industry of the United States," and registered within one month and published within three months from the foreign issue, stipulating that if a work were out of print for three months the copyright should lapse. This was in line with a letter printed by W. H. Appleton in the London _Times_, October, 1871, denying that there was any disposition in the United States to withhold justice from English authors, but objecting to any "kind of legal saddle for the English publisher to ride his author into the American book-market"; in response to which Herbert Spencer, John Stuart Mill, Froude, Carlyle, and others had signed a memorial to Lord Granville expressing a willingness to accept a copyright on the condition of confining American copyright to American assigns of English authors, and excluding English publishers. Mr. Appleton's bill was opposed in a minority report by Edward Seymour, of the Scribner house, on the ground that it was "in no sense an international copyright law, but simply an act to protect American publishers"; that the desired "protection" could be evaded by English houses through an American partner; and that the act was objectionable in prohibiting stereos, in failing to provide for cyclopaedias, and in enabling an American publisher to exclude revised editions.

{Sidenote: Philadelphia protest, 1872}

A meeting of Philadelphia publishers, January 27, 1872, opposed international copyright altogether, in a memorial declaring that "thought, when given to the world, is, as light, free to all"; that copyright is a matter of municipal (domestic) law; that any foreigner could get American copyright by becoming an American citizen; and that "the good of the whole people and the safety of republican institutions" would be contravened by putting into the hands of foreign authors and "the great capitalists on the Atlantic seaboard" the power to make books high.

{Sidenote: The Bristed proposal, 1872}

The Executive Committee of the Copyright Association met in New York, February 2, 1872, and put forward Charles Astor Bristed's bill securing, after two years from date of passage, to citizens of other countries granting reciprocity, all the rights of American citizens.

{Sidenote: Kelley resolution, 1872}

Probably as an outcome of the Philadelphia meeting, William D. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, introduced into the House, February 12, 1872, and caused to be referred to the Library Committee, the following resolution: "Whereas it is expedient to facilitate the reproduction here of foreign works of a higher character than that of those now generally reprinted in this country; and whereas it is in like manner desirable to facilitate the reproduction abroad of the works of our own authors; and whereas the grant of monopoly privileges, in case of reproduction here or elsewhere, must tend greatly to increase the cost of books, to limit their circulation, and to increase the already existing obstacles to the dissemination of knowledge: Therefore, _Resolved_, That the Joint Committee on the Library be, and it hereby is, instructed to inquire into the practicability of arrangements by means of which such reproduction, both here and abroad, may be facilitated, freed from the great disadvantages that must inevitably result from the grant of monopoly privileges such as are now claimed in behalf of foreign authors and domestic publishers."

{Sidenote: Congressional hearings}

{Sidenote: Beck-Sherman bill, 1872}

The Library Committee gave several hearings on the subject, February 12 and later, and among other contributions to the discussion received a letter from Harper & Brothers taking ground that "any measure of international copyright was objectionable because it would add to the price of books, and thus interfere with the education of the people"; and a suggestion from John P. Morton, of Louisville, to permit general republication on payment of a ten per cent royalty to the foreign author. The same suggestion, providing for five per cent royalty, as brought forward by John Elderkin, was introduced, in a bill, February 21, 1872, by James B. Beck of Kentucky, in the House, and John Sherman of Ohio, in the Senate.

{Sidenote: Morrill report, 1873}

The Committee, in despair over these conflicting opinions, presented the celebrated Morrill report of February 7, 1873, Senator Lot M. Morrill being the chairman, including a tabular comparison of the prices of American and English books. It said that "there was no unanimity of opinion among those interested in the measure," and concluded:

"In view of the whole case, your committee are satisfied that no form of international copyright can fairly be urged upon Congress upon reasons of general equity, or of constitutional law; that the adoption of any plan for the purpose which has been laid before us would be of very doubtful advantage to American authors as a class, and would be not only an unquestionable and permanent injury to the manufacturing interests concerned in producing books, but a hindrance to the diffusion of knowledge among the people, and to the cause of universal education; that no plan for the protection of foreign authors has yet been devised which can unite the support of all or nearly all who profess to be favorable to the general object in view; and that, in the opinion of your committee, any project for an international copyright will be found upon mature deliberation to be inexpedient."

{Sidenote: Banning bill, 1874}

This was decidedly a damper to the cause, and the movement lapsed for some years, a bill submitted to the House on February 9, 1874, by Henry B. Banning of Ohio, extending to authors the protection given to inventors, on a basis of international reciprocity, attracting meanwhile little attention.

{Sidenote: The Harper proposal and draft, 1878}

The question rested until 1878, when, under date of November 25, Harper & Brothers addressed a letter to William M. Evarts, Secretary of State, suggesting that previous failures were due "to the fact that all such propositions have originated from one side only, and without prior joint consultation and intelligent discussion," reiterating "that there was no disinclination on the part of American publishers to pay British authors the same as they do American authors," and that "American publishers simply wished to be assured that they should have the privilege of printing and publishing the books of British authors"; indicating "the likelihood of the acceptance by the United States of a treaty which should recognize the interests of all parties"; and proposing a conference or commission of eighteen Americans and Englishmen--three authors, three publishers and three publicists to be appointed by each side, by the American Secretary of State and the British Secretary for Foreign Affairs--which should consider and present the details of a treaty.

{Sidenote: A suggested basis}

They also presented, as a suggested basis of action, what came to be known as the "Harper draft," a modification of the Clarendon treaty, providing that there should be registration in both countries _before_ publication in the country of origin; that international registration should be in the name of the author: if a _citizen_ of the United States, at Stationers' Hall, London; if a _subject_ of her Majesty, at the Library of Congress, Washington; and that "the author of any work of literature manufactured and published in the one country shall not be entitled to copyright in the other country unless such work shall be also manufactured and published therein, by a subject or citizen thereof, within three months after its original publication in the country of the author or proprietor; but this proviso shall not apply to paintings, engravings, sculptures, or other works of art; and the word 'manufacture' shall not be held to prohibit printing in one country from stereotype plates prepared in the other and imported for this purpose."

{Sidenote: Approval of the Harper draft}

This draft was approved by fifty-two leading American authors, including Longfellow, Holmes, Emerson, and Whittier, in a memorial dated August, 1880. The American members of the International Copyright Committee, appointed by the Association for the Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations, John Jay, James Grant Wilson and Nathan Appleton, also memorialized the Secretary of State, under date of February 11, 1880, in favor of this general plan, specifying "within from one to three months" as the manufacturing limit. It was also approved by the great body of American publishers, although the Putnam, Scribner, Holt and Roberts firms in signing took exception to certain of the restrictions, especially to the time limit of three months. George Haven Putnam set forth the views of his house in a paper before the New York Free Trade Club, January 29, 1879, afterward printed as _Economic Monograph_ no. XV., "International copyright considered in some of its relations to ethics and political economy." In this he suggested simultaneous registration in both countries, republication within six months, and restriction of copyright protection here for the first ten years of the term to books printed and bound in the United States and published by an American citizen.

An interesting series of replies from American authors, publishers, etc., as to methods for international copyright, to queries from the _Publishers' Weekly_ will be found in v. 15, commencing with no. 7, February 15, 1879.

{Sidenote: Granville negotiations, 1880}

The "Harper draft" was submitted in September, 1880, by James Russell Lowell, then American Minister at London, to Earl Granville, who replied, March, 1881, that the British government favored such a treaty, but considered an extension of the republication term to six months essential, and to twelve months much more equitable. In the same month the International Literary Association adopted a report favoring an agreement, but protesting against the manufacturing clause and time limit. This position was also taken at several meetings of London publishers, and F. R. Daldy was sent to America to further the English view. Sir Edward Thornton, British Minister at Washington, was instructed to proceed to the consideration of the treaty, provided the term for reprint could be extended, and both President Garfield and Secretary Blaine were understood to favor the completion of a treaty. With the death of Garfield the matter ended for the time.

{Sidenote: Robinson and Collins bills, 1882-83}

A bill dealing with the whole question of copyright, domestic and foreign, was introduced March 27, 1882, by W. E. Robinson of New York, and December 10, 1883, another copyright bill was introduced by P. A. Collins of Massachusetts, but neither emerged from the Committee on Patents, to which they were referred.

{Sidenote: American Copyright League}

{Sidenote: Dorsheimer bill, 1884}

{Sidenote: Criticisms and changes}

The question came to the front again in 1884. A new copyright association, the American Copyright League, had been organized in 1883, chiefly through the efforts of George P. Lathrop, Edward Eggleston, and R. W. Gilder, and there was a general revival of interest in international copyright. On January 9, 1884, William Dorsheimer, of New York, introduced into the House his bill for international copyright, which provided for the extension of copyright to citizens of countries granting reciprocal privileges, so soon as the President should issue his proclamation accepting such reciprocity, for twenty-five years, but terminable earlier on the death of the author. This bill was the occasion of a general discussion. The Copyright League addressed a letter to Mr. Dorsheimer urging the modification of the above limitations, and it was particularly pointed out that the confining of copyright to an author's lifetime would render literary property most insecure. The League also addressed a letter to the Secretary of State, urging the completion of a treaty with Great Britain, to which F. T. Frelinghuysen replied, January 25, 1884, that while the negotiation as to the Harper draft had not been interrupted, he thought the object might be attained by a simple amendment to our present copyright law, based on reciprocity, after which a simple convention would suffice to put the amendment in force. Mr. Dorsheimer's bill was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, and reported favorably, with amendments extending the copyright term to twenty-eight years, without regard to the death of the author, with renewal for fourteen years. The amended bill also provided that such copyright should cease in case reciprocity was withdrawn by the other country; that there should be no copyright in works already published, and that the provisions of the domestic copyright law should, as far as applicable, extend also to foreign copyrights. On the 19th of February Mr. Dorsheimer moved to make his bill the special order for February 27, but his motion failed of the necessary two-thirds vote, 155 voting aye, 98 nay and 55 not voting. There was considerable opposition on the part of those who insisted upon the remanufacture of foreign books in this country, and Mr. Dorsheimer privately expressed himself as willing to accept, although not willing to favor, amendments in that direction if they were necessary to insure the passage of the bill.

{Sidenote: American publishers' sentiment}

A circular letter of inquiry sent out by the _Publishers' Weekly_ early in 1884, showed a general desire on the part of American publishers in favor of international copyright. The replies were summarized in v. 25 from March, 1884. Of fifty-five leading publishers who answered, fifty-two favored and only three opposed international copyright. Out of these, twenty-eight advocated international copyright pure and simple; fourteen favored a manufacturing clause; the others did not reply on this point. Congress adjourned, however, without taking definite action.

{Sidenote: Hawley bill, 1885}

President Arthur, in his message of December, 1884, put himself on record as favoring copyright on the basis of reciprocity. A bill brought forward in the _Publishers' Weekly_ of December 6, 1884, was intended by a form admitting of easy amendment, to facilitate the passage of some kind of bill extending the principle of copyright to citizens of foreign countries under limitations set forth in subsequent sections of the bill. The Dorsheimer bill was reintroduced by W. E. English of Indiana, January 5, 1885, and on January 6 Senator Hawley introduced a general bill into the Senate. This latter, which covered all copyright articles, was understood to be favored by the Copyright League; it extended copyright to citizens of foreign states, on a basis of reciprocity, for books or other works published after the passage of the bill, by repealing those parts of the Revised Statutes confining copyright to "citizens of the United States or residents therein." No action was taken, however, on either the Dorsheimer or the Hawley bill.

{Sidenote: Chace bill, 1886}

In his first annual message, 1885, President Cleveland referred favorably to the negotiations at Berne, and with the opening of the Forty-ninth Congress two bills were introduced into the Senate, that of Senator Hawley, December 7, 1885, being essentially his bill of the previous year, and that of Senator Chace, January 21, 1886, a new bill, based on a plan put forward some years previously by Henry C. Lea, and now supported by the Typographical Unions and other labor organizations. The Hawley bill was on a simple basis of reciprocity; the Chace bill required registry within fifteen days and deposit of the best _American_ edition within six months from publication abroad, at a fee of $1, to be used in printing a list of copyright books for customs use, the prohibition of importations and the voiding of copyright when the American manufacturer abandons publication. The American Copyright League, of which James Russell Lowell was president and Edmund Clarence Stedman vice-president, favored the Hawley bill, which was practically a modification of the Dorsheimer bill, and it was introduced into the House by John Randolph Tucker of Virginia, January 6, 1886.

{Sidenote: Congressional hearings, 1886}

Hearings were held for four days by the Senate Committee on Patents on January 28, 29, February 12, and March 11, 1886, at which Mr. Lowell, Mr. Stedman, "Mark Twain" and others appeared on behalf of international copyright. A memorial signed by 144 American authors, was presented in the following terms: "The undersigned American citizens who earn their living in whole or in part by their pen, and who are put at disadvantage in their own country by the publication of foreign books without payment to the author, so that American books are undersold in the American market, to the detriment of American literature, urge the passage by Congress of an International Copyright Law, which will protect the rights of authors, and will enable American writers to ask from foreign nations the justice we shall then no longer deny on our own part." The memorial was presented to Congress in facsimile of the signatures of the authors and was reproduced in that form in the Bowker-Solberg volume on copyright of 1886.

{Sidenote: Mr. Lowell's epigram}

It was at this time that Mr. Lowell wrote his famous quatrain on "International copyright," which presented effectively the fundamental argument:

"In vain we call old notions fudge,
And bend our conscience to our dealing;
The Ten Commandments will not budge,
And stealing will continue stealing."

On May 21, 1886, the Committee on Patents presented a report to the Senate, favoring the Chace bill, but no action resulted.

{Sidenote: President Cleveland's second message, 1886}

In President Cleveland's annual message December 6, 1886, at the opening of the second session, he called the attention of Congress to the fact that "the drift of sentiment in civilized communities toward full recognition of the rights of property in the creation of the human intellect has brought about the adoption by many important nations of an International Copyright Convention, which was signed at Berne 18th of September, 1885.... I trust the subject will receive at your hands the attention it deserves, and that the just claims of authors, so urgently pressed, will be duly heeded." But the Congress adjourned without heeding them.

{Sidenote: Campaign of 1887}

Senator Chace reintroduced his bill into the Fiftieth Congress, December 12, 1887. In the same month there was organized the American Publishers' Copyright League, with William H. Appleton as president and George Haven Putnam as secretary, and from that time forward the authors' and publishers' leagues acted in close cooperation. Copyright associations were formed in Boston, Chicago and elsewhere, to influence Congress and the public; Henry van Dyke, especially by his address on "The national sin of piracy," and other clergymen helped to emphasize the moral issue, and authors' readings held in New York, Washington and elsewhere brought the question widely to public notice and helped to raise funds for the campaign. During this period, R. U. Johnson, associate editor of the _Century_ magazine, who had been treasurer of the Authors' League, became its secretary, and throughout the campaigns ending in 1891 and 1909, had the working oar. The Typographical Unions, represented by John Louis Kennedy and James Welsh, gave support to the bill conditioned on the acceptance of the type-setting clause, and the opposition to it came chiefly from Gardiner G. Hubbard and certain legal representatives of unnamed clients.

{Sidenote: Senate passage of Chace bill, 1888}

{Sidenote: Bryce bill, 1888}

The Chace bill, modified to require printing from type set or plates made within the United States and to prohibit the importation of foreign-made editions, passed the Senate, Senators Chace, Hawley, Hoar and O. H. Platt of Connecticut being foremost in its support, by vote of 35 to 10, May 9, 1888. It had been introduced into the House by W. C. P. Breckinridge of Kentucky, March 19, and favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee, April 21, 1888. A bill which had been introduced by Lloyd S. Bryce of New York, January 16, and referred to the Committee on Patents, was favorably reported by that Committee with amendment September 13, 1888. But the Mills tariff bill and other circumstances blocked the way, and the Fiftieth Congress adjourned without action by the House.

{Sidenote: President Harrison's message, 1889}

{Sidenote: Simonds bill, 1890}

{Sidenote: Simonds report, 1890}