authors an interest in their works when published in this country, is that derived from consideration of respect to genius and learning, and regard for the rights of literary property. Surely it little becomes a great nation to use and enjoy the productions of foreign talent, without any equivalent, availing herself of the accidental and peculiar circumstance of a community of language. It has become a familiar mode to speak of literary men as constituting the republic of letters. The phrase is a compliment to the form of government which we have adopted, and implies the dignified equality of all the members of the great commonwealth. Protection to literary property throughout every portion of such a community, would seem to be an essential part of its constitution. Men of letters themselves have, of course, no power of enforcing their rights or wishes, independently of the governments of the world, their own included; and magnanimity and courtesy, on the part of each nation, should induce the extension of efficient protection to a confederacy with every claim to regard, and essential to the renown of the age, though powerless in itself. The nation which should be foremost in this honourable work would secure undying renown. Athens was wise in her generation. Her fame is brighter than that of her sterner rival.

Right glad are we that the constitution of our country recognizes this great duty and noble ambition of nations. It gives congress power "to promote the progress of science and of useful arts;" and it designates the mode by which this may be best attained, "by securing to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." The phraseology of this great instrument asserts the natural right of the class in question to the exclusive ownership of their productions, and invites congress to secure the enjoyment of it to them. It also looks upon authors, in general, as constituting the great community we have spoken of, because it intimates no partial benefits to such as are natives or residents of America. There is no exclusion, either in its terms or spirit, of foreign writers or inventors. They are benefactors of the whole human race, and the object of the power given by the constitution was to promote the progress of those great interests which, belong to mankind at large. The great men who founded our government looked forward to America as the seat of the arts, and the home of science, liberalized and enlightened by the labours and works of the bright spirits of the world.

The only plausible objection to acquiescence in the requests of the foreign authors in question, is the probable injury to the people of our country, from the exclusion of the valuable litera→ ture of the British isles, which is now disseminated at a trifling cost throughout our land. We think that the force of any

objection upon this head is much lessened by the fact that the proposed law does not in the slightest degree interfere with the free republication of all the works which have been hitherto issued from the press. The goodly heritage of foreign genius, which has descended to our days, is left untouched and undiminished. That mass of mind, monumental and eternal, which makes us glory in our descent from English ancestors, and which we would not exchange for the productions of any other clime, is ours by gift. It has been cast before us with prodigal generosity, and we should receive the boon with thankful gratitude, nor permit the gratuitous enjoyment of so much, in time past, to render us too grasping after other's wealth in future. It is only upon the appropriation of contemporary literature that any check is proposed. It is but for living authors that justice is asked.

:

Admitting, however, that some diminution in the profits of American publishers, and in the conveniences and enjoyment of American readers, would be the consequence, could any one hesitate in assenting to the position that it is not for us to enrich ourselves at the expense of strangers? Better never to pluck the fruit than to take it clandestinely or unjustly. Or, what applies more closely to the proposed alteration, better to pay its value than deprive the author of the reward of his labour. It is not a question between total deprivation of this literature, and obtaining it gratuitously; but between the latter alternative and paying for it what it is reasonably worth. Authors are too anxious for fame, and too eager to have their works widely disseminated, to prevent both by affixing to them a price which would deter a publisher from undertaking to issue them from the press. Books which were worth the purchase would readily, on the other hand, secure publishers in this country, whose interests in their turn would induce them to place the work at a sum that might easily command a sale. Really worthless productions would be, undoubtedly, excluded from general circulation; and it would be for the best interests of morals and literature in this country, if such were the case. This would certainly happen, unless a limitation of time, as proposed by the senate committee, during which the book should be issued here, were adopted. If, however, no bookseller could be found willing to pay any thing for a work, that very circumstance might deter any from publishing it, after the limited period, as an experiment, and might be considered as a very likely test of the real value of the book.

Unless, then, it be contended that the dissemination of English literature is to be secured in this country, without any regard to the rights of others, it is impossible to avoid being sensible of the paramount claims of the authors themselves.

America is a market which the fortunate extension of the English tongue has given them-to which they have a real and natural claim-and of which they ought not to be deprived.

But let us consider for a moment the effect of requiring the American publisher to pay the author for his book, and of course securing to the latter the right of taking out for it a copyright here. Would the public really pay more for the book? The affirmative is very questionable. It is well-known how great the scramble is to secure the first copy of the English work, or its first impression here. Competition increases very considerably to the publisher the expense of issuing it. This, of course, would be avoided, if more time were allowed, which would be the case to him who had fairly purchased the right from the English proprietor. There would be no necessity for the race-horse speed of publication which is now essential. But is the price paid for a book the only consideration of value? Is the care with which it is printed nothing? Is the neatness and finish of binding nothing? Is the whole style with which the book is got up nothing? Surely not. Every one accustomed to handle books knows the superiority of English printing and binding-the superior comfort in reading them-the superior pleasure in preserving them-in a word, their greatly superior value. We would immediately approximate somewhat to this. Instead of the miserably flimsy and careless editions daily issuing from the American presses, and which hardly survive their perusal, we should behold books whose outward man would be honourable to the workmanship of the country, and which there would be some ambition to preserve.

It is

Under the present system there can scarcely be such a thing as a careful or beautiful edition of a popular work. printed to be read as hastily as it was issued; not to be preserved; and, after the public curiosity is gratified, there is not sufficient encouragement to authorize the issuing of a corrected, well-bound edition. It would not remunerate the publisher for his care and expenditure. Some new Cynthia of the minute demands his attention-the public is awaiting with impatience to see and skim lightly over a romance of horrors, or a tale of the affections; and as this feeling can be gratified at a trifling cost to them, and at great gain to the publisher, every other consideration is of inferior moment.

A fitting sense, then, of what is due to justice and the rights of property demands the change. Literary property, being as entirely capable of definition and just as reasonable as the ownership of any other thing, the committee very properly ask the distinction in reason between extending protection to merchandise transmitted here by its owner, and refusing it to a

book. There exists none whatever. The owner should have the same right to trace and reclaim the one as the otherwhereas the latter is absolutely abstracted from him without his consent, and without the slightest compensation. But if a sense of justice will not grant the protection, and if the persuasions of magnanimity and courtesy are not effectual, reciprocity at least should demand attention. We should not be backward in yielding to the subjects of a foreign country the same advantages which our citizens there possess. An American author can, in both England and France, place his productions above the reach of injustice. The laws of those countries recognize this high and honourable species of property, though existing in a stranger, and allow him to make what disposition of it he may see fit. Let us not continue to enjoy from the magnanimity of foreigners what we might ask of them as a right, if we did not withhold it ourselves. Let us meet them on the lofty ground which they have assumed, and from which they have not suffered themselves to be driven by our partial legislation.

In a collateral branch of international law, we have acted more wisely and equitably. Foreign inventions or improvements may be patented here; and the committee very properly consider the proposed change as a mere extension of the same principle. Shall less regard be paid to purely literary produc'tions than to mechanical contrivances? Shall we pay more deference to the mode and means of enriching ourselves, than to what tends to the cultivation of the mind--to the education of the youth of our country? We hope not-but, on the contrary, that a free and enlightened nation will omit no opportunity of evincing her reverence for letters and literary men.

We are pleased to see what we fancy to be a growing taste for the fine arts and the encouragement of science, in our land. It has been evident in our legislative halls, and in our national councils. Let equal and growing attention be afforded to our men of letters, and let the right hand of fellowship be extended to them the civilized world over. It is becoming to a republic -suitable to the genius of her institutions-and will redound more than any other quality to her glory in all future time. It is a mark of extreme refinement-an evidence of graceful, as well as of solid acquisition.

Most of the above views, which we have very briefly hinted at, are the arguments which brought the committee of the United States senate to a conclusion favourable to the views of the petitioners. Still the report embodies but a partial consideration of the subject, preserving a total silence upon the probable benefit to our native writers, which would be produced by a provision of the description they recommend. We are

persuaded that this course was more becoming the committee of a high branch of the government, particularly upon an address of the foreign authors themselves. It was more dignified to place their conclusion upon the rights of the petitioners, and the claims of equity and courtesy, than upon any selfish ground of benefit derivable to our own citizens from the change. It would perhaps have sounded ill from the lips of distinguished senators to proclaim that American talent stood in need of protection; and we should ourselves have been very sorry to be forced to take this ground, not being disposed to consider genius and learning as tariffable commodities, either for revenue or encouragement. Whatever our sentiments might be (and we do not here express any) upon the subject of protection to American industry, we should be very averse to advocate any measures which might compel our countrymen to read American books without regard to their quality, from a mere spirit of patriotism; or deprive them of good foreign works, and place in their reach but bad domestic productions. Mind is of no particular nation-genius belongs to the universe; and that country would be barbarous indeed which should exclude the literary labours of any other people, through an apprehension of their coming into competition upon an equal footing with her own. Free, untramelled competition is the soul of talent--let the world be the theatre, and let superior genius achieve the victory and maintain the ascendency.

But we do advocate (particularly, let it be borne in mind, when the contrary is of no benefit, but the reverse, to the authors themselves) the placing of the productions of American talent upon an equal footing with those of British writers. How are they not so? We will give the reason, if it be not already apparent. The American bookseller can publish the work of an English author without paying him a farthing for it. He can select the production of a gentleman whose established reputation is a sufficient guaranty of the sale of his book; and having all this within his reach, what inducement is held out to any publisher to attempt the experiment of buying the manuscript of a native author, unknown, perhaps, as yet to fame, and of undergoing the additional expense of its publication? The hazard of remuneration in the one case is very great in the other, profit is almost certain. The native manuscript is therefore thrown by, neglected; and native genius depressed, because it is not the interest of American publishers and booksellers to encourage its efforts. It would be expecting too much of patriotism in these days, to look for a different course of conduct, nor should we be disposed to ask it of any man of business. This is no fanciful sketch-the case must be of constant recurrence.