re-publication, as is required with us. In one respect, authors with us are exempted from an exceedingly onerous burden imposed upon them by the statute of Anne. That statute requires not only the title of the book to be entered at stationer's hall, but nine copies to be deposited there for the use of the libraries of the two universities, and other libraries. In the case of splendid and extensive publications, supporting only a few copies, this requisition is a very heavy tax upon the author. The statute of 8 Geo. II. ch. 13., securing the privilege of copyright for twenty-eight years to the inventors of prints and engravings, did not require the deposit of any copies for public uses, whereas the act of Congress of the 29th of April, 1802, requires the like entry, publication and deposit, in the case of historical and other prints, as in the case of books. The English law of copyright was more advantageous to the author than that of the United States, even as it stood upon the statute of Anne. But that advantage has been greatly increased by the statute of 54 Geo. III., which gives to the author at once the full term of twenty-eight years, and if he be living at the end of that period, then for the residue of his life."

a The French law of copyright is founded on the republican decree of the 19th July, 1793, which gave to authors of writings of all kinds, composers of music, painters and engravers, a right for life in their works, and to their heirs, for ten years after their deaths. with strong provisions against the invasion of such literary property. One copy was to be deposited in the national library. The imperial decree of the 5th February, 1810, made some modifications of that law, and gave the right to the author for life, and to his wife, if she survived, for her life, and to their children for twenty years, and the right was secured by adequate civil penalties. A number of interesting questions have been discussed and decided in the French tribunals, under the above law, and they are reported in the Repertoire de Jurisprudence, par Merlin, tit. Contrefacon, sect. I to 15.; and in his Questions de Droit, tit. Propriété litteraire, sect. 1 and 2. In the case of Masson & Besson v. Moutardier & Leclerc, in the latter work, sect. 1. a new edition of the Dictionary of the French Academy, with colourable aduitions only, was adjudged to be a fraudulent vio

The cognizance of cases arising under the acts of Congres securing to authors the copyright of their productions, belongs to the courts of the United States; but there are no

lation of the copyright, and Merlin has preserved his elaborate and eloquent argument in support of literary property. In the case of Labante & Bonnemaison v. Sieber, the question was concerning the rights of for. eign authors, and it was decided and settled on appeal, in March, 1810, that the French assignee of a literary or musical work, not published abroad, acquired in France, after conforming to the usual terms of the French law, before any publication a broad, the exclusive copyright under the law of 1793. See Questions de Droit. tit. Propriété litteraire, sect. 2. It is understood to be lawful to publish in France, without the permission of the author a work already published in a foreign country. Repertoire, ub. sup. sect. 10 The French law is much more liberal in the protec tion of intellectual productions to authors and their heirs, than either the English or our American law; and it is a curious fact in the history of mankind, that the French national convention, in July, 1793, should have busied themselves with the project of a law of that kind when the whole republic was at that time in the most violent convulsions, and the combined armies were invading France, and besieging Valenciennes ; when Paris was one scene of sedition, terror, proscription, imprisonment and judicial massacre; under the forms of the revolutionary tribu nal; when the convention had just been mutilated by its own violent denunciation and imprisonment of the deputies of the Gironde party, and the whole nation was preparing to rise in a mass to expel the invaders. If the production of such a law, at such a crisis, be not resolvable into mere vanity and affectation, then indeed we may well say, with Mr. Hume, so inconsistent is buman nature with itself, and so easily do gen. tle, pacific and generous sentiments ally both with the most heroic courage, and the fiercest barbarity!

There is a disposition in France to enlarge still further the term of an author's property in his works; and the commissioners appointed by the king to frame a new law on the subject, reported, in the summer of 1826, the draft of a law, in which they propose to give to authors and artists of works of all kinds, property in their works for life, and to their legal representatives for fifty years, from their death; and copyright in a work to be protected from piracy by representation, as well as from piracy by publication. In Germany, copyright is perpetual; but it cannot be of much value, for there is no one uniform Germanic legislation on the

decisions in print on the subject, and we must recur for instruction to principles settled by the English decisions under the statute of Anne, and which are, no doubt, essentially applicable to the rights of authors under the acts of Congress.

It was decided in Coleman v. Wathen,a that the acting of a dramatic composition on the stage was not a publication within the statute. The plaintiff had purchased from O'Keefe the copyright of an entertainment called the Agreable Surprise, and the defendant represented this piece upon the stage. The mere act of repeating such a performance from memory, was held to be no publication. On the other hand, to take down, from the mouths of the actors, the words of a dramatic composition, which the author had occasionally suffered to be acted, but never printed or published. and to publish it from the notes so taken down, was deemed a breach of right, and the publication of the copy so taken down (being the farce entitled Love a la Mode) was restrained by injunction.b Since the case above mentioned, injunctions have been granted in chancery even against the acting of a dramatic work without the consent of the proprietor; and the narrow and unreasonable construction given to the claims of an author by the K. B., seems to have been very properly enlarged by the Court of Chancery. But as the Lord Chancellor, as late as 1822, took the opinion of the Court of K. B. whether an action would lie for publicly acting, and representing for profit, a tragedy

subject, to protect copyright among so many independent states, using a common language. This case of Germany shows how important it was in this country, that the law of copyright should rest on the broad basis of federal jurisdiction.

a 5 Term Rep. 245.

b Macklin v. Richardson, Amb. 694.

c Morris v. Harris, and Morris v. Kelly, cited in Eden on Injunctions, 198.

altered for the stage, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, and as that opinion was against the action," it is probable the rule in chancery will conform to that at law. The preamble of the statute of Anne spoke of books or other writings, but the body of the act spoke only of book or books; and the same words are used in the act of Congress; and it has been made a question whether a musical composition was within the protection of the act. It was so decided in Bach v. Longman;b but Lord Mansfield, in that case, laid some stress on the words in the preamble to the statute of Anne, "books and other writings," and our act has no such preamble. Afterwards, in Storace v. Longman, decided at Guildhall before Lord Kenyon, it was held, that a musical air, tune and writing, on a single sheet of paper, was a book within the act. So, again, in Clementi v. Goulding,d it was held by the K. B. that a single sheet of music was a book within the meaning of the act; and this liberal interpretation is, doubtless, to be applied to cases arising under the act of Congress, and the construction is to be considered as having been given to the body of the statute of Anne.

If an author first publishes abroad, and does not use due diligence to publish in England, and another fairly pub lishes his work in England, it is held, that he cannot sue for a breach of copyright. Whether the act of printing and publishing abroad makes the work publici juris, is not decided. It becomes so if the author does not promptly print and publish in England; and the statute of Anne had a reference to publications in England, and it was them only that it intended to protect.e

a Murray v. Elliston, 5 Barn. & Ald. 657.

b Cowp. 623.

c 11 East, 244, note.

d 11 East, 244.

e Clementi v. Walker, 2 Barn, & Cress, 861.

An injunction to restrain the publication of unpublished manuscripts has been frequently granted ; but it seemed to be on the ground, that the author had a property in an unpublished work independent of the statute. The act of Congress says, that no person shall be entitled to the benefit of the act, unless he shall, before publication, record the book in the clerk's office of the District Court, by depositing a printed copy of the title with the clerk. There is another section of the act which declares, that if any person shall print or publish any manuscript, without the consent of the author, (he being a citizen or resident in the United States,) he shall be responsible in damages by a special action on the case. The courts of the United States may issue injunctions, when necessary, for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles and usages of law; and I see no reason why the courts may not protect manuscripts from piratical publication, since the statute places them under their protection. In England, the publication of private letters forming a literary composition has been restrained. The letters of Pope, Swift, and others, and the letters of Lord Chesterfield, were prevented from a surreptitious and unauthorized publication by the same process of injunction. In the case of Perceval v. Phipps,d the Vice Chancellor held, that private letters, having the character of literary composition, were within the spirit of the act protecting literary property, and that by sending a letter the writer did not give the receiver the right to publish it. But the Court would not interfere to restrain the publication of commercial or friendly letters, except under circumstances. The publication of pro

a Eden on Injunctions, 199, 200.

b 2 Eden, 329. Duke of Queensberry v. Shebbeare. 2 Merivale, 435, Southey v. Sherwood.

c Pope v. Curl. 2 Atk. 342. Thompson v. Stanhope, Amb. 737. · d2 Ves. & Bea. 19.