it is to revise and declare the law, the means of arriving at more correct results. With this view, I have introduced into this work a discussion on the general doctrine of the English cases in relation to abridgments, which I consider contrary to principle. Should my observations induce any tribunal to reexamine that doctrine, they will not have been published in vain. It did not fall within the scope of this work, to discuss the reasonableness and justice of an international copyright. As between England and the United States I do not see how there can well be two opinions upon the desirableness of such an arrangement. The injustice of the present state of things to authors, especially in my own profession, is palpable and flagrant. The materials for an argument upon this question, which will be incapable of being answered, are fast accumulating, in the numerous proofs of mutual advantages obtained by those publishers in both countries, who have effected arrangements for the exchange and sale of their respective publications. These arrangements, however, rest upon no other security than the courtesy of "the trade," and can never effectually answer the purpose of a law securing the profits on American books in England and on English books in the United States. But this is not the place to enter upon the discussion of this interesting topic. I can only express the hope of seeing the argument at no distant day presented by some one, who will do justice to its great importance. But I could not dismiss this work from my hands, without avowing myself an advocate of an international copyright, both upon grounds of general policy, and of justice to authors. BOSTON, October, 1847. Cambridge Baskett v. The University of 49, 117, 126, 127 D'Almaine v. Boosey 135, 136, 138, v. Cunningham 49, 127 Beckford v. Hood Bell v. Locke v. Walker v. Whitehead Bentley v. Foster Binns v. Woodruff Blackwell v. Harper Bramhall v. Halcombe 281, 282, 301 De Berenger v. Wheble 115, 301 302 Denis v. LeClerc 94 Dodsley v. Kinnersley 191, 246, 267 198, 306 191, 268, 325 245, 246, 324 58, 84, 159 135 DuBost v. Beresford 115, 164 146 114, 202 Duke of Queensbury v. Sheb- 52 Brandreth v. Lance Brooks v. Cock Burnett v. Chetwood Butterworth v. Robinson Byron v. Johnson C. F. Campbell v. Scott 243, 251, 277, 321 Folsom v. Marsh 87, 88, 92, 94, 99, Cary v. Faden B 115, 150 50, 84, 159 327 |