BY

H. C. Carey,

Author of “Principles of social science,” Etc.  Etc.

Second edition.

New York: 

Published by Hurd and Houghton,

459 Broome street.

1868.

Riverside, Cambridge: 

Printed by H. O. Houghton and company.

PREFACE.

At the date, now fourteen years since, of the first publication of these letters, the important case of authors versus readers—­makers of books versus consumers of facts and ideas—­had for several years been again on trial in the high court of the people.  But few years previously the same plaintiffs had obtained a verdict giving large extension of time to the monopoly privileges they had so long enjoyed.  Not content therewith, they now claimed greater space, desiring to have those privileges so extended as to include within their domain the vast population of the British Empire.  To that hour no one had appeared before the court on the part of the defendants, prepared seriously to question the plaintiffs’ assertion to the effect that literary property stood on the same precise footing, and as much demanded perpetual and universal recognition, as property in a house, a mine, a farm, or a ship.  As a consequence of failure in this respect there prevailed, and most especially throughout the Eastern States, a general impression that there was really but one side to the question; that the cause of the plaintiffs was that of truth; that in the past might had triumphed over right; that, however doubtful might be the expediency of making a decree to that effect, there could be little doubt that justice would thereby be done; and that, while rejecting as wholly inexpedient the idea of perpetuity, there could be but slight objection to so far recognizing that of universality as to grant to British authors the same privileges that thus far had been accorded to our own.

Throughout those years, nevertheless, the effort to obtain from the legislative authority a decree to that effect had proved an utter failure.  Time and again had the case been up for trial, but as often had the plaintiffs’ counsel wholly failed to agree among themselves as to the consequences that might reasonably be expected to result from recognition of their clients’ so-called rights.  Northern and Eastern advocates, representing districts in which schools and colleges abounded, insisted that perpetuity and universality of privilege must result in giving the defendants cheaper books.  Southern counsel, on the contrary, representing districts in which schools were rare, and students few in number, insisted that extension of privilege would have the effect of giving to planters handsome editions of the works they needed, while preventing the publication of “cheap and nasty” editions, fitted for the “mudsills” of Northern States.  Failing thus to agree among themselves they failed to convince the jury, mainly representing, as it did, the Centre and the West, as a consequence of which, verdicts favorable to the defendants had, on each and every occasion, been rendered.