ew York; the majority of the firms present
were in favor of the provisions of Mr. Cox's bill, already referred
to. The report was dissented from by a large minority on the ground
that the bill was in the interests of the publishers rather than that
of the public; that the prohibition of the use of foreign stereotypes
and electrotypes of illustrations was an economic absurdity; and that
an English publishing house could in any case, through an American
partner, retain control of the American market. The report of the
minority was prepared by Mr. Edward Seymour, of Scribner, Armstrong &
Co. During the same week a bill was drafted by Mr. C. A. Bristed,
representing more especially the views of the authors in the
International Copyright Association, which provided simply that "all
rights of property secured to citizens of the United States by
existing copyright laws are hereby secured to the citizens and
subjects of every country the government of which secures reciprocal
rights to the citizens of the United States." The same result as that
aimed at in Mr. Bristed's bill would have been obtained by the
adoption of the recommendation made by Mr. J. A. Morgan in his work on
"The Law of Literature," published in 1876. He suggested that the
present copyright law be amended by simply inserting the word "person"
in place of "citizen," in which case its privileges would at once be
secured to any authors, of whatever nationality, who complied with its
requirements.

A few weeks later the meeting was held in Philadelphia whose
resolutions in opposition to international copyright (which, as we
have shown, were equally forcible against any copyright) we have
already quoted.

These four reports were submitted to the Library Committee of
Congress, together with one or two individual measures, of which the
most noteworthy were those of Harper & Bros., and of John P. Morton,
bookseller, of Louisville.

Messrs. Harper, in a letter presented by their counsel, objected to
any measure of international copyright on the broad ground that it
would "add to the price of books and interfere with the education of
the people." This consideration is of course open to the same
criticism as the Philadelphia platform; it is equally forcible against
any copyright whatever. As Thomas Hood says, "cheap _bread_ is as
desirable and necessary as cheap books," but one does not on that
ground appropriate the farmer's wheat-stacks!

Mr. Morton was in favor