IN

International Copyright Accomplished.

N every compromise there are two points to be considered its propriety, and its wisdom or necessity-first, Is the concession to be made in the interest of a higher good? and, secondly, Will the concession, as a matter of probability, be likely to effect that good? The passage of the Copyright Bill, accomplished as it has been by concessions at one time or another on the part of nearly all concerned,- last of all, by the representatives of the Typographical Unions,—is a full justification of the Authors' League in uniting, four years ago, for the advocacy of what was substantially the present law. Had the measure failed, the authors would still have been conscious of their own devotion to the principle of the bill; as it has succeeded, they have the additional satisfaction, in having made a sacrifice of their preference, of having redeemed the literary fraternity from the charge of being "dreamers" and "impracticables.'

Mr. Lowell, the President of the League, writing under date of February 19, 1891, accurately stated the position of American authors in general in saying:

I still remain of the opinion that it is wise politics to accept the good that is possible under the circumstances, secure that the mission-work of its practical application will give us something nearer to our ideal. The great thing is to get the principle admitted in our national legislation.

Both before and after the passage of the bill the difficulty has been to get attention to what the bill will accomplish rather than to what it will not. Ill-advised editorial utterances in England have already denounced the new law as a “fraud” and a "sham," as a measure

wholly in the interest of American manufacturers, and of little benefit to English authors. Let us see.

First. The bill extends unconditional copyright to the producer of any map, chart, dramatic or musical composition, engraving, cut, print, painting, drawing, statue, statuary, or model or design intended to be perfected as a work of the fine arts. It is easy to for get that artistic property is not less important or sacred than that of the author. For a time during the campaign it was feared that adherence to a false analogy might lead the Senate to persist in its first thoughtless denial of copyright in artistic property, and it is not a small matter for congratulation that this calamity has been avoided. After July 1, Sir Arthur Sullivan, Mr. Burne-Jones, M. Saint-Saëns, and M. Gérôme will be as completely protected by our law as Mr. Dudley Buck, Mr. St. Gaudens, and Mr. Shirlaw.

Again, copyright is also granted to all producers of foreign literary property, upon a condition which, though it must be confessed to be a limitation upon the ideal right of property, is practically not an onerous condition upon the foreign author. The unsolved doubt in the English law as to whether the American author must be on English soil at the time of the publication of his book, and the requirement that the publication of the book in England must precede its appear

ance in any other country-these conditions are also limitations on the ideal right of property; and so, for that matter, is the term-clause in nearly all copyright law. In the "evolution of copyright "— to quote Mr. Brander Matthews's suggestive phrase-it is difficult to determine where the principle of security to literary property merges into a question of public policy. But the main fact to be borne in mind is, that by the new law, if the English author choose, he can prevent the piracy of his book in the United States. Our law no longer tolerates the literary "pirate." This is the heart of the whole matter, and it would be sheer hypocrisy to pretend that because the American market for foreign books here copyrighted is in the main reserved for American workmen, there will not be substantial security to the literary property of foreigners. A little more of that most serviceable attribute of the mind, the sense of proportion, would have saved our English critics from this headlong error.

The gain to American letters and American prestige is incalculable. By doing justice to the foreign author the American spirit in literature will be reinforced, and before long a better day may be expected both for the author and for the reader. The main value of the law is that it raises a barrier against materialism by the encouragement it offers and the dignity it adds to the production of things of the mind. Art, music, and literature are no longer outlawed of our statutes, and may have a freer range of activity among us, with a fuller promise of admirable native products. Where before all seemed neglect or indifference, now

The astonished Muse finds thousands at her side. The accomplishment of the reform, as Mr. Maurice Thompson has well said, "draws the nation into the atmosphere of honor in literary affairs." It arrests a widespread moral deterioration in the direction of a dishonest communism which had begun to affect many well-meaning people. It stimulates American patriotism by removing a just grievance which American authors have always felt against their country, and makes it unnecessary longer to apologize for our exceptional position as a nation. The friends of the reform may be felicitated upon its success, while its opponents may sincerely and without irony be congratulated on

their failure to defeat a measure which is in the interest of the whole country and of a higher civilization.

Lobby Evils and Remedies.

THE most thoughtful students of the lobby evils as they exist in our national and State legislative bodies are convinced that effective remedial legislation must be of two kinds - first, in the direction of general laws for the control of special legislation, and, secondly, in the direction of enforced publicity of the acts of the lobby agents and their employers. The experience of England in this, as in many other political reforms, is of great interest and value. Fifty years ago the lobby, as we understand the term, was as pernicious an influ

ence in the House of Commons as it ever has been in Congress or our State legislatures. During the great railway construction era in England Parliament was besieged by a powerful lobby whose members plied their trade in ways very similar to those employed in this country to-day. They were given enormous sums of money with which to secure the success of certain railway bills and the defeat of others. Opposition lines of railway were projected for the sole purpose of creating business for the lobby in buying them off. These were the forerunners of the familiar "strikes " of our day, which are aimed at every corporation which is suspected of the ability to pay to have undesirable legislation withdrawn. Instances are on record in which from £80,000 to £450,000 were paid to get railway bills through Parliament. The scandal became so great that radical means were adopted for the regulation of the lobby and the removal of special legislation beyond the reach of its influence. All private bills and special legislation were taken from the control of Parliament by the adoption of the quasi-judicial procedure which is observed at the present day. Under this all bills of a local and personal character are brought in on petition, notice of which must be given by advertisement nearly three months before the opening of Parliament. Copies of such bills must be deposited some weeks before the opening of the session. After their second reading in Parliament, if there is any opposition, these bills go to a private bill committee. “Public opinion,” says Mr. Bryce in his chapter on the Lobby in the Appendix to the first volume of "The American Commonwealth," "has fortunately established the doctrine that each member of a private bill committee is to be considered as a semi-judicial person, whose vote neither a brother member nor any outsider must attempt to influence, but who is bound to decide, as far as he can, in a judicial spirit on the footing of the evidence tendered. Of course practice is not up to the level of theory in Parliament any more than elsewhere; still there is little solicitation to members of committees, and an almost complete absence of even the suspicion of corruption." Hearings for and against bills are held before these committees, and so complete is the confidence in their decisions that any measure which is reported favorably from committee to Parliament is almost invariably passed without question.

It has been wise, therefore, for the Massachusetts reformers, who are taking the lead in the movement against the lobby in this country, to follow in the footsteps of English experience. The law which the Massachusetts legislature passed last year requires all counsel and agents employed by any special interest to advocate measures before the legislature to be registered anew each year, and to file under oath, thirty days after the adjournment of the legislature, a “full, complete, and detailed statement . . . of all expenses paid or incurred. . . in connection with promoting or opposing in any manner, directly or indirectly, the passage by the general court of any legislation." Similar statements must be filed by corporations, through their president or secretary, in case they have employed counsel or agents. It is too soon to judge of the efficacy of this measure, but one good effect was at once apparent when the Massachusetts legislature assembled at the beginning of the present year. A great many lob. byists who had formerly appeared every year at the State House staid away, not wishing to register their names, though the regular agents of railroads and other corporations put their names on the lists. The law had thus operated to limit the size of the lobby, and, judging them not unfairly by their unwillingness to give an accounting of their doings, it seems safe to conclude that those who were cut off were the most objectionable of all.

There is nothing in the law which gives any such authority over lobbyists as the English rule gives the Speaker. Neither is there a bond required as in England. The penalty for failure to file the sworn statement specified, either by an agent, or counsel, or corporation, is not less than $100 nor more than $1000; and in case of an agent or counsel is accompanied also by disqualification to act in such capacity for three years from date of conviction. This seems to be inadequate, especially so far as a corporation is concerned, for the payment of even the maximum sum of $1000 would be a comparatively easy escape from the revelation of the details of an extensive plan of legislative corruption. Another weak point in the law is that the requirement for publication thirty days after adjournment secures publicity, if at all, too late to affect pending legislation.

In his annual message of January last Governor Russell of Massachusetts, who had made the lobby question a leading issue in the campaign preceding his election, took the ground that while the present law, if fairly and thoroughly enforced, would result in good, still it falls short of being a sufficient remedy, since it "makes public the names of all persons employed, but not the acts of the lobbyist." To get at these acts, which may be performed in places far removed from the halls of legislation, he made a suggestion which is both novel and interesting. He argued that prevention by non-intercourse was improper and impossible because of the constitutional right of a constituent or any other person to have the freest access to a legislator; but he added: "Prevention by publicity is possible, and I would suggest for your consideration whether a remedy may not be found in this direction by mak

methods used and money spent on pending legislation; and also by giving power to some proper officer, before a measure finally becomes law, to demand under

oath a full and detailed statement as to these matters. The fear of publicity, and, through it, of defeat, may stop improper practices by making them worse than useless." To this suggestion he added, as a further and fundamental remedy, the relief of the legislature from much special legislation by the enactment of general laws. Thus, while he would hold the fear of publicity over the lobby at all times, he would strike a more direct blow at its existence by removing from its reach a great deal of the legislation which now gives it its life and strength.

General laws must do for us what the quasi-judicial committee process does for England, for as long as our legislative committees are constituted as they are at present it is useless to hope for them to attain the judicial character of the committees of Parliament. Special legislation has attained with us a far wider range than it ever had in England, and our problem in regulating it is much more difficult in consequence. Our lobby evils have also grown to much more formidable proportions than theirs ever reached, for they have had an almost unrestricted field for growth both in Congress and in our State legislatures since their first appearance in the former in 1795, until they have attained a stage of development extraordinary in the ingenuity and intricacy of its ramifications. In most cases nowadays the lobby's real work is no longer done in the State House or Capitol, but in the primaries and nominating conventions at which the men who are to act as the lobby's agents in the legislative body are selected. The bargain for their services is made then, their election expenses are paid for them, and in ignorance of this corrupt compact the people elect them, supposing they are to be the public's servants. Neither is the work of corruption which may be necessary later, when the members are in session, done directly, as formerly, about the Capitol, but indirectly by means of banquets and receptions and in various other forms of personal solicitation carried on in quarters all safely removed from the publicity of the lobby precincts. In fact, nearly all the most pernicious lobby work at present is done elsewhere than at the State House or Capitol, and the only kind of publicity about it that will be dreaded, and therefore effective, is the kind which can be forced, as Governor Russell suggests, at the critical moment before a bill is to come up for final passage. If at that point every one concerned in the bill's welfare-author, sponsor, agent, corporation, lobbyist - could be forced under oath to reveal all that he had done for or against it, in and out of the halls of legislation, there would be publicity of incalculable value. This, combined with general laws removing all the private and special legislation possible of such classification from the control of legislative bodies, would free us as completely as England has been freed from lobby evils. The National Conference of Charities and Corrections.

Now that altruism in one or another of its manifestations has come to occupy so much of the public mind, and the study of social questions may be said to be almost the fad of the hour, it is rather singular that the annual meetings of a body which is doubtless best entitled to speak with authority on subjects of philanthropy and penology have commanded very little of

public attention. Still more singularly the newspapers, usually so quick to apprehend the drift of events and to foresee, if they do not form, the public interest, have entirely failed to perceive the significance of these meetings, and seem to be totally unaware that their proceedings have been potent in influencing legislation, and that they are, though indirectly and without observation, an important factor in the formation of public opinion on the subjects which come within their scope.

This body, the National Conference of Charities and Corrections, has issued a call to its eighteenth annual meeting, to be held in Indianapolis from the 13th to the 20th of May, and since Indianapolis is a city peculiarly awake to sociological interests, and since the Rev. Oscar McCulloch, the president of the coming conference, is president of the organized charities of the city as well as pastor of one of its prominent churches, the conference is likely to be a notable one.

It will doubtless surprise our readers to be told that a large number of them are in all probability members ex-officio of this conference. There are, indeed, few intelligent men and women of our day who are not connected with some charitable or reformatory or other philanthropic institution as managers or trustees or members of committees, or who are not active workers in some organized form of benevolence, and all such, though they be as little aware of it as M. Jourdain that he was talking prose, are in fact entitled to a seat in this conference and to a voice in its discussions. The presiding officer is always a member of a State board of charities, and this official connection gives the needed stability and definiteness to a body which is otherwise one of the loosest and most flexible of organizations, being made up, as a matter of fact, of all who will come, members being bound by no constitution, nor subject to any duties, not even that of an annual subscription. That the proceedings of such a body as this are of such value as to be eagerly sought by public libraries not only in this country but all over Europe, the annual sale of the volume containing them forming the only and the adequate revenue of the association, is a sufficient proof of the standing and ability of those who take part in these meetings. Indeed, many of the members of the conference, though unknown to the public, are specialists of wide repute in their own lines.

are.

The great task of the sociological reformer is to educate public opinion and to inform the public mind. As Bishop Gillespie said at one of these conferences, "Public abuses do not exist where there is public knowledge," and that public abuses do exist in such large numbers shows how much the community needs such a fountain of illumination as these conferences Many public abuses of long standing have indeed been abated as the direct result of the light shed abroad from these meetings. For instance, it was reported at the Boston Conference, several years ago, that there was a boy in jail ; and within a year, through the exertions of members of that conference, a law had been passed making it impossible that there should ever be a boy in jail in Massachusetts. And very much of the wisest legislation in several States, especially with reference to the care and the reformation of dependent and delinquent children, is to be traced directly to this source.

It is evident that the knowledge to which Bishop

Gillespie referred is the knowledge not only of facts but of theories and of methods; it is that sociological culture which, like culture in its larger sense, consists, as Matthew Arnold has told us, in knowing the best that has been thought and said. And it is precisely here that these conferences are of value. The papers presented (reports of committees and others) embody the results of wide research controlled by large practical experience, and in the discussions which follow may often be heard some of "the best" which has ever "been said" on these subjects. In the coming conference, for example, in the reports of committees on public indoor and outdoor relief, prison reform, the commitment and detention of the insane, the public care of children, and other subjects, there will doubtless be brought forward such advanced and well-reasoned views, supported by such evidence of practical knowledge, as would secure, were the meetings attended by the great body of legislators and workers, that our entire system of charities and corrections would be placed upon a new basis of enlightened and efficient treatment. In these conferences the scientist and the humanitarian meet, and here at least it has long since become an axiom that there is no true science which is not humane.

But for the present, and perhaps for a long time to come, the best results of these conferences are to be seen in the improved work of officials who have to do with penology and charity, through the illumination and inspiration which they here receive. It is, of course, only the best class of these officials who attend these meetings, but through the knowledge and the enthusiasm which they thus gain the standard for all officials is being surely, if very gradually, raised. To look at the men and women, wardens and matrons of public institutions, who attend these conferences, to hear their utterances, and to note their devotion to their work, is to gain a new hope for the future of our dependent and criminal classes.

Not to be undervalued is the influence of these conferences on the cities where they have been held. This, though not adequately appreciated by the public, is realized by governors of States and mayors of cities, and strong efforts are always made to secure their presence, several cities usually contending for the honor of the next annual meeting. It only needs a wider public knowledge of the immense value and the deep interest of these conferences for them to become an acknowledged power in those sociological reforms for which the whole community is sighing.

An American Cheap Money Experiment. WE gave in the April number of THE CENTURY an account of the Land Bank experiment in England in 1696, as an object lesson from history upon the fatuity of seeking prosperity for either nations or individuals by means of "cheap money." We purpose this month to supplement that lesson with another drawn from American experience about a century later, which was based upon similar delusions, and which resulted in far more disastrous consequences..

At the close of the Revolutionary War the people of Rhode Island found themselves in extreme poverty and heavily burdened with their share of the national debt. The war had seriously crippled their trade, upon

which they were mainly dependent, and in their distress the people, instead of patiently waiting for relief to come by the slow process of rebuilding their trade, turned to paper money for relief. They began to clamor for a paper bank in 1785, and when petitions for such a bank were rejected by the General Assembly, a new party was organized with paper money as its chief principle. They went before the Assembly again in 1786, and their petitions for a paper bank were met with counter-petitions against it, signed by the merchants of Providence, and the project was defeated again by a vote of two to one. They then carried the question into the elections, and won a surprising victory, gaining control of the General Assembly by a large majority. This body assembled in May, 1786, and one of its first acts was the passing of a law establishing a paper-money bank of one hundred thousand pounds. The bills were to be loaned to the people on the principle of the English Land Bank, though on much less generous terms.

Every farmer or merchant who came to borrow money must pledge real estate for double the amount desired. The money was to be loaned to the people upon this pledge according to the apportionment of the last tax, and must be paid into the treasury at the end of fourteen years. Great expectations were entertained by the farmers of the beneficent results which were to follow upon this new influx of wealth. "Many from all parts of the State," says McMaster in a very interesting chapter upon the subject in his "History of the People of the United States," "made haste to avail themselves of their good fortune, and mortgaged fields strewn thick with stones and covered with cedars and stunted pines for sums such as could not have been obtained for the richest pastures. They had, however, no sooner obtained the money and sought to make the first payment at the butcher's or the baker's than they found that a heavy discount was taken from the face-value."

The depreciation of the new money began literally with its issue. Every merchant and tradesman in the State refused to receive it for its face-value, and the holders of it refused to make any discount. The General Assembly came to the aid of the bank and sought to give its paper money full value by statutory enactment. A forcing act was passed subjecting any person who should refuse to take the bills in payment for goods on the same terms as specie, or should in any way discourage their circulation on such terms, to a fine of one hundred pounds and to the loss of his rights as a freeman. This made matters worse than ever. Merchants and traders refused to make any sales whatever, many of them closing their shops, disposing of their stock by barter, and going out of business. In fact, money almost ceased to circulate at all. Nearly all kinds of business was transacted by barter, rents were paid in grain and other commodities, and the only people who used the paper money were those who had borrowed it on their land. The chief cities of the State, Providence and Newport, presented a very remarkable spectacle. Half their shops were closed, their inhabitants idle, and their streets animated only by groups of angry and contentious men blaming one another for the blight which had fallen upon their business and industries. In order to retaliate upon the merchants and traders for refusing to take their money,