English 6.

DEBATE OF MARCH 20, 1890.Questior: "Resolved, That the international copyright bill now before congress should be passed."

Brief for the Affirmative.F. F. Causey, '90, and M. F. Hill, '90.

Best general references-Library Journal II, pp. 250 et seq; R. R. Bowker, Copyright, Its law and its literature; Forum. I, pp. 495-505; Lalor's Cyclopedia, vol. I, pp. 642 et seq.

1. The present lack of an International Copyright law permits injustice to foreign authors, (a) their productions are their own personal property-Report Common Pleas 89; (b) they have no control over their publications in America-Library Journal II, p. 250; (c) they receive no compensation-Library Journal, II, p. 25.

II. The lack of International Copyright law discourages our own authors and publishers. (a) authors lack pecuniary stimulus to their best efforts-Nation 38, p. 112; (b) markets are flooded with foreign works offered at a lower price than that at which new productions can be prepared-Forum I, p. 497; (c) authors cannot afford to make literature a profession-R. R. Bowker, p. 51; (d) legitimate publications are at a disadvantage in competition-Saturday Review. 59, p. 309.

III. The proposed bill should pass because (a) it will give foreign authors their just rights-Forum I, p. 498; (P) it will give American authors a fair field-Ioid, p, 499; (c) it will give legitimate publishers an opportunity to compete; (d) it will raise the standard of American literature-Library Journal II, p. 252, (e) The International Copyright would not deprive the reading public of good books-Forum, July 1886.

IV. The leading authors and publishers, the Typographical Union, and others most deeply interested in literature, and best acquainted with the present situation favor the bill. See numerous memorials presented to congress in behalf of the bill.

Brief for the Negative.J. P. Nields, '90, and W. Wells, '90.

Best general references: Forum, vol. 1,500-(?); American, vol. 7, 342.

I. Granting that an international copyright is desirable, the present bill should not pess, because: (1), the bill contains protective measures. e. g. Foreign authors are compelled to employ American publishers.- Senate bill 262; Critic, vol. 15. p. 331; Nation, vol. 46, 522. (2). The bill compels American authors to publish their books at home or loose their copyright.- Nation, vol. 46, 522. (3), The bill secures a monopoly to American publishers-Forum, vol. 1,500.

II. International copyright would give a so-called benefit to publishers at the expense of the reading public.- Front vol. 1, 502; Public Opinion, March 1, 1890, p, 503. (a) The public wants cheaper books-Forum, vol. 1. 504. (b), The publishers, not the authors, would be benefited.- American, vol. 7, 342. (c) A treaty would be a better method of dealing with the subject than a bill.- Nation, 38, 112.