copyright in regular course, with a title-page in English, and with two copies of the original text submitted for purposes of identification as preliminary deposits, with the provision that, within a specific term (say twelve months) after the date of such registration, publication be made of an English version, an edition of which should be printed according to the manufacturing condition, from type set within the United States.' If, within that date, no edition should be produced, the producers of which had complied with the conditions of the American Act, the right to reproduce the work in English might then fall into the public domain. A provision to such effect, while by no means sufficient to do full justice to European authors, would secure to such of those authors as really had an American reading public awaiting their books, the substantial advantages of American copyright. I do not see any other way in which foreign authors can obtain the benefits intended by the Act as long as the manufacturing condition and the provision for simultaneous publication are retained. Such a provision would be in line with the arrangements now in force between the European states (under the Berne convention) covering the similar requirements for translated works."

The decision in the Fehsenfeld case makes it clear, however, that under the conditions of the treaty American authors can secure adequate protection in Germany, and we can only hope that the time may not be very distant when we shall be prepared to give to German authors a fair reciprocity advantage.

IN printing the opinion of Judge Dallas in re Harper & Brothers vs. A. J. Holman & Co., in our issue of January 8, (pp. 33, 34,) we were misled by the "copy" furnished us, and by omitting the pregnant monosyllable "not" gave an impression that was diametrically opposed to the one intended. We regret the error caused by the omission of the word referred to, and reprint the paragraph from the opinion of Judge Dallas:

"A preliminary injunction will not be awarded except in a plain case, and upon careful consideration of the proofs as now presented, I cannot say that the infringement of copyright alleged has been so clearly established as to exclude substantial doubt upon that subject. It must not be supposed that I have reached a final conclusion upon this matter; but, while I deem it inexpedient to enter at this stage upon a discussion of the question, I may say that I am not now entirely satisfied that the text of the defendants' publication was not derived from sources which they were at liberty to use."

We print elsewhere in this issue a letter from A. J. Holman & Co. on the decision. We do not understand that this is a decision of the copyright in favor of the defendants, but that it is the expression of a doubt in regard to the copyright, which the Court does not deem it proper to resolve upon a motion for a preliminary injunction.

PHOTOGRAPHIC COPIES OF THE

ATHARVA-VEDA.

PROF. MAURICE BLOOMFIELD, of the Johns Hopkins University, has obtained the consent of the library authorities of the University of Tübingen to reproduce photographically a unique manuscript known as the Kashmirian Atharva-Veda, which was discovered through the efforts of the late Prof. Rudolf von Roth. The manuscript is written on birch-bark in the Kashmirian, the so-called Sharada character, and it is said by scholars that in the entire domain of Indian manuscripts tradition there is no single manuscript which claims so much interest as this one.

Prof. Rudolf von Roth, as early as 1856, was led by a remark of the traveller Baron von Huegel to the belief that a new version of the Atharva-Veda might be found in Kashmir. Baron von Huegel in his work, "Kashmir und das Reich der Siek,” remarked that the Brahmins of Kashmir belonged to the Atterwan, or, as they said, Atterman Veda, and upon the strength of this statement Prof. von Roth induced the authorities of the British government in India to institute a search in the hope of finding a new version of the Atharva-Veda. His prophetic surmise came true most brilliantly. In 1875 his Highness, the late Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, Ranbir Singh, had this manuscript sent to Sir William Muir, the then Lieutenant-Governor of the Northwest Provinces, by whom it was in turn despatched to Prof. von Roth. The latter, after publishing an account of its discovery, character, and contents, guarded it until his recent death, after which it passed into the possession of the University Library of Tübingen, whose greatest and priceless treasure it forms. It consists of 287 leaves (written on both sides) of about 20 by 25 centimeters in size. Repeated search and persistent inquiries have conclusively shown that no other original manuscript of this veda is likely to turn up.

A GUILD OF CATHOLIC AUTHORS.

THE GUILD OF CATHOLIC AUTHORS, of which we gave preliminary notice in our last issue, was organized at 120 West Fifty-ninth Street, New York, on the 17th inst. The following officers were elected: President, Richard H. Park, LL.D.; First Vice-President, The Rev. John Talbot Smith; Second Vice-President, Mgr. De Concilio; Treasurer, J. Wilfred Pearce; Corresponding Secretary, Miss Marian Brunowe; Recording Secretary, Charles Hanson Towne; Librarian, Miss Agnes Sadlier; Board of Managers and Trustees, John Jerome Rooney, the Rev. Henry Van Rensselaer, Professor Charles G. Heberman, P. J. Coleman, and Professor John Joseph Scharf, LL.D.

A constitution and by-laws were adopted. The object of the guild is to bring together in fraternal union Catholic authors and writers throughout the country, and especially to aid the young in their literary aspirations.

The meeting adjourned to the first Monday in February, previous to which date the chairman will announce the place of meeting. The Catholic Club has placed its rooms at the disposal of the guild.

2. The stock of printed copies of this translation entitled "The Prince of India; or, the Fall of Constantinople," as well as the exclusive contrivances designed to reproduce the same unlawfully, whether in the possession of the defendant or the printer, or of the wholesale and retail dealers, shall be withdrawn.

3. Respondent must pay to the Appellants damages to be determined by experts, and must bear the costs of the action.

Respondent applied for the dismissal of the claim with costs.

To support their application the Appellants submitted in the first instance the following chief points:

The novel appeared simultaneously in the United States and in England on the 25th day of August, 1893, and was published in England at the establishment of the Appellants. Consequently, England was the country of origin in accordance with the Berne Convention of the 9th day of September, 1886, they being the publishers in one of the countries of the Union, the author of which work (Wallace) belonged to a non-Unionist country, and regarding which the various formalities prescribed for obtaining copyright in England has been duly fulfilled, so that according to Art. 3 of the Berne Convention the Appellants enjoyed in Germany the protection from unauthorized imitation, i.e., infringement, and particularly from translation according to the German laws. The claim for damages was supported by Section 18, Paragraph 6 of the Law of the 11th day of June, 1870. The claim was not based on the Treaty of the 15th day of January, 1892, between Germany and the United States of America. The Respondent retorted :

The work was protected neither by the Berne Convention, nor by the German-American Treaty concerning infringement or translation. The Appellants are not publishers of the work, the only publishers being Harper & Brothers of New York, who brought forward the Appellants for the purpose of circumventing the German-American State contract, and thereby surreptitiously obtaining a copyright. Moreover, the work was not published simultaneously in the United States of America and in England, but was first published in the United States before the 25th day of August, 1893, on which day the publication took place in England, and hence Art. 3 of the Berne Convention does not apply.

In the United States of America the work was published by depositing on the 18th day of May, 1893, two copies thereof at the Library of Congress, whereby the said work was rendered accessible to the public. Further, by the announcement of the work made before the 25th day of August, 1893, in American newspapers by the firm of Harper & Brothers, and by sending the printed copies to the Appellants, "if not also by supplying the printed book to wholesale firms in the United States." But even if the publication took place simultaneously in the United States of America and in England, the former country must be considered according to Art. 2, Paragraph 3 of the Berne Convention as the country of origin, as it grants the shortest copyright. And hence * By "Unionist countries" is meant those countries which are signatories or accessories to the Berne Con

vention.

Appellants cannot take advantage of the German-American Treaty, as they have not expressly reserved to themselves the right of translation either on the title-page or at the beginning of the work (Spitze des Buches) as required by the German law of the 11th day of June, 1870, on Authors' rights, and had also not commenced the translation of the work within the period of one year from the appearance of the work.

The notice" All Rights Reserved" upon the back of the title-page does not retain the right of translation, and the notice of "Copyright, 1893," by Harper & Brothers shows that they, and not the Appellants, are the true publishers.

The Appellants deny that the book was published before the 25th day of August, 1893, in the United States of America-that is to say, that it was delivered to the trade-and claim to have published the work in England in their own right, and in their own interest, as publishers, in consequence of an agreement entered into by themselves and the firm of Harper & Brothers.

Both parties proceed to base their contentions on the proofs mentioned in the statements set forth in the Court below.

By the judgment of the 14th day of July, 1896, the Freiburg Court of Justice dismissed the action with costs, proceeding chiefly from the standpoint that it appears from the evidence of the Plaintiffs that they are not the publishers for England of the work in question, and that hence they are not protected by Art. 3 of the Berne Convention. This Article protects a publisher; but the plaintiffs merely sold in England the copies manufactured by the firm of Harper & Brothers, on account for that firmunsold copies undoubtedly remaining the property of the said Harper & Brothers-and hence they, the Plaintiffs, are merely the commission agents therefor. Nowhere has it been shown that they acted as publishers.

The Plaintiffs lodged an appeal against this Judgment in the form and within the time set forth in the Protocol of the 31st day of December, 1896. Application renewed in the session hearing of the 3d inst. to reverse this decision, to uphold the claim, and to mulct the Defendant and Respondent in the costs of the action. The latter applied for the dismissal of the appeal with costs.

In fulfilment of the decision of the 14th day of January, 1897, as to proofs, an application was made to the "Bureau of the International Union for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works," in Berne, for their opinion as to the question whether the Plaintiffs were to be considered as publishers of the said work in England, according to Art. 3 of the Berne Convention, or not.

At the sitting of the 3d day of June of this year, the Appellants submitted as an addendum to the statement of facts, and to the arguments of the Judgment attached, as well as in support of the said opinion, the following:

According to Article 2 of the Berne Convention, the protection of the Convention is granted by reason of the fulfilment of the conditions and formalities which are required by the laws of the country of origin of the work. England must be reckoned as the country of origin of the work in question, as the first publication took place there on the 25th day of August

1893. The simultaneous publication in the United States of America, although a shorter period is granted there, is without meaning, as that country does not belong to the Union. The only point of importance is that the work was not first published in the United States, that is to say, before publication took place in England. This was not the case, as neither the depositing of copies at the Library of Congress (as in duty bound), nor the public announcement before the actual appearance of the book, nor the delivery to the wholesale firms of booksellers, nor the despatch to the Appellants of the copies printed in the United States of America and destined for England, can be construed into publication.

The conditions and formalities prescribed in England for obtaining a copyright were duly fulfilled, as shown by the Abstract from the Register of the Stationers' Company.

According to Art. 2, Paragraphs 1 and 3, taken in conjunction with Art. 3 of the Convention, the right of the Plaintiffs to bring forward a claim is fully recognized. The notice at the back of the title-page of the English edition is meaningless for the countries in the Union, and there is nothing to interfere with the Plaintiffs' rights as publishers of the work within the Union. The object of such notice is to prevent the reprinting of an English copy in the United States of America.

As General Wallace was not entered in the Register of Stationers' Hall on the 25th day of August, 1893, the Plaintiffs could not have been entered as his assignees. The registration of an assignment implies and requires that the Assignor be first entered in the Register.

To retain the right of translation no special formality is required. The Plaintiffs are the publishers of the work for England. General Wallace transferred to the firm of Harper & Brothers the right of publication in England, Great Britain, among others, with the right of obtaining copyrights for the work. With the consent of Wallace, Harper & Brothers have transferred this right to the Plaintiffs, who hence have acquired such rights in their own name to the exclusion of all other persons, in order to publish the book in England and, as stated, to copyright the same. They have undertaken this publication in England, and have thus made it possible for the public to purchase it. They likewise state-and it has not been disputed that their business is permanently established in England. They are publishers according to Art. 3 of the Convention.

the reason why the latter firm applied to the Plaintiffs and asked them to undertake this publication. The beginning of the letter of the 23d day of May, 1893, "Would you not as our Agents accept a commission," must not be translated as "Will you be our agent," but as, "Will you as our former representatives," etc., etc.

As a proof thereof that the work has not appeared in the bookselling trade before the 25th day of August, 1893, reference will be made to Harper & Brothers in New York as witnesses, as well as to their business books.

The Defendant and Respondent replied: "I dispute and contradict that the first publication of the work took place in England. This contention of the Plaintiffs is contradicted by their admission that the work was published on the 25th day of August, 1893, in the United States of America and in England simultaneously At any rate, the Plaintiffs must prove that the first publication took place in England, as this statement forms the fundamental part of the claim.

"It has also been contended that the work had appeared before the 25th day of August, 1893, in the United States of America by reason of the deposit of two copies at the Library of Congress at Washington, which is an Institution accessible to the public for reading purposesand further in consequence of sending printed copies to American wholesale houses and to the Plaintiffs. Proof: Harper & Brothers as witnesses, whose books, and Plaintiffs' oath, are sufficiently convincing. It is not asserted that the books were sold by the wholesale to the retail booksellers, or if the latter retailed them before the 25th day of August, 1893.

"It is further contended that the Plaintiffs are the publishers of the work and the onus of the proof is on them. The publishers reproduces or multiplies the volumes for the purpose of selling them, but this reproduction is acknowledged without controversy to have been effected by Harper & Brothers, and hence they are the publishers. The Plaintiffs are not even their commission agents, but at most their sales agents, as evidenced in the letter. In the letter of the 20th day of July, 1894, they call the Respondent's attention to the fact that he may not undertake a translation without the sanction of General Wallace.

"The declaration of Wallace of the 17th day of December, 1894, is of no importance. The Plaintiffs have entered their names as publishers in the Register at Stationers' Hall merely for the sake of appearance and by way of fraud, (fraudem legis.)

'Against their capacity of publishers should also be adduced the fact that they took no financial risk whatsoever in the sale of the work.

the copyright, it devolved on the Plaintiffs, in order to uphold the validity of the copyright, to have entered their names as his assignees."

The Plaintiffs' representative took the oath administered to him.

Both representatives agreed that the decision

as to the liability of Respondent as to damages should be taken separately and subsequently.

As regards the debates at the sitting on the 3d instant, all the documents annexed to the notes taken at the first Instance were laid before the Court, and were attested, and, as far as their contents were concerned, they were duly taken into consideration. A copy of the English edition of the said work was likewise placed before the Court.

ARGUMENT.

The Berne Convention of the 9th day of 'September, 1886 (Agreement as to the Formation of an International Union for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works), R. G. Journal, 1887, p. 493, in which (among others) Germany and England (i.e., the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland), but not the United States of America, are represented, in Art. 1, Paragraphs 1 and 2 (in the original wording before the amendment of the 4th day of May, 1896).

"The authors belonging to one of the countries of the Union, or their assigns, shall enjoy in the other countries of the Union the same rights for works, whether published in one of the countries of the Union or unpublished, as are, or will be, granted by the laws of the country of such authors."

The enjoyment of this right depends upon the fulfilment of the conditions and formalities prescribed by the laws of the country of origin of the work, and this cannot exceed in the remaining countries the duration of the protection granted in the original country.

The Convention thereby sets up the principle of the so-called formal reciprocity, and puts those belonging to one of the countries of the Union, that is to say, the author of any one nationality on the the same footing as those of all the remaining nationalities forming part of the Union, but as regards their published works, on condition that such publication takes place in one of the countries of the Union. This last country the Convention calls the country of origin of the work. It need not be identical with the home country of the author. It is sufficient that both countries should be in the Union. It must be taken into consideration that the Convention regulates only the international conditions of the countries of the Union, and concerns itself merely with the question as to what rights should be granted to a citizen of one of the countries of the Union in another country of the Union. The internal legislation of the various countries of the Union remains therefore undisturbed. The Convention introduces no unique authors' right or copyright for the countries of the Union. It simply defines in certain cases the minimum rights to be granted in the international intercourse of the countries of the Union, and starts, moreover, from the principle that the Unionist and not the native author (and in some cases the publisher) receives in every other country belonging to the Union the protection of a native, that is to say, of the citizen of a country wherein an infringement of copyright is in question. This country is called the country of importation. A German author, in commencing an action in Germany for an infringement committed there, can only come under German legislation, but not under that of the Convention. On the other hand, an English author (for instance), whose

work appears in England or in France, and is infringed in Germany, cannot only follow up in Germany the infringement according to German legislation, but, by virtue of the Convention, can take advantage of the conditions of the said Convention which, independently of the home legislation, set forth certain positive regulations for the international intercourse between the countries of the Union, such as, for instance, in Art. 5 of the Convention with regard to the right of translation. In this latter case, the English author would be protected from infringement through the unauthorized translation of his work in Germany for a period of 10 years, while, in the former case, the German author in Germany, according to Arts. 6b and 6c of the Imperial Law of Copyright on the 11th day of June, 1870, would enjoy a shorter period of protection from unauthorized translation. (See Art. 15 of the said Imperial Law.)

That such cases of different treatment of native and foreign Unionists are possible, was recognized in the discussions of the Convention, but it was not found desirable to thwart the formation of this Convention on account of this anomaly. Compare in reference to Convention and the principles underlying the same, Report of the Reichstag as to Printed Matters at the Parliamentary Session, Sitting I. of 1887, Vol. II., 100 (?) p. 14 and following. Soldan, "L'Union Internationale," Paris, 1888 ("International Union").

Clunet, "Etude sur la Convention de l'Union Internationale," Paris, 1887.

Von Orelli, "Der Internationale Schutz des Urheberrechts," Hamburg, 1887.

Fuld in "Busch's Archives" for H. R., Vol. 48, p. 297.

Dambach in Holzendorff's "Handbuch des
Völker Rechts," Vol. 3, p. 592.
Lyon-Caen & Delalaine "Lois Françaises et
Etrangères sur la Propriété Littéraire,
Paris, 1889, Vol. II., p. 205 and following.
Darras, "Droit des Auteurs et des Artistes,"
Paris, 1887, p. 518 and following.

"Le Droit d'Auteur, Organe Officiel du Bureau International," Bern, 1888 and following.

Allfeld, Die Reichsgesetze betr. das Litterarische Urheberrecht," p. 349 and following.

V. Bar. "Internationales Privatrecht," Vol. II., p. 351 and following.

The Convention provides the enjoyment of the rights granted by it on condition that the "formalities and rules," that is to say, the material and formal directions as to the obtaining of copyright shall be duly fulfilled, which directions are those prescribed by the legislation of the country of origin of the work. In Art. 2, Paragraphs 3 and 4, it is stated which country is the country of origin in cases of doubt (hereinafter more fully referred to), under the three suppositions or assumptions that: I. The author is a native of one of the countries of the Union.

2. His work has been published in one of the countries of the Union.

3. The material and formal regulations required have been duly fulfilled in the country of origin;

the Convention grants to the Unionist author the enjoyment in all other countries of the Union the rights of a native author in addition