Here is the idea—to amend section 4964 so as to read as herewith framed.

The id purpose of laws against theft & murder is to come as near making them prohibitory as possible—that is the idea in view in this present case. We want rather to deter people from selling pirated books than to punish them. We want to keep them from selling them.

If fine & imprisonment both, be objected to, perhaps one of these will answer; but if the fine is retained, it ought to be doubled. We should much prefer the imprisonment, however, for the offen crime is a peculiarly vile & dirty one & ought not to be raised to the dignity of a finable offense.

You see I have left out the words “or knowing the same to be so printed,” &c. Sec. 4964, as it now stands, does not allow ignorance to sheid shield the printer, publisher or importer from punishment; but the insertion of those words does allow ignorance to amply shield & protect the chiefest scoundrel of the whole gang, i.e., the seller. Decisions have established this (See Eaton S. Drone’s “A Treatise on the Law of Property in Intellectual Productions,” in the Congressional Library.),Ⓐemendationpage 487.)

Not a soul can be hurt by the proposed amendment of section 4964 except Canadians & a set of American scoundrels who prey upon & devour our own authors & publishers by selling stolen literary goods. Is there anybody but these villains who can find the least fault with the proposed amendment?

I have put made the penalties at a light, but lord bless us, if Congress can be persuaded to make them heavier, do let her do it.

Bret Harte’s books; Mrs. Frances Hodgson Burnett’s; Howells’s; mine; & others, have been persistently pirated in Canada & peddled in this country for years. The pirates issued five editions of Howells’s “Lady of the Aroostook,” & sold them in the American market.

All the publishers, nearly, have suffered from these piracies, & a number of our authors.

Now old man, let’s see if Congress will listen to the wail of the distressed.