bill in equity, filed by any party aggrieved, to grant injunctions to prevent the violations of any right secured by the laws respecting copyrights, according to the course and principles of courts of equity, on such terms as the court may deem reasonable." Three distinct rights are secured and protected by the copyright law. 1. Copyright, or the exclusive right of publishing and selling a printed work.1 2. Playright, or the sole liberty of representing a published dramatic composition.2 3. A right of action against any person who publishes a manuscript without authority. For the violation of copyright or playright, or for the unlawful publication of a manuscript, an action at law for damages, or for the penalties or forfeitures in the cases wherein they are prescribed, or a suit for an injunction or other equitable relief, may be brought in the Circuit Court of the United States, or a district court having the jurisdiction of a circuit court, although the parties are citizens of the same State, and although the amount in controversy is less than $500. And an appeal may be made to the Supreme Court of the United States without regard to the sum in dispute. Any action or suit for the violation of a right secured by the statute can be brought only in a federal court. All cases founded on any common-law right must be sued in a State court; unless the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds $500, and an alien is a party, or the suit is between a citizen of the State where it is brought and a citizen of another State, in which case the circuit courts have jurisdiction.5 1 U. S. Rev. St. ss. 4952, 4964, 4965. straining the unauthorized publication 2 ss. 4952, 4966. 4 U. S. Rev. St. s. 699, cl. 1. 5 U. S. Rev. St. s. 629, cl. 1; Jollie v. Jaques, 1 Blatchf. 618, 627; Pulte v. Derby, 5 McLean, 328, 336; Little v. Hall, 18 How. 165, 171; Keene v. Wheatley, 9 Am. Law Reg. 33; Boucicault v. Hart, 18 Blatchf. 47; Talcott v. Moore, 1 N. Y. Weekly Dig. 485; Isaacs v. Daly, 7 Jones & Sp. (39 N. Y. Superior Ct.) 511. Section 9 of the act of 1831 expressly empowered the courts of the United States to grant injunctions re of manuscripts. See Folsom v. Marsh, 2 Story, 113; Bartlett v. Crittenden, 4 McLean, 300, 5 Id. 32; Woolsey v. Judd, 4 Duer (N. Y.), 379, 382; Keene v. Wheatley, 9 Am. Law Reg. 33, 45; Boucicault v. Fox, 5 Blatchf. 97; Parton v. Prang, 3 Cliff. 537. The act of 1856 provided that actions for the violation of playright should be brought in any court of the United States. The corresponding sections 4966 and 4967 of the Revised Statutes are silent as to the jurisdiction of actions and suits brought for the invasion of playright and the publication of manu "Where a case arises under that act," said the Supreme Court of the United States, "we have jurisdiction, though both the parties, as in this case, are citizens of the same State. But if the act do not give the remedy sought, we can only take jurisdiction on the ground that the controversy is between. citizens of different States." 1 Where complaint was made in the United States Court of the fraudulent use of the title of a musical composition, and both parties were citizens of the same State, the court said: "The question, therefore, whether the court will interfere to prevent the use of the title in fraud of the plaintiff upon principles relating to the good will of trades is not before us, as it cannot be entertained in this suit."2 So when it is sought to enforce not the copyright itself, but a contract relating to the copyright, a federal court has no jurisdiction by virtue of the copyright statute, but only on the general ground of the citizenship of the parties.3 Manuscripts are protected by the common law as well as by the statute. Hence, for the unlawful publication of a manuscript, the owner may claim his common-law remedies in a State court; or, if a citizen or resident of the United States, he may seek redress under the statute in a federal court. The representation of a manuscript drama, is not a publication prohibited by section scripts. But, as is shown in the text, jurisdiction of all cases arising under the copyright law is expressly vested in the federal courts which are further empowered to grant injunctions to prevent the violation of any right secured by the statute. Hence there can be no doubt that the jurisdiction of the United States courts in the case of dramatic compositions and manuscripts is now the same as it was under the previous statutes and as it is under the existing statute in the case of copyright. See Boucicault v. Hart, Blatchf. 47. 13 view above taken, the controversy arises out of the contract. The authorship of the complainant is not controverted, nor is it doubted that the copyright is vested in the defendants. There is no question, then, which can be said to arise under the act of Congress. On the construction of the contract alone, the rights of the parties depend. And in such a case I am inclined to think that the circuit court cannot exercise jurisdiction." As to the nature of the contract in the two cases last cited, in which it was held that a State court was the 1 McLean, J., Little v. Hall, 18 proper tribunal in which to bring the How. 171. 2 Jollie v. Jaques, 1 Blatchf. 627. 3 Pulte v. Derby, 5 McLean, 328, 336; Little v. Hall, 18 How. 165. In the former case, Mr. Justice McLean said: "Does the question in this case arise under the copyright law? In the action, see ante, pp. 355, 362. See also Gould v. Banks, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 562; Willis v. Tibbals, 1 Jones & Sp. (N. Y.) 220; Carter v. Bailey, 64 Me. 458; which were actions growing out of contracts relating to copyrights, and were brought in a State court. 4967. Hence, redress for such wrong must be sought in a State court, unless a federal court has jurisdiction by reason of the citizenship of the parties.1 Statutory Penalties and Forfeitures must be Sued for in Court of Law. It remains to consider whether matters relating to penalties and forfeitures are within the jurisdiction of a court of equity, or whether they belong exclusively to courts of law. This question is practically obsolete in England, where the distinction between law and equity tribunals is in effect abolished. But in the United States the subject has not lost any of its practical importance. Hence, it is necessary to examine the English as well as the American decisions on this point. In Colburn v. Simms, decided in 1843, Vice-Chancellor Wigram said that he had never known of an instance in which a court of equity had ordered the forfeited copies to be delivered up, except one case before Lord Eldon, where the order had been made by consent. He held that since the House of Lords, in Donaldson v. Becket,2 had declared that there could be no copyright in a published work, except by statute, a court of equity had no power in the case of a printed book to decree a delivery of copies on the principles of the common law; that such jurisdiction, if it existed, must be derived from an act of Parliament; and whether the statutes relied on in the case before the court had that effect, it was not necessary to decide, for the reason that the plaintiff was barred on other grounds from recovering the forfeitures.3 1 Keene v. Wheatley, 9 Am. Law Reg. 33; Boucicault v. Hart, 13 Blatchf. 47. In considering the corresponding provision in the act of 1831, Shipman, J., said: "The jurisdiction of the courts of the United States is indeed confined by the 9th section of the act of February 3, 1831, to cases of threatened or actual printing and publication, and would probably not include the public performance of a manuscript play, unless indeed the parties should be citizens of different States. But the jurisdiction of the State courts, in suits to protect the owners of manuscripts, is complete in all other emergencies." Boucicault v. Fox, 5 Blatchf. 97. For a fuller consideration of the provision of the statute for the protection of manuscripts, see ante, p. 124. 24 Burr. 2408. 3 2 Hare, 543, 553. The statutes referred to provided that the forfeited copies should be delivered to the owner of the copyright "upon order of any court of record." 54 Geo. III. c. 156, s. 4; 41 Geo. III. c. 107, s. 1. The statute now in force declares that the piratical copies of a book shall be the property of the owner of the copyright, who shall "sue for and recover the same, or damages for the detention thereof, in an action of detinue." 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, s. 23. In Delf v. Delamotte, decided in 1857, the Court of In the United States, the law may be regarded as settled that the penalties and forfeitures imposed by the statute must be sued for in a court of law. The statute of 1831 provided that in the case of a book the penalties and forfeited copies should "be recovered by action of debt in any court having competent jurisdiction thereof;" and that in the case of "any print, cut, or engraving, map, chart, or musical composition," the penalties and forfeitures should "be recovered in any court having competent jurisdiction thereof."2 In Stevens v. Gladding, wherein it was sought to recover the penalties and forfeitures prescribed by section 7 of the statute of 1831, for the piracy of a map, the Supreme Court of the United States held that it was not within the usual and ordinary jurisdiction of a court of equity to decree a payment of the penalties, or a delivery of the forfeited copies or plates. Such jurisdiction could be derived only from express statutory provision; and the only equitable jurisdiction in cases of copyright vested in the courts of the United States was that conferred by the act of 1819, which gave to such courts original cognizance, as well in equity as at law, of all cases arising under the copyright laws, and empowered them to grant injunctions according to the course and principles of courts of equity. "There is nothing in this act of 1819," said Mr. Justice Curtis, "which extends the equity powers of the courts to the adjudication of forfeitures; it being manifestly intended that the jurisdiction therein conferred should be the usual and known jurisdiction exercised by courts of equity for the protection of analogous rights." 8 The law, as thus expounded by the Supreme Court in 1854, has not been changed by any statute since passed. The sections of the copyright law, which impose forfeitures and penalties, do not specify in what court they shall be recovered. Section 6295 of the Revised Statutes gives to the Circuit Courts of the United States original jurisdiction of all suits at law or in equity arising under the copyright laws; and section 4970 simply empowers circuit courts, and district courts having the jurisdiction of circuit courts, to grant injunctions to prevent Chancery ordered the defendant to deliver to the plaintiff the forfeited copies. 8 Kay & J. 584. 1 s. 6; 4 U. S. St. at L. 437. 2 8. 7. 3 17 How. 447, 455. * 4964, 4965. 6 cl. 9. the violation of copyright. No one of the statutory provisions above referred to, nor any other provision, gives to a court of equity jurisdiction over forfeitures and penalties.1 Forfeiture of Copies at Common Law. The question has been raised whether a person, whose common-law rights in an unpublished work have been violated, is entitled to the piratical copies in the possession of the wrong-doer, and whether it is within the jurisdiction of a court of equity to order such copies to be delivered up. In Prince Albert v. Strange, it appeared that the defendant had in his possession copies of etchings, taken from plates which had been surreptitiously obtained from the plaintiff. The original etchings, which had not been published, and the plates, were the property of the Queen and Prince Albert. The defendant had also prepared a descriptive catalogue of the etchings, and was intending to sell the catalogue and publicly to exhibit the etchings. Besides an injunction against such sale and exhibition, the bill prayed that the defendant be ordered to deliver to the plaintiff all copies of the etchings in his possession, and that the copies of the catalogue be delivered up to be destroyed. The relief asked was given by ViceChancellor Bruce," and his judgment was affirmed on appeal.3 In reply to the objection that the plaintiff was not entitled to a forfeiture of copies, the Vice-Chancellor said: "It is then said that neither the copies of the catalogue nor the impressions that have been taken can be delivered up, or be directed to be delivered up, inasmuch as the defendant contends that he is entitled to the property in the materials on which they are printed. With regard to catalogues, no such question, I think, arises. They must be either cancelled or destroyed; and without destruction they can hardly be cancelled. With regard to the impressions, it might possibly be right to attend to the defendant's claim had the impressions been upon a material of intrinsic value, upon a material not substantially worthless, except for the impressions, which, by the wrongful act of the 1 In Drury v. Ewing, the Circuit Court of the United States, after the defendants had violated an injunction, ordered them to deliver to the court all the piratical copies in their possession as well as the plates on which they |