Part 12

We will quote one example of a thousand from M. Louis Reybaud’s excellent work on wool. Speaking of the wool-carding machines, the learned Academician thus writes: “There may be cited twenty names engaged in these discoveries, incomplete as a whole, almost all fortunate in some detail. What is incomplete is laid aside, what is fortunate is so much gain; the new comers discriminate and choose. After a period of twenty years there are only three processes in use—those of Leister, Hellsmann, and Hubner; of analogous merit, and each having its partisans. Will they strive one with another? No, they compromised. M. Holden gets the assignment, and also acquires, either by purchase or by judicial decisions, the rights of Donisthorpe, Noble, and Croft. Messrs. Schlumberger and Co., the assignees of Heilman, retain only the manufacture of certain machines. We may imagine the wealth of a business established on so many purchases and decisions. M. Holden has added inventions of his own, and _he may be considered the master of wool-carding until his Patents expire_. Nothing is more interesting than the answers he gave on this subject before the Commission on the Commercial Treaties. On his own avowal he is proprietor of 45 Patents, 28 taken by himself, and 17 purchased from others. In these 45 are good, middling, and bad. He works them all _in obedience to the law_ and _to guard against lapses_. In the bad, as well as the good, there is an idea to defend and a chance of upsetting; he fears that in abandoning them they might be used against him; _for one machine in constant use there are forty-four which make a pretence of working; he does not hide it—it is his interest to hinder, as much as to work_.

What would it be if, as it is demanded, property in invention, put on the same footing with property in the land, were perpetual? By the present system it may be the interest of one man to fetter improvement, and, having acquired the mastery of it, to mortally wound it wherever it appears! Is this not already too much the case?

Must we, then, repeat what reason and experience teach us, that unjust exactions cannot be made under a system of open competition, but always spring up under the shelter of privilege?

VII.

The eminent Professor of the “Musée de l’Industrie Belge” makes a just and well-founded criticism on the diverse laws of different countries relating to Patents. Usually law-makers do not appear so perplexed, nor contradict themselves so frankly; this is because, when we forget what is right, when we leave principles to make a legal caprice, we sail over unknown seas, where no lighthouse guides us, nor compass shows us the right direction.

He attributes to the defective state of these laws “the almost unanimous censure displayed either against the legislation or against property in inventions.”

Would it not be more reasonable to acknowledge that if the learned law-makers of the numerous countries in which the principle of property in inventions has been adopted have not been able to frame laws capable of protecting the rights of pretended proprietors conjointly with those of individuals and society at large, it is because the principle is radically wrong, and contrary to the general interests of mankind? The law-giver finds an obstacle at every side in legitimate scruples; he fears to give too much, and he fears to take too much.

At present the censure is almost unanimous, it is acknowledged. Let us suppose that property in invention were abolished, and what complaints would result from the abolition? Few or none. When the inventor knew that, placed on the same level as all other workers, he must only rely on his intelligence, his capital, his time, and his right arm he would leave off claiming a privilege and complaining of the insufficiency of his rewards. At present the inventor says to the State: “I have found out a great thing, but I require your protection; you must place at my disposal your agents and your law-courts; the first shall enter the homes of my fellow-citizens, shall search their drawers, examine their books and papers, in my interest. By the second, their cause being lost, shall be condemned to ruin and misery. I am about to bring ruin on such and such manufacturers, to condemn a crowd of work-people to idleness; but you must grant me a privilege which will place me beyond the reach of all opposition, and allow me to make a fortune, quietly and without much chance of a failure.”

What difference do the champions of Patents find between this language and that which was held by the Protectionists? They also required Custom-house officers, and law-courts always open, to punish the smuggler; they further required the ruin of those who traded with distant countries, and the continual inactivity of our mercantile marine and sea-board population.

VIII.

The honourable Belgian economist next combats the opinion of those who, struck by the numerous and weighty inconveniences presented by the Patent-Laws, and their extreme diversitude in every country, have imagined a remedy in the expropriation of invention for the public good.

We shall be far from attaining our object if the reader has not already understood that, renouncing all idea of property as applied to manufacture, we shall not discuss this phase of the question. We will say, however, that we must protest with all our might against the following principle, expressed by M. le Hardy de Beaulieu: “Neither can we admit,” says he “the justice of expropriation for the public good so far as it concerns property in inventions any more than in real property. Here also,” he adds, “the _right_ of one ought to prevail over the _interest_ of the greater number.”

It is no doubt intentionally that the word _interest_ in this phrase is put in opposition to the word “right.” But would it not be more correct to say, the _right_ of the community ought to prevail over the _interest_ of the individual.

Individual right in property is certainly worthy of respect, and cannot be called in question; but to our thinking, the right of the community precedes and is superior to it. A part cannot be greater than the whole; no one can place his right above that of mankind, and the individual cannot oppose his will, good or bad, on the whole community.

We belong to no learned corporation—a simple volunteer in the army of economist disputants—and have no other banner than that of the truth; but we cannot refrain from saying one word in defence of those whom the learned Belgian speaks of among many others in these terms: “The judgment of the Academy of Sciences on the steamboat invented by Fulton may help to form an estimate of the contradiction which experience sometimes inflicts on the best-intentioned verdict of a committee of _savants_.”

We assert as a fact that if the steamboat presented to the Academy of Sciences by Fulton were now submitted to the judgment of a committee of machine builders, they would declare unanimously that the boat could not navigate. We wish in no way to seek to depreciate the acknowledgments which mankind owes to Fulton; but his invention, as all are at starting, was only a sketch, which required half a century of labour to perfect and to make as practical as it now is.

Here there is room for an observation which must be noted.

The advocates for the principle of property in inventions fall into ecstacies before a transatlantic steamer, and exclaim, “Behold, what a crying injustice! what deplorable ingratitude! Society has denied the rights of the inventor to this wonder of the sea! He died in poverty, or nearly so.”

Others go further back, and attribute to Solomon de Caux, or to Papin, all the honour; they forget that between Papin, or Solomon de Caux and Fulton, a crowd of men of genius brought their contributions of knowledge, experiment, and work of every kind; and that between Fulton and the makers of our day there are so many inventors, so many explorers, fortunate or unfortunate, ridiculous or serious, whose attempts or applications have helped to perfect the steam-engine, that it may truly be said that every one has had a hand in it.

It is the same with the railway, the electric telegraph, and the different machines for spinning, carding, weaving, &c.

IX.

To pretend, as does the defender of the principle of property in inventions, in the ninth paragraph of his work, that the sudden and inconsiderate introduction of a new invention may cause a sensible injury to existing manufacturers, and that it is consequently advisable to maintain the system of Patents, which during a certain time limits their use and hinders production, to prevent the lowering of prices immediately at least; so to pretend is to renew the plea of the protected manufacturers, who demanded that the greatest precautions should be taken to facilitate the transition from Protection to Free-trade. But we do not see clearly what benefit there can be to the community at large in delaying the advantages to be derived from an invention. The misunderstood interests of certain manufacturers may appear to require this delay, but common sense tells us that manufacturers and consumers have every interest in immediately adopting every invention which saves labour, capital, and time.

If we look back, we will see that a delay of this kind would have retarded for an indefinite period the discoveries of Columbus in order to avoid a sensible injury to the monopoly which Venice had acquired in Eastern commerce. We maintain, as indeed experience proves, that however innovating inventions may be, displacement of labour occurs gradually. We will only cite, in support of this assertion, the well-known instance of the substitution of printing for manuscript copying. It may be answered that the substitution of mechanical spinning and weaving for hand-work caused great suffering. We answer, that you should blame the system of Patents, which, raising inordinately the cost of the machines, must have restricted labour, although they lowered the price of the product. If there had been no royalty to pay to the inventor, the number of the machines would have rapidly increased, and a greater number of workmen would at once have found employment similar to that to which they had been accustomed.

How many enterprising and intelligent speculators would most eagerly have availed themselves of these new outlets for their activity, if the course had been cleared of all these obstructions which the law has arbitrarily established.

At the risk of being considered by the honourable Professor grossly ignorant of the laws of political economy, we do not believe that monopolies will always exist, as he ventures to affirm. We know that there always will be intellectual superiority, unrivalled artistic ability, or special natural advantages; but these do not constitute monopolies, in the proper acceptation of the term; and the object we shall not cease to strive for is that no others shall exist.

X.

It is beyond our province to consider the inquiries of M. le Hardy de Beaulieu as to the best plan of securing to inventors exclusive right in their discoveries. To take up this question is to undertake the discovery of the philosopher’s stone, or the squaring of the circle; several generations have vainly grappled with it, and the different attempts made without satisfactory results in almost every country prove this conclusively.

But the honourable Professor seems to calculate on the improvement of public morals, in order to reach the point where every attempt against the property of the inventor shall be considered as guilty as robbery, or as any injury done to property existing in material shape.

Under the uncompromising Protective system also it was attempted to improve the morals of the public, who would not see the equal guilt of the smuggler and the robber, and always loudly protested when repression was enforced by bloodshed.

No reform of public morals will change the nature of these acts; they will always be received as the appeal of right against abuse; and we would deeply pity the country where it would be sufficient to say such is the law, and where no conscience might protest against it.

XI.

“Discovery, the appropriation and creation of outlets, is too complicated a work,” says M. le Hardy de Beaulieu, “for the inventor singly, and especially without the aid of capital, to undertake with sufficient chance of success.”

Here again we believe the learned economist is in error; he seems to imagine one inventor arriving at perfection either at a jump, or after many attempts—one inventor giving us at once our ocean steamer, or a spinning-mill with a hundred thousand spindles! Inventions go more slowly; when they spring from the brain of the thinker, they are only sketches, and no man in his senses will risk a large capital before making many trials, and that only on a small scale. We do not believe there has been a single invention which, after numerous trials, has not been modified, improved, and perfected.

And how many have at last been thrown into oblivion, from which they will never be recalled?

Also, when we see the defenders of property in invention draw a sad picture of the piercing miseries which inventors of these last have had to endure, we are always tempted to ask them to show us the pitiful account of ruin caused among those who placed faith in their promises and delusions. Every medal has its reverse, and if more than one real inventor has been misunderstood, many of the too-confident have been victims of the mad and inapplicable ideas of inventors who imagined themselves men of genius.

Is the law, which seems to promise an Eldorado to all inventors, to blame for these losses, for these undeserved sufferings?

Bernard de Palissy’s saying, “Poverty hinders the success of the clever man,” is often quoted. But this saying will always be true, whatever the law may be. Can we admit that if perpetual property of invention had existed in his time, Bernard would more easily have found the money which he required?

The success of an invention is secured by the services it can render being easily understood, immediate, and speedily realisable. The capitalist, in dealing with hazardous undertakings—and inventors’ undertakings “are always hazardous”—does not calculate on perpetuity. He works for immediate and large profits; he is in a hurry to realise, because he knows that some other invention may dispossess him of all his advantages. Little does he care, therefore, about the perpetuity.

XII.

In his twelfth and last paragraph the learned Professor answers several minor objections to the system of property in inventions—objections which seem to us not to carry great weight.

However, in answer to the objection taken from the case of two applications for similar Patents, made at intervals of a few minutes only, the eminent economist says that this case occurs only at rare intervals, and making light of the rights of the slower, affirms that it is not worth considering. Does not this denial of a right on account of its infrequency, however, seem to show how arbitrary and artificial is the constituting of property in invention?

We are among those who believe in the harmony of all economic relations, of all legitimate interests; and when we see the right of one sacrificed to false exigencies, we mistrust the exigencies. We believe them unjust and contrary to the principles of equity, which forms the basis of all economic science. We should wish to have seen M. le Hardy de Beaulieu more logical in his deductions, claiming, as he has done, for real property [la propriété foncière] that the right of one ought to prevail over the interest of the greater number, and give a chance of obtaining an indemnity, if he could not be assured of a part of the property [Donner ouverture a l’obtention d’une indemnité si l’on ne pouvait lui assurer une part de propriété].

But we repeat, these questions of the arrangement [organization] of property, which we do not acknowledge, are beyond our province, and if we accidentally touch upon them, it is only to show how little the foundations of this right are similar to those on which rests the principle of material property.

In recapitulation, we reject property in inventions and the advantages claimed for it, because it seems to us that all this scaffolding of legal prescription and Government protection only results in throwing out of their natural course a crowd of workmen who would become more useful to society and to themselves in ceasing to pursue chimeras.

We reject the proposed assimilation of this property to that of the soil, because the privilege sought to be created cannot fail to hinder and lessen the right of each member of the body politic. We reject this privilege because nothing justifies it; the services rendered to society by inventors being nowise different in their nature from those daily conferred by skilful manufacturers, intelligent agriculturists, _savants_, navigators, &c.

Finally, we reject it because history attests that great discoveries were made before there was any conception of such property, and that it could hardly be in operation at this day, except with regard to modifications, or, if you will, improvements [perfectionnements], which do not merit this abstraction from the common right.

ADDITIONAL CHAPTERS (FROM THE MAY NUMBER OF THE _JOURNAL DES ECONOMISTES_).

The question of granting or denying a property in inventions is of such importance that the discussion raised by the honourable Belgian Professor, M. le Hardy de Beaulieu, ought not to be allowed to drop, and that we should try to renew it.

We believe it to be of importance for the future of manufactures and of progress, and most especially to the security of real property, that whatever is doubtful and disputed in this question be deeply studied, and that all should be agreed as to what property is, and if this title ought to be applied to all or any of the inventions which daily start up.

M. le Hardy de Beaulieu pretends that one of the most frequent errors of those whose enlightenment ought most to guard them against it is to believe that property being inherent in matter, is, like it, imperishable, and that property in land especially is as durable as the land itself. He adds that we should beware of it, because this error lays open landed property without defence to the attacks of communists and socialists, who, sliding down the incline of irresistible logic, are fatally led to declare all property illegitimate, to whatever purpose it is applied.

Here, it seems to us, is a misunderstanding which may be easily explained.

We do not believe that property is inherent in matter, any more than we believe that value is confined to any given substance. We believe that property is the result, the consequence, of human labour which has been incorporated in matter. As long as value conferred on land by labour endures, so long the property has a _raison d’être_, and cannot be contested. It is labour which has allowed the utilisation of the productive faculty of the soil, and productive faculty remains, like the property, as long as labour is bestowed in preserving, improving, and increasing it.

M. le Hardy de Beaulieu adds that he could cite numerous examples of lands abandoned or sold at a nominal price by their owners, either because they had exhausted and rendered them unproductive by an unintelligent culture, or because they had not been able to withstand the competition of more fertile soils, recently brought into cultivation or brought nearer the common centre of consumption by a considerable reduction in the expense of transport.

We do not contest this fact, of which the exactness may be verified any day in the increase or diminution of the value of property induced by the various changes brought about either in the grouping of the population, in the modes of culture, or in the means of transport. There are, however, few lands completely abandoned; to find examples, we should probably have to go back to those fatal times when by force of conquest proprietors were removed or all their means of culture and production were suddenly seized.

But we do not see how this can help the argument of M. le Hardy de Beaulieu. It has small relation, it seems to us, to the question of property in inventions, that—perpetual by law, as long as labour continues and renews it—landed property should sometimes come to an end by occurrences or violence such as we have been speaking of.

However, to state all our thoughts on the subject of landed property, we must confess (and here may be seen in all its clearness the radical difference between placing under culture, or cropping land, and working an idea), the vindication of property is found in the fact that land can only be cultivated by one at a time, must be subject to one will, and under one direction. It would be to my injury and the injury of the entire community that Peter should be allowed to plant potatoes in the field where Paul has already sowed wheat, or that James should open a quarry where John has built a house, and so on.

As we have already said, the power of the lever, the laws of gravity, those of the expansion of steam, the attraction of the magnet, the caloric of coal, the facility of traction imparted by the wheel, the optical properties of glass, &c., may be utilised to the great profit of all, in a thousand different ways, by a thousand individuals at once, without the efforts of any one being diminished, hindered, obstructed, or lessened, as to their useful result, except by the beneficent laws of competition.

“The first cause of property,” says M. Matthieu Walkoff,[4] “is the impossibility of matter being moved in more than one direction at one time, or, to state it otherwise, of its being subject at one time to more than one will.” “If matter,” says this eminent economist, “were gifted with ubiquity, like ideas, knowledge, or truth, which several may use simultaneously, and each in his own way, property would never have been constituted; and it is even difficult to imagine how any idea on this phenomenon could have arisen in men’s minds.” “In fact,” he adds, “to preserve property in an idea would have required that it should never have been expressed nor practised, to hinder it, being divulged, which would have been equivalent to its non-existence.”

We do not go so far as M. Walkoff; we do not affirm that the impossibility of matter being subject at one time to more than one will is the _first cause_ of property; but we say it is the distinctive character of property, and, like him, we cannot see a subject, for property is a shape, plan, or system, which, to see once, as in a spade, the wheel, the corkscrew, is to possess an indelible idea.

Besides, the author whom we have quoted expresses so clearly our opinion on this subject, that we must further borrow from him the following quotation, which will not be uncalled for at a time when property itself is threatened. It is of importance that the lawful bounds should be carefully marked:—