If you will glance at the first article in your second editorial column of to-day’s issue you may find two things forcibly illustrated there: that the less a man knows about his subject the more glibly he can reel off his paragraph, &Ⓐemendation that the difference between the ordinary court &Ⓐemendation the high court of journalism is, that the former requires facts, upon which to base an injurious judgment against a man, the other requires suspicions only. You have not caught me in any divergence from the truth, nor in any incompatibility. But a truce to that; under pretext of rising to defend myself, I have really risen for a more respectable purpose. Your remarks have of course disseminated the impression that in my humble person a greater was defeated in Canada &Ⓐemendation got its quietus,—viz., Copyright; now I think the fact is of public &Ⓐemendation general importance—&Ⓐemendation therefore worth printing—that the exact opposite was the case.

I applied formally for Canadian copyrightⒶemendation &Ⓐemendation failed to get it. But this did not cripple my case; because, by being in Canada (&Ⓐemendation submitting to certain legal forms) when my book issued in London, I acquired both imperial &Ⓐemendation Canadian copyrightⒶemendation. I did know, several hours before I left Montreal—as heretofore stated in my name—that my application for local copyright had been refused; but I also knew that my Canadian copyright was perfect without it, &Ⓐemendation that it would not have been (absolutely) perfect if I had not sojourned in Canada while the book was published in England &Ⓐemendation printed &Ⓐemendation published in Canada. Curious as it seems to seem to you, I did leave in Canada perfected arrangements for the prosecution of any who might pirate the book, although I had hardly the ghost of a fear that any attempt would be made to pirate it. Please do not laugh at me any more for this, for the act was not ridiculous. I was not protecting myself against an expectation, but only against a possibility. Perhaps you do not catch the idea. I will put it in another form: If you were going to stop over night with me, I should not expect you to set fire to the place; still, I would step down &Ⓐemendation get the house insured just the same.

Have you ever read the Dominion copyright laws? And if so, do you think you understand them? Undeceive yourself; it is ten thousand to one that you are mistaken. I went to Canada armed to the teeth with both Canadian &Ⓐemendation American legal opinions. They were the result of a couple of months of inquiry &Ⓐemendation correspondence between trained Canadian &Ⓐemendation American lawyers. These man agreed upon but one single thing,—that a perfect imperial &Ⓐemendation provincial copyright was obtainable through a brief sojourn in Canada &Ⓐemendation the observance of certain specified forms.

They were pretty uncertain (under one form of procedure) as to the possibility of acquiring a copyright from the Dominion government itself; well, as before remarked, I tried that form; it failed, but no harm was done. Some little good was done, however; the experiment established the fact, as far as it can be established without the decision of a court, that “elective domicile” is not sufficient in a copyrightⒶemendation matter. There was one other mode of procedure which promised considerably better;—in fact I was told that it had been tried already by a couple of American clergymen, &Ⓐemendation with success. This is, to kind of sort of let on, in a general way, in your written declaration to the Dominion government, that you haven’t come to Canada merely to sojourn, but to stay. My friend, there are reputations that can stand a strain like that; but you know, yourself, that it would not answer for you or me to take any such risk. I declined to try that mode.

Hartford, Ct., Sunday, December 18, 1881.