HENRY WHEATON AND ROBERT DONALDSON V.

RICHARD
PETERS AND JOHN GRIGG
33 U.S. 591, 1834 WL 3830 {U.S.Pa.)
January Term 1834

Facts

The complainants in their bill state, that Henry Wheaton

is the author of twelve books or volumes, of the reports
of cases argued and adjudged in the supreme court of
the United States, and commonly known as 'Wheaton's
Reports;' which contain a connected and complete series
of the decisions of said court,
from the year 1816 until the year 1827. That before the
first volume was published, the said Wheaton sold and
transferred his copyright in the said volume to Matthew
Carey of Philadelphia; who, before the publication,
deposited
a printed copy of the title page of the volume in the
clerk's office of the district court of the eastern district of
Pennsylvania, where he resided.
That the same was recorded by the said clerk according
to law, and that a copyof the said record was caused by
said Carey to be inserted at full length in the page
immediately following the title of said book. And the
complainants further state, that they have been
informed and believe, that all things which are necessary
and requisite to be done in and by the provisions of the
acts of congress of the United States, passed the 31st
day of May 1790 and the 29th day of April 1802, for the
purpose of securing to authors and proprietors the
copyrights of books, and for other purposes, in order to
entitle the said Carey
to the benefit of the said acts; have been done.
The same allegations are made as to all the other
volumes which have been published; that the entry was
made in the clerk's office and notice given by publication
in a newspaper, before the publication of each volume;
and that a copy of each volume was deposited in the
department of state.

Issue/s
Whether the states may not protect and enforce the common
law right, while the United States secure it? Is such power
totally and absolutely repugnant?

Held

It is not. On the contrary, perfectly consistent with the other. It

is as consistent as a common law remedy is with a statute
remedy. It is the same thing. Both may exist and act in concert
and no conflict can occur, unless the state undertakes to
deprive an author of what congress has secured to him. If that
were a reason for taking away the state power, it would be a
reason for depriving them of all power: for so long as they have
power to legislate, they can pass laws to interrupt those of
congress. It is impossible to imagine a case where a power of
congress should receive so little interruption from the
legislation of the states; because this is a power primarily over
private right, and not for national purposesl; and it is the only
one of the kind in the constitution.
An author then who is a citizen of one of the states, is entitled
to have his property protected in every other state, according
to the laws of such states; without the aid of any national law.

Ratio
A concurrent power in cases like this might exist and be
exercised by the states. If the states have resigned to congress
their power over the copyrights, and have none remaining in
themselves, yet that they have given the power to congress
with a qualification and limitation and have confined it in their
hands, as they had power to do, simply to securing the right of
the author. If they have any power besides this, it is merely to
abridge the period.

A citizen of one state has the same common law property in his
copy, in other states, as the citizens of these states can have,
and the common law property exists in the state of
Pennsylvania; consequently, the complainants are entitled to a
copyright at common law in that state and can have a remedy
in the ciruit court of the United States for its violation,
independently of the provisions of the act of congress; the

citizenship of the parties giving the state

jurisdiction.

Analysis
The constitution of the United States
provides that the citizens of each state
shall be entitled to all privileges and
imuunites of citizens of the several states.