of our publishers, some of whom are now on good terms with English authors, would enable them to secure books from those authors for manufacture here. "Cheap books for the people" are loudly insisted upon; but in the same breath the Philadelphians insist on a total re-manufacture, which frequently would double the cost, many books being now simply printed here from imported duplicate plates. No author will object to the policy of moderately cheap books, so long as he is not defrauded by it. Cheap clothing, iron, coal, food, houses, are all desirable; but no one maintains that they should be made cheap by means of theft, or the refusal to pay the producer. Only a few years ago Americans constantly bought current books - books for amusement on the cars - at $1.50, without a hint of grumbling. Do they not still freely pay a dollar to go into the theater ? In the case of foreign "stars," citizens have been known to give three dollars uncomplainingly, in return for a twoand-a-half hours' entertainment. As yet no Congressman or Philadelphia theorist has declared that the foreign actor should be forced by law to play to our audiences at ten cents a head. The case of lectures

and concerts is the same. Hence, I conclude that the American people are really not so poverty-stricken that they cannot afford to pay, individually, a moderate price for a book, which yet shall compensate the author. Besides, before the epoch of pamphlet reprints, the people had a large net-work of libraries and book-clubs, by which for a small subscriptiona few cents per book-they could obtain a year's reading, and reading of a good kind. The League tried to counteract the fallacies of the Philadelphians and the paper-makers, by printing and circulating several short documents. But a "scare" was created by the men who said that, unless the inhabitants of this republic can buy most foreign books for, say, from ten to forty cents, and unless foreign books are wholly remade here, the country will be ruined as to its paper and printing interests, and plunged into ignorance.

As if this appalling argument were not enough, they contended that an author, anyhow, has no right to put a price upon the work in which he has invested his time, labor, money, brains, manual labor,-all his capital, in short, and that he ought to be grateful if we give him anything for his production after it is published. Ideas, they say, are common property, and no one may demand a price for an idea. True enough. But how about the form in which those ideas are presented? Is not that the author's own work, wrought out with toil, sweat, and often with privations? Is not the labor bestowed upon that form as worthy of proper wage as the manual skill devoted to the making of a jumping-jack? Yet no one has denied that jumping-jacks must be paid for. Besides, the law already recognizes this form in which an author presents his idea, and calls it property, if only the author be an American. The argument that authors have no property in the form given to their ideas falls, therefore, to the ground; and no excuse remains for denying such property to foreigners, unless we hold as valid the excuse of deliberate dishonesty.

"The Constitution of the United States (Art. I., Sec. VIII., 8) empowers Congress 'to promote the

progress of science and useful arts, by securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings, etc. But, by its failure to render the rights of all authors secure, Congress has practically defeated hitherto the intent of the Constitution in this respect." I quote this from a sheet which was printed and sent to every member of the House of Representatives and of the Senate of the United States last winter. Ought not the statement to be heeded by bringing up the Dorsheimer Bill for debate at the next session of Congress ? Is it not decent - nay, essential that the representatives of the people should openly confer upon the question of common honesty involved in defending recognized property; a question that vitally affects the well-being of thousands of laborers in a useful profession? It has been supposed that American citizens, even if their occupation be only that of paving streets or writing books, are entitled to have from Congress a fair consideration of their rights, if not redress for their wrongs. I venture to ask all friends of the copyright movement, whether of the literary profession or not, to press upon the members of Congress for their respective districts, immediately, the propriety and importance of at least giving the Dorsheimer Bill a prompt and fair hearing.

some do not. The cause of this difference is the personal habits of these men. The temperate, judicious men are thrifty, contented, and happy. The intemperate are poor, miserable, and ready to "strike" at any opportunity.

It is no less true, however, that manufacturers are grasping, and do not love their employees as themselves.

In Kentucky, as well as in many other States, agriculture is carried on coöperatively. The owners furnish land, teams, machinery, seed, and food. The laborer furnishes his labor and skill. The crops are sold and the profits divided. There is general harmony and satisfaction. No one has ever heard of an agricultural "strike."

CORINTH, KENTUCKY.

J. W. Caldwell.

The Number of Men Engaged at Bull Run.

In the series of papers on the Civil War begun in this magazine last month it is not intended to deal with statistics except in a compact form; but so defective are the official returns of the forces engaged in the battle of Bull Run that we have requested Generals Fry and Jordan (who, it will be remembered, were the adjutants-general of the Union and Confederate armies respectively) to prepare the following careful estimates based on the existing official returns.-ED. C. M.

[UNION.]

EDITOR OF THE CENTURY MAGAZINE.

SIR: I have your letter asking me to give you a statement of the forces of General McDowell's army engaged in the battle of Bull Run, July 21, 1861.

Many of the men of that army were volunteers, called into service for three months by the President's proclamation of April 15, 1861. After they arrived in Washington, and were equipped, they were sent across the Potomac to General McDowell, and were hurriedly thrown into brigades and divisions, and then pushed into an active campaign, in order that they might do something before they were discharged. Even if the officers had understood army returns and the necessity for rendering them, they had not time to attend to such matters. It was not practicable at the time to ascertain the strength of the army with accuracy; and it is impossible now to make a return which can be pronounced absolutely correct.

The army of General McDowell in the campaign consisted of five divisions: Tyler's first division contained four brigades - Keyes's, Schenck's, Sherman's, and Richardson's; Hunter's second division contained two brigades-Andrew Porter's and Burnside's; Heintzelman's third division contained three brigades -Franklin's, Willcox's, and Howard's; Runyon's fourth division was not organized into brigades; Miles's fifth division contained two brigades - Blenker's and Davies's.

Miles's division, with Richardson's brigade of Tyler's division attached, was in reserve at and in front of Centreville. Some of it was lightly engaged on our side of Bull Run in repelling a feeble advance of the enemy.

Runyon's division was left to guard our communications with the Potomac, its advance being seven miles in rear of Centreville.

The abstract which appears on page 309, vol. ii., "Official Records of the Rebellion," and which you seem to regard as a return of McDowell's army at the battle of Bull Run, is not such, and was not prepared by me, but, as I understand, has been compiled since the war. It purports to give the strength of the "Department of North-eastern Virginia," July 16th and 17th, not of McDowell's army, July 21st.

In fact, it is not a return of General McDowell's army at the battle of Bull Run; and if used for calculating such a return, several facts should be borne in mind. First, it does not show the losses resulting from the discharge of the Fourth Pennsylvania Infantry and Varian's New York battery, which marched

to the rear on the morning of the 21st, nor the heavy losses incident to the march of the army from the Potomac; second, it embraces two regiments - the Twenty-first and Twenty-fifth New York Infantrywhich were not with the army in the field; and third, it contains the strength of Company E, Second United States Cavalry, as a special item, whereas that company is embraced in the strength of the second (Hunter's) division, to which it, with the rest of the cavalry, belonged.

In his report of the battle (p. 324, vol. ii., "Official Records of the Rebellion") General McDowell says he crossed Bull Run "with about eighteen thousand men." I collected information to that effect for him at the time. His statement is substantially correct. The following is an exhibit in detail :

[CONFEDERATE.

EDITOR OF THE CENTURY MAGAZINE.

SIR: I take pleasure in handing you an accurate statement of the forces on the Confederate side engaged in the battle of the 21st of July, 1861, known by some as the Battle of Bull Run and by others as that of Manassas. So far as the troops of Beauregard's immediate Army of the Potomac are concerned, my present statement is condensed from two that I prepared with the sub-returns of all the commands before me as the adjutant-general of that army, Sep

tember 25th, 1861, and I can assure you of its exactness. Copies of the original papers prepared at that date will be found on page 568, Series 1, Vol. II., "Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies." In respect to the Army of the Shenandoah (Johnston's), I have been obliged to present an estimate, my authority for which is a statement written by me in the official report of the battle, and based, as I distinctly recollect, upon official documents and returns in my hands at the time, of the accuracy of which I was and am satisfied.

638

16

18,053

NEW YORK, October 4, 1884.

Poetry made Practic.

(WITH APOLOGIES TO MR. STEDMAN.)

THE leaves are gettin' sere,
The green is growin' gray;
It's been a tryin' day

At turnin' o' the year.

My spritely little fire,

It frisks it brisk as though
It sort o' seemed to know

A heart could kind-a tire.

I'll hasp that swingin' blind,
And pull the curting down;
It's most too fur to town
Ag'in a nippin' wind.

Old Rover and the houn',
Each flame at sich a rate
A-dancin' to his mate,一
They've nothin' to't in town.

I reck'n I better read

A bit o' poetry

A tech of love, may be,

To keep from goin' to seed.

Hello, what's this chap at?
"The Doorstep," eh. That's right;
Not quite a doorstep night,
This 'ere, but what o' that?

Hold on - he's not there yet.
The snow all crispy - good!
'Twixt "tippet" an' the "hood "
There's suthin' up, I'll bet.

Her "hand outside her muff"-
She's fixin' plaguy quick;
Well, now, that is jess slick
A-hold on't! That's enough.

He knowed jest how things wuz
With country folks, I see; -
Dern slumpy poetry

Onless a feller does.

Well said-I do declare!

The "old folks," "ringlets," "moon,"

He's stickin' to the tune,

And must be almost there.

A fiddle on his "sister"!

Ef he should up and blunder

No, by the jumpin' thunder!

He has he's kissed her!

That's poetry. - Down there, houn'!

It aint so very late;

I'm goin' to strike my gait;

Yes, sir, I'm off to town.

An' Mr. Pote- Git Rover!

Ef it would be amusin',

I'll prove by me and Susin

Jest "who can live youth over"!

But woe to him who rashly now repeats
The measure of a Goldsmith or a Keats!
One form, and only one, could serve him worse
Let no live poet venture on blank verse.

The roundel - the Provençal roundel - try,
That dazzles oft the editorial eye.
You say it's artificial, cramped, my lad?
Take care! I said so, and they called me mad.

The sonnet that was used in ages dark,
For songs of love, by Shakspere and Petrarch,
Is now appropriate to any theme -
Cant, metaphysics, bricks and mortar, steam.

Oh, not for you the grandeur and the glow,
The language that poetic poets know;
But rather word-confectionery make-
Heap sugar flowers upon a spongy cake.

If you've originality, disguise it;

Be sure that Aristarchus would despise it. Keep off the grass! Remember poor old Walt! Be insignificant, and shun his fault.

John Vance Cheney.