As to the character of the book in question, we are further enlightened by the author of a work entitled “Protestant Jesuitism, by a Protestant,” published by the Harpers in 1838. At page 34 of the book, Maria Monk’s work is described as “one of the most arrant fictions that was ever palmed upon the community,” and the author adds: “The people of this land—and it is the common attribute of human nature—love excitement, and unfortunately there are those who know how to produce it, and profit by it.” Unfortunate, indeed, it is that there are those who stand ready to profit by foul slander and malignant falsehood concerning their neighbor. Unfortunate, indeed, that men can be found who, for the sake of a few dollars, could consent to spread, broadcast upon the world, printed vilification and outrage of noble, pure-minded women, who, solely for the love of God and out of their own abundant charity, devote their lives to alleviating the sufferings of the needy, the afflicted, and the sick.
Who are they who profited by it? If we can obtain a satisfactory answer to that question, we may probably be far on the way toward solving the mystery which hovers over the existence of “Howe and Bates.”
Maria Monk’s disclosures were not all made in the book published by that somewhat nebulous firm. The most “awful” of all her “awful disclosures” were made in the dignified form of a bill in equity which she filed against her publishers, who, by their own admissions and declarations, turn out to be not “Howe and Bates,” who from this moment for ever disappear from view, but Messrs. James, John, Joseph W., and Fletcher Harper.
The bill filed for discovery and account against the defendants as booksellers and publishers by Maria Monk, a minor, through her next friend, shows that complainant was authoress of a work which she had copyrighted and stereotyped, and that said stereotype plates were paid for by her with money belonging to her, and that she was liable for any balance unpaid; that after the copyright had been so taken out, the said plates got into the possession of the defendants, and that they had published the work under the title of “Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk, as exhibited in a narrative of her sufferings during a residence of five years as a novice, and two years as a black nun, in the Hôtel Dieu at Montreal.” Further, that she was a minor, was entirely unacquainted with the modes of doing business, that she believed that persons professing to be her friends had made some bargains for her in relation to said work, that this was known to the defendants, and yet they pretended to take out another copyright of the same work in the District of Massachusetts, and published
a large number of impressions from the plates, and issued the book; and that they had large profits in their hands which belonged to the complainant.
Prayer that the said James, John, Joseph W., and Fletcher Harper make full statement, etc., and deliver over all sums of money and property, with account of sales and amount received for same.
We have had occasion to see that the proprietors of the Journal of Civilization are fiercely patriotic. And they were so, long before that civilizing journal was founded. Their first impulse on receiving a copy of this latest “awful disclosure” by Maria Monk was an impulse of patriotism, of indignation that a foreigner should presume to expect copyright protection in the United States. Thrice is he armed who has statutory law, patriotism, and an act of Congress upon which to fall back, and the defendants, in such panoply as that, straightway filed a demurrer.[147] Maria Monk’s copyright was first issued and had precedence of seniority, but respondents demurred, first and principally, on the ground that “the complainant did not show herself to be a citizen entitled to take out a copyright.” The demurrer also set up other matters in avoidance.
In deciding the case, the Vice-Chancellor closed the delivery of his opinion by saying: “It [the bill] does not show any privity of contract or dealing between the parties; no agreement expressed or implied by which the defendants can be held to account to the complainant for the profits of the work. It rather shows
that, by fraud or wrong, the defendants obtained possession of the stereotype plates, and, altering the title of the book to that of Awful Disclosures, etc., published it in defiance of her rights. If she has sustained loss by such conduct of the defendants, she must persuade a jury to give her compensation in a verdict of damages against them, when, perhaps, the merits of her Awful Disclosures and Nunnery Unveiled, and the motives of those who have promoted and prompted the publication, will duly be considered.”
Demurrer sustained, and bill dismissed at costs of complainant.