Reply to a "Notice" of Messrs. Wiley and Putnam, publishers of the unauthorized reprint of the second part of Professor Liebig's Report on organic chemistry, published in the Boston Daily Advertiser, of August 16, and in other newspapers.

  • Webster, John White, 1793-1850.
Date:
[1842?]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Reply to a "Notice" of Messrs. Wiley and Putnam, publishers of the unauthorized reprint of the second part of Professor Liebig's Report on organic chemistry, published in the Boston Daily Advertiser, of August 16, and in other newspapers. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the National Library of Medicine (U.S.), through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the National Library of Medicine (U.S.)

    6/12
    ment was made to Professor Liebig, or the translator; but all the evidence is wholly the other way. So much for the foundation of the assertion that Professor Liebig was paid for his Report, and that it was generously given, by the British Association, to the world. To return to the Abstract of Dr. Playfair. It was, no doubt, prepared from the German original; not from Dr. Gregory's translation. Of this abstract, the editor of the Cambridge edi- tion had been already informed by Dr. Gregory, in one of his letters. The abstract was read on the 24th of June. Messrs. Wiley and Putnam positively assert, that the book (that is, Dr. Gregory's translation), was not, and could not be published, until the 24//i of June. This it is not necessary now to dispute ; it may, however, be worth while to state, that a medical friend, being in London, actually purchased a copy at open sale on the 23d! But, even admitting that what Messrs. Wiley and Putnam say is correct, how could Dr. Playfair have found time to read, much less to study, the book in its English dress, to write his abstract and to read it on the very day of publication ? He had obviously made use of the German original. Further- more, on the 30th of June, Dr. Gregory writes ; The new work has been received in Germany with enthusiasm. The work, then, must have been published in Germany, before the time, when only (according to Messrs. Wiley and Putnam), it could have been published, not in London alone, but in the world, namely, June 24th. But it seems it had been published on the continent, had been read and admired, and sufficient time had elapsed for Dr. Gregory to learn that it had created a sensation in Germany. Messrs. Wiley and Putnam undertake to decide, that Professor Liebig had no power to authorize the republication of his work any where. This they infer from their previous assertion, that it had been purchased from him by the Association. Having shown, that there could have been no purchase, this inference has no foundation. Besides, by a standing Rule of the Associ- ation, even had the work been purchased by the Association, the author might have retained his right of property in it, and his