New York City, Feb. 10, 1900.
To the Editor:
I read with much interest your editorial on page 372 of The Journal for February 10, with the above title, and I asked myself the question, why was not the act of the "enterprising drug firm" that "printed 120,000 reprints of a paper by a well-known author and sent them broadcast to the profession" a meritorious act?The author contributed something new and valuable to medical science. The "enterprising drug firm" aided in diffusing that knowledge more generally to the medical profession for whom it was intended by the author. The publication of the paper without copyright made it public property. The author might have copyrighted it and made money by its sale, but he evidently did not care to do so, for he contributed it freely to science. Your editorial states that "the enterprising drug firm" was interested in the