Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-08-14
PATENTs-BITTEAUX.& SC.

to convince every man Of common under
standing
PATENTS-BATTEAUX sc.
The facility with which patents are procured for
pretended as we'll real Inventions has been objected
to In many parts oithe Union, exposing tho commit
nifty 10 the veNationS and exorntant denasl. Of in
ventors and their agents Although the patent laws
are founded in good policy, and contain guards
against lmpositiOns although tLcy provi''- Cor The
rEvccaons OF patents, surreptitiously oht mcd, dul
aloN the cltZen every :eGus OF detnce n RESISTING
the demands Of paientees yet they deective in
warSin9 ateEt to every applicant who pay the
lee % % 10 Ike government, and viii tSe certain
Ot'i. patent issUing under these Conditions
coniers right nIrGTSs individuals. ,sho ere Rai al
ways competent 20 defend themselves and i compe-
tent, are not always prepareto dspfove The o9oiIi
ay .. the invention discovery.U nder sscn cir
substances, the iteH is To he taken grind Gc'e
eyldcace oil the Justice OF The patontces claim. inIs
patent may he successfully resisted in one state and
enforced in another.
We submit the question: " hctaer or not il would be
a1ahdonnl security To require that the Secretary oi
Stale shouLgiv pulic roticc ofeach app. alton for
piinG i.id allie" ndiHi'uhls 20 tS ~ s oincc; co
Ter statements supported y evidence. IN ti,e nature of
ctre@ Ii theingenton could he disproved war!d ne
is moGe bring forth hii proof nj oRcc, and the
enba'rtSmcn1s watch individuals would iabouF under
/ IN resisting u uatcnt imnrOVi,lcnuy granted
we have neither lime space at present, to nm
sue dos suhcct tari'crihe above remarks grew out
OF Tie fact ;it the heirs aId dsriSss of Anthony and
Benjamin RpCkcr ~. The county of Amherst, i e l. Ken
out patent iorNshat is commonly called tlie JGrscs
| RIVER Baucau Poat. fl.cy not only demand that
those woo use The Boat in future should pay hcn a
certain price bat that such as have boats and refuse
To pay, ahoaid discontinue the of hem. We have
no ea that any viii pay these demands unil COM
PEELED by Judicial decision do 50. The boat has
been III use on iiie James and AP?nmatoS rivers foe
more than thirty years. During THAI period ii has been
improved upon several times, aad no ono ever heard
Ola tte1 unti! lately. The I'd Section OF The act OF
| Congress passed in iI93 may have been considered
applicable to the sulicct--t declares " that sm0ly
! oin Eaxo
or composition Of BWtsr, ia any degree, shall be
deemed Il discoyery.' What is the Batteau IN ques-
tons, but the long boat OF SHIP, somewhat" cha ged
| III ia form AID proportions
| We woad suggest TO the of Boats who doubt
the validity the patent 10 apply tie district court
OF 'he United States for its repeal revocation is
not Tie Smes lsNcr Company sufficiently Interested
~ TIE SUBJECT 10 make the application themselves ,
| ltmigh save nnc! vcSalion 10 individuals, and woad
perhaps Pnt the matter sooner to rest.
| The Philadelphia Franklin Gazette casts a
! stone at the Norfolk Herald, and Washington
| City Gazette-says it has become lashiOn1-
bic with one or two papers in the states south
of Pennsylvania to inveigh with acrimony l.
sainst the Judiciary ofthc Onion"-denies TIE
charge OF advocating federal principles
vouches for- the federal Judiciary, that IL is
not to bc shaken by all the raeingrocks and
shivcrins shocks" flhe mock Hampdcns and
Sidneys, who so lahoriously and with so much
! dizziness I'll the columns Cf certain news a
| pcrs. "-We Gisdain any ret0rt: but no writers
hive ever graced IFS columns, who were fit
to " mOose tiio latchet" OLA. Sidney's Shoe
style, however, is one thing principle is an
| other.-Now, the Gazette takes a short cut TO
ylndicatc both the court, aud Itself:
" The point u; issue is, had the supreme court jy
risdictiOn2 The Judicial power, YOU viii ob,er'
S,W extent 10 III c,Hes arising under the hiCS NJ Tie
| URi'ed Sttes." Well not the case Of The BANK
| aud branches "a under line tFp
| Uaitcd Stues Most undoubtedly /; was, inaamuch
| as the bank was Instituted BY aCt of congress.
Was not the ease ofthe lottery tickets case arising
| under the laws Of the United States Beyond dis
pnc it because the lottery itself sanctioned
by an act OF congress. That She supreme court had
jurisdiction dc elorc Is clesr ano il thc judges had
not entertained si.c question: uhcu ECy were brought
! before them, obey would base been frrswoyn.
% We are Jealous Of real state rights the loud
esi brafler among lie whole Of tie ca'.i!cr3. Bu,
en can the states have particular rights against the
pcrcmptory inucons ol the constitution OF the T..
! States When thai constitution says the supreme
court sioi have Jurisdictions, can the states viuly
| say they shall net P'
{ Admirable logician But suppose The act
Of Congress should not be il conformity with
tn Constitution, is il still enough TO say, il H.
the law OF The Z. s.; and therefore It must be
enforced z" Suppose law passed hy Con-
gress TO give the federal court jurisdiction in
eases of debt between citizens Of the same
state, IS It enough to say: Gu it is the law;
and jurisdiction mustthercfore be entertained"
Because tIis seGihon law vas a law Of the u.
! $. must The courts therefore enforce It and
I. il they 90, must the citizens fold their arms,
and say Oh il is thc low and the courts
have acted under it, And if state be dag
ged il contrary 20 the constitution, before
the federal court, under an act Of Congress IS
it the part Of q Republican TO submit in ST.
lcnce The Gazette takes really short cui
70 establish jurisdiction. alt is the law !" and
therefore let the court have Jurisdiction +; and
the states soy nothing about it. The Ring
ha;h said Therefore LET us obey it.--As Cor
he Gazette we will do IL fhe Justice 10 say.