Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-01-10

-
sh"nld b. ali0wed.)
The question being on ordering the bill to
be rng'"ssrd for third reading as amended, |
Mr.. Webster said, that, on the introduction
of this bill to the House, few days ago, hr |
had stated the reason for proposing this bill, |
to be, that, though the law limited the recovery
OF COST, in the courts Of the United States, in
general cases, To suits involving an amount
not less than 500 dollars, there was proprie,y
at reduction of the minimum in the case of
suits by Patentees, because it was supposed TO
he matter of necessity for the patentee TO sue
IN the Federal Courts. An honorable mem
Der had, on former OCCASION, suggested that
the State Courts have jurisdiction in cases of
this description; but, MIR. w. said, if the
honorable member would refer to the law, he
would see that the act of Congress which
creates the right prescribes the remedy, and
provides that the patentee may sue for it an
The Circuit Courts ofhe United States, and
under that phraseOlogy it was presumed that
he could not sue elsewhere than in those
courts.
! Mr.. Buchanan had objections to the whole
bill. What, asked he, is the law in the case
OF patentees rs it now stands most extra
| ordinary distinction over other clients is made
M their favor by granting them Judgment for
three times the amount of damages awarded
by jury. And what does the bill, now be-
fore the House, propose to do in favor of those
favored individuals To superadd costs To
that triple verdict. He would ask, whether
such measure is right /; whether it is polite {;
whether II is Just He thought il would br
neither. He thought it far better to let the
law remain as it now stands. What had been
the history OF this country on the subject Of
patent rights Ii was known TO all, that the
privilege granted by the patent law, had been
extensively dffuseG through the Union. The
number patents actually issued was very
great the number pretended To he enioyed
was greater still. Impositions were multiplied
In some districts of the Union very large
amsunts of money had been collected from
such as were afraid of the expense of "A law
SUIT, ny persons claiming to have patent for
the use or manufacture of certain articles {:
and after they had gone through whole
region, thus practising On the fears or igno-
rance Of the inhabitants, it turned out, when
AL last some one had hardihood enough to.
contest their claim, that they had no right {
all. This was especially the case in those
s,ates which were of extensive size, and the
distance from the Circuit Court occasion.d
toI mldable expense in resorting to trial The
claimant brings patent in his hand, and thus
has prima tace evidence of the validity of his
RICH, he asks, perhaps, but eight or ten dol
lars for the article who would not rather nav
|
two hnndved miles, To the Circuit Court, talk
inS witnesses with him, at the risk, il he fails.
OF having treble damages TO pay, and, if this
bill passes, costs to boot He could scarce
conceive OF measure better calculated TO
enable designing men to roam ut large and
prey upon the community. He thought. for
his part, that the law was already hard enough.
IL gave already enormous advantages to the
patentee over his opponent; and if costs were
t" he superadded, it destroyed all prospect of
successful contest. Costs il must he remem-
bered, are, in their nature, very interminate
their amount might increase To such sum az
would ruin man. To be sure, the amend.
ment now reported makes the bill better, so
lar as 1t goes: but, even under the bill, as
amended, if a patentee does but obtain a
verdict for 34 dollars, he gets his costs also
| allowed him. because triple the verdict runs
over 100 dollars, and brings him within the
provisions of the bill. Is it not proper, asked
MIR. Is. that the pretended patentee shall first
4 be made to establish his right before his op-
ponent is threatened with triple damages and
costs He thought the law should at least he
left unatered for himself, he felt more dis
posed To curtail than To extend it,
MIR Lvrrmore said, that, at first, he had
viewed the object and provisions Of the present
bill as proper and expedient but, on farther
reflection, he had seen reason to alter that
opinion. He thought, however, that the fault
the system did not lie so much in that
feature of it which allowed costs where
damages over 100 dollars were obtained,
but IN that which previously allowed the verdict
OF the jury to be tripled. Why sheuld not
suItors under the patent law be placed on the
same footing with other suitors The aItera-
lion he wished to prevail was to repeal the
treble damages and allow costs in all Cases.
But if it should be deemed improper To alter
that provision, then he thought that costs
should be gwen, rather where the amount was
under 500 than over that sum. If a verdict
was Obtained for $40 and frp!ed the adj
ditIonal $40 was not likely to be enough TO
cover the costs. He wished to see the whole
system placed under the Committee on the
Judiciary tn be remodelpd he would also
give the state courts concurrent Jurisdiction
with those Of the United States, in cases I'm
der the Patent Law.
Mr.. Webster, in reply TO Dir. Buchanan,
said, that he felt no particular anxiety on the
subject OF this bill hut, having charge Of the
bill, il seemed proper Of him to say something
in its defence. The House would rrcolect.
he said, that this whole case of patents is Ia
ken, by the law, out Of the hands of the State
Courts, the jurisdiction over it being exclu-
sively reserved 10 the Courts of the United
States. The power of legislating on this sub
Pct is taken from the States by the Consitu-
ton OG tie United States. And, Mt this time
of day. and before this Assembly. Mr.. w
said he need not argue that the right Of the
inventor is high property it is the fruit of
his mlnd-it belongs To him more than any
other property--he does not inherit it-he
takes it by no mans gift-it peculiarly be-
longs to him, and he ought To- be projected
~ the enjoyment Off Precisely as the arts
L