The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-01-12


Senate for the whole day. but had been up twice
since. This was public bill, and that was sufficient
answer.
Mr. BORLAND said that if, when the bill was read
the senator should have any objection TO il, he would
withdraw IT,
Mr. BRADBURY apprehended that he would have no
manner Of objection TO the bills but he thought that il
the Senate should break the rule this case others
would desire to take up other bills equally meritorous
and they would accomplish nothing lie hoped, as this
WAS public bill the senator would allow 1t to 10
until tomorrow morning.
Mr. FOOTE was in favor as general rule, OF follow
ing the regular order Of the calendar But IN the pres
case, ii there would be debate, he did not know
why they could not take the bill up and act upon it,
although they might be asked to take up and act upon
on oe ont p Of is orders IN a ba
causing no debate ought have the precedence under
the rules. Why should such bills be postponed merely
for the purpose of having the rule strictly observed
The question being put upon the motion to take up the
bill IT was agreed to.
The bill was accordingly considered as in committee of
the whole; when, the question being upon agreeing TO
certain amendments reported
Mr.. NILES made remark or two which the reporter
was unable to hear.
| Mr. JOHNSON OF Louisiana said that this matter was
reported upon during his absences and not knowing that
would come up to-day. he preferred TO have ii passed
by for the present, in order that he might find commu
ncaton from the Commissioned OF Pensions which he
had received, but which he had not with him and
which related TO this subject.
The bill was accordingly passed over informally
BRIG PHILADELPHIA
The bill for the elef OF the captors of the brig Phla
aelpha taken up, and read Tor the information of
Mr. DAVIS of Mississippi moved that its further con
sderation be postponed until to- morrow; which motion
was agreed to.
| CALVIN EMMoNs
| The Senate proceeded as in committee of the whole
to the consideration OF the bill for the relief OF Calvin
Emmons; which was read for the information of the
Senate.
! Mr. WESTCOTT moved to amend the bill by in
sertng the words 'the widow and heirs" Of Calvin EN-
mons, Sc, as he had died since the bill reported
which amendment agreed to.
| Mr. w. explained the bill, and stated its history
| The question being then taken amendment re-
ported from the Committee on Patents, it was agreed to
Mr. NILES said he understood the bill to be ask
ing rene val OF patent for seven years 1t was an ex
elusive right to ths invention in ahrogation of the
common rights of the community. And further, it was
asked OF us to make personal provision excluding
signees. The assignees are to make arrangements
with the patentees, TO make payment for what
they have already purchased He believed that the Sen
ate had, in all instances refused patents with
out protection TO assignees. AS he understood the
reading of the bill, he assignees make arrange
TO the federal iu ge The rights Of the assgnees were
compromised He has paid for his interest. Why are
to interfere and create rights in The patentee in
with the rights guaranteed to the assignee and
require him to make further payment? He considered
TINS an extraordinary prncple-one which had never
been sanctioned He was opposed TO the bill altogether.
There IN which Congress had allowed patents
to be extended beyond the usual period but they
cases where the patent had not been available to the in
venlors, and substantial benefit had accrued to them
Mr.. WESrCOTT said he reported this bill at last SEES
SION The report is voluminous, containing some 10 or
IL pages This case has been pending several yearsrst
presented in 1915 AT every session SINCE the report had
favorable AT the last session the House passed this
bill, and the Patent Office Committee proposed some
amendments to the bill The patent is for threshng
machine. 1t is very costly 1t cannot be used by small
farmers, account of its great cost 1t is chiefly used in
the South, in threshng ont rice, and IN those parts
OF tue country where wheat and other grains are raised
in large quantities for expectation Some of the first cit
pF he
this invention Gen. j. Hamilton, Jr, Langdon Cheves,
D. ED uger and Others have written letters since
in its favor, which are on file among the papers The
machine is chiefly of value in the South Ii interests
few others The inventor proves that he has lost
by his invention on account OF its great cost and limited
use 1t is, in my Judgment as strong case for renewal
"a has been before Congress The inventor is dead He
died poor. This bill is for his widow and heirs, as
amended, for he died since the bill passed the other
! House
AS to the objection made by the senator from Connec
tcut Mr. NILEs that this bill does not protect assignees
and others now using the invention have to say that,
in the committee and in this chamber, have uniformly
been the advocate OF the rights OF the assgnees to the
benefit of extension just and equitable terms Blu,
the Supreme Court OF the United States have decided in
at least two several cases. that under the present patent
law-l mean the act of 1S36-unless the assignment
pessly names and includes extension renewal,
tension renewal under the act OF 1886, nor under
special act of Congress renewing patent | refer
to the noted Woodwork case, and to Wilson against
| Simpson; in one of which | of counsel
| for an assignee before that court. Now, sir, acting
upon that decision this bill provides that the assignee
shall not have such benefit without he makes just COM
pensaton to the paenee for it; and it provides,
he and the patentee do not agree to what is Just
pensation, application sha be made to the judge of the
circuit court of the United States. in summary way by
petition who shall fix the sum and TERMS which it he
does agree and pay he shall not have the benefit OF
the extension So far from abridging the rights of the
assignee this bill extends them 1t gives the assignee
rights he does not have under the Supreme Court de-
clsion. -
Mr. NILES said the question whether they had a
right under their contract-a fair equitable and Just
rght-to the machine without further compensation.
Nothing could be clear than that they paid for the
whole right that the patenee had at the ime and when
that right became extended, of they, in
with everybody, had right to the machine in all
future time They expended their money the faith Of
that right; and were to give inventors additional
rights, ought not to take of the rights OF the
signeesi Mr.. N. said he had watched all these cases,
and protection had been afforded to the rights Of the
assignees The gentleman from Florida Mr. WEsrcoTTl
had talked about the extension Of the patent in this
operating against the South Than any other
section. He was opposed TO having this made
tional thing The reasons for renewing the patent
he thought very feeble STILL if the rights of the
sgnees protected, he might withdraw his objections
| 10 the bill, .,Il Ill
! Mr. PHELPS considered the bill as open to eral
objections and he doubted whether it would effect the
desired object In the first place, the bill was open TO
long in the Supreme Court This bill precisely the
language of the act OF 1886 the rights OF
and vet it was so framed that impossible TO apply
to it The construction which the applied the of
1896 That construction was, in substance that an
supee of an exclusive privilege purchased an interest
which would inure no longer than the original term
that his interest would expire with the original lml-
ton And they went further, and decided that person
who had acquired right the machinery, however
mat right might have been acquired, would retain that