The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-12-21

0Iau
would make thirty one years, or three year more haa
double the length OF time Tor which bis patent would run
For this reason with Others, preferred and st prefer
special court having power TO Try the validity OF patent
the decision to be conclusive 10 the validity OF the
patent in all suits arising in the circuit courts, thai
hose courts should onyry the question OF inirAEsusn,
OF the patent ststs ,,a,. a
do not propose now TO debate this question further
in,ended TO show the senator, very briefly that in making
bench he was mistaken The authority OF Justice Story
and Judge Kane certainly sustain me in the position
took He must dispose d them hrsi hs must show me
that my teachers were wrong he will not easily con.
vince the Senate that they were peudiced against the
Mr.. TURNEY. had no desire TO have an ,ssos with
the honorable senator IRON Mississippi nor have I Al.
tempted TO make any Issue between him and myself on
legal question But he says that to pursue the policy
ns 4. sSs y year e have The
did not say there could be but one suit time that
depends upon the discretion OF the Paenee himself He
may have as many suits as he chooses il he chooses
to have but oneand il is his right to stop at that and
put an end 10 litigation --he can do But he have
as many as he wants he can sue as many people he
pleases 49, aAf
Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi. Will the gentleman al.
low me TO ask question: Unanswered his argument be.
fore and now he Is running of into another view OF the
subject wish to ask him this question how, il the
patent is nirnged in hiTty-one States and the patenee
was to sue each OF the nfngers in each Of the States
ne No aou T 9s Y Two Places =, ne e, same time
he sues two menone in Tennessee, and the other in the
State OF Mississippi-they return their suit against
hun by their sore tacids II he sees that he cannot be in
two places al the same tme let him not in two suits
at the time in different States Bat that does not
bear at al upon my argument Now, as to the argument
OF his Judge that argument 50 lar as i has bearing
upon the question: isdecidedy in my favorthat 10, for
limiting the number OF suits He goes on to illustrate
the argument that he may bring his for infringement
os Ii he loses his sa hs ss
another man the next day II he gain the suit that iudg
ment is not conclusive between him and anybody
else. Now, what further does the Judge do ls-Why
he takes another DOkitIOn that i do m with
him in--that is. general argument against Jury
trial. We have not discussed that yet This trial
by jury is a right fixed and settled by our con-
stution; | need not discuss il. That Judge can
not alter 1t; this Congress cannot alter il for him.
am glad they cannot for believe in the jury trial. And
what popularity is there about patent case more
than about any other species of law sus Some OF them
may be rather intricate some OF them may require great
deal OF sciences and so, N every other branch Of the
law requiring that science of peculiar char
acter should be studied but does that prove that jury
is not capable Of passing upon II So am afraid that
II: ~s ~ ms, sysn III
And there not judicial tribunal in America capable Of
revising the decisions OF the Commissioned Your Com.
missioner of Patents appointed upon account OF
his partisan political services; and yet your Supreme
Court are incapable OF revising his decision Now, |
think the Supreme Court are better qualified 10 revise the
decision OF the Commissioner than the Commissioned him
self TO make the decision in the first place, the
President to select proper to be Commissioner
have more confidence IN the judicial tribunals of our
country than to suppose that they not competent
and capable OF passing their judgments upon questions Of
this sort as the Commissioner Of Patents is There
must be some check upon them; there must be some
vising power. af3
According to the view taken by the senator from Mis-
slssipp. who is sued Tor infringement of patent
would not be permitted 10 Sc, up in defence that the
patent improperly obtained by fraud; that ii lacked
novelty lacked utility, lacked everything that makes il
valuable and useful. am opposed 10 thus leaving The
whole matter 70 the present or any other Commissoner
and have little confdenc In the present asalmos
any other that could be appointed opposed to making
the act of any Commissioners final and conclusive am
Tor leaving 70 court as heretofore and il Is sought
change seek to change for the better entertain
the opinion that the Senate capable of legslang upon
this subject; they are capable OF making laws for thai
branch OF the public service. II they not,
sututon wrong and there ought be aseparae Con
gress for the adjudication oil those which
mysterious as not 10 be capable OF being understood by
OF legslang upon the snbjectthe courts of justice
capable OF trying these causes although they may involve
some very nice questions OF mechanism, &c These CUES
tons come up before the courts any how--not only In
patent but also in of murder and various Other
descriptions Of cases constantly brought before coua
Mr.. SEWARD. | labor under some difficulty IN
speaking upon this question. because my knowledge Of
the BID 10 very imperfect; and ind that, in the copy he
fore the sections not ARRANGED 10 enable me
understand the precise bearing OF the amendment now
under consideration II apprehend correctly, The efecd
Il Is this that whenever any paenee or assignee oil
patent shall bring suit for infringement. shall be The
right OF the defendant in that action 10 out writ Of
sCe fdeias against the paentee, and make all parsons In
terested in the patent parties to try the validity Of The
patent in the court where the original suit shall have been
commenced lha suppose 10 be Inc eject IN paIt. And
further, whenever the defendant shall have sued ont the
WI: OF sere tdeas, then the original action commenced
by the palentee assignee shall be stayed until the decs
ION shall have been had upon the scue faeas involving
The validity of the patent Now. viii confne my re-
marks present TO this principal feature oil the question
do moi see the advantage which Is 70 be gained in the
administration OF justice by the process that is thas pro
posed What difference make either pariyl The
original action involves the validity OF the PATENT and
The seire Jaei involves the same question OF the validity
Of the patenthe title OF the paenee 10 his invention
The judgment is the same ia both cases. The judg
nent The in its effect upon the patent, upon
The question of the validity Of the patent The san
faeas may give further remedies for the benefit OF Other
parties the judgment may repeal the patent, and thus
may preclude The plaintiff from further action. Now,
what Is there that the plaintiff should be converted
into defendant every time that he shall find his nven
uon plrated upon by any other person. What justice
there IN deprvng HIM OF the advantages OF being the a
Tor, and making him the respondent do not see any
Above ALL why should he lose the entire protection Of bic
patent pending the litigation, and be obliged TO hazard Al
On the event OF single suit where the defendant hazards
only the amount in controversy
But, again, there may be, if not many actions,
there may be as many wits pending al the same tine
here defendants called into court 10 for avo
atIon OF the patent There no limitation 10 The ngh
Of the defendant TO bring in writ OF seie fatds NOW
then, there will be actions the FIRST place, there
can be no more actions, than the paenee or assgnees
BRING There be in The other case II this amendment
be adopted, Just many suits pending there are ci
IN his writ OF seire Jaeas All that can sDm
accomplished is that the plaintiff 10 converted into ms
defendant, aud the defendant converted into the pam
lid.
Mr.. TURNKEY II the senator from New York viii
permit, will make one suggestion to him. lie saysww