New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-02-06

Lrrdred thousand dollars year. or even ns,, 'ax.
hun \, h q moor answer TO his CLAIM 10, an On
sam, - that he has received eight tnou'
tensoSS oIIsrs an answer which few, except the
sano Of these charges, would ever think oil pre-
signers Oh 'neso
sen.Ipe .ererth and tenth charges aege that Onsi
-. nstept was illegally extended for the oeehn'
Igres.signees, and not az the law contelnPlA'e''
-. she benefit of the inventor. r.
tol h r suficent 20 state that the facts OF
~ we're decided according to the evloence'
tne NOT according to the statements Oh Mr; LAY
All H. oosdiutors But no sucn lacts as aueBeo
snu ~ arore nroved. If Mr.. Chafee had made a
ncrtr.ct for the sale Of the extendeo PsIent
~ he hoped he will receive the vaiae OF ms con
,v,ct which will be for bis own dement, ~ III %
srceiyed by the examination OF tns a'S s:S
PaSL, The counsel of the opposers that they ala
,oof rrstepd there any ground tor tue alIega,
ION In this charge, which, it substanuated' wouie
have defeated the extensnh :. :.
In rec ard to this ACT oil the OOrnlnlssloHol ~ =
due TO him to state that Enis case "a: un :; ths
sss.rded by the examiners and all others 10 the
- ssmilisr with the facts, as q remarkably
clear case for exte nsion' o.,
Tts e;ghh charge alleges that the Commission
had not read the testimony, arguments, &c. IN
the case prior to granting the extension
III the facts were as charged II Would IMPLY n4
neelect of duty. The frat section OF the act OF
report of the case from the examiner, and " there
upon" grant or refuse the extension &c S9cn
a report was furnished by the examiner, ana IL
Ueuld have been perfectly legal and proper 10
grant the extension "thereupon, as the law au
fborizes YOU to do. But know the allegation 10
be utterly false, as l spent many days with you
at the same table, reading with you, and for you'
and otherwise aiding you, while you were max
inc notes of the testimony in this case. / know,
therefore, that you did examine the case with the
almost care.
TEe ninth charge alleges that the Commissioner
in the N after followed neither the laws, rules nor
the practice of the Patent Office.
In relation to this charge can state, having
had the case constantly under my own charge du-
ring its Bendency that the whole proceedings on
the part of the office were perfectly lar, and vio-
lated neither the law, the rules, nor the practce
of the Office. Some new points arose In the case,
which were disposed Of in the absence OF rules, In
tbe poost impartial manner; and | can safely re-
lark that no honest man in the trade, or acquant-
ed with the subject denies that Chafee is the first
inventor of the improvement patented to him, or
pretends that the compensation he received tor 1t
bore any reasonable proportion to its value.
In conclusion, l will remark that the testimony
In this case rendered il perfectly clear that Chat
fee was the first inventor OF the improvement pa
tented TO him that the invention was vastly I'M.
Dortapt and useful to the public and that he had
failed, in consequence Of circumstances beyond
his control to obtain fair remuneration Tor MS
invention and was therefore clearly entitled under
The statute to an extension Of his patent; and !
NAV add that the opposition to the extension has
come almost exclusively from those whofo years
have been pirating the invention.
Respectfully submitted, L. d. GALE, Examiner
Hon THOs. EWBANK, Commissioner Of Patents.
ps 1t will be perceived thai the rules for taking test-
fony In gated cases before this Office require the party
10 gre noice 70 the oposHg party Of the time and place OF
taking same and In order that the applicant or ne
extension may give this notice; is necessary that be
should knov who the opposing party IT, As no case mac
previously occurred requiring rule on this point the SUD
ect had seen overlooked by your predecessor ana no
rule found An order was therefore adopted 20 meet
the EFFICIENCY that the opposing party should, woln
reasonable time notify The Office Of his intention 10 oppose
and Of grounds OF opposition, and that ue ePpCAu
should be informed OF the same that he might know 10
whom notice should be sent IN taking testimony FOR
without notice the testimony, according TO the pre-
existing rules would be raed out The course thus pur-
eued 10 too obviously fair 10 Justify comment =,
With this single exception the case was conducted W. az
vespecfs in ordinary way and precisely In
with rules where they existed and 10 accordance WIN me
e in analogous cases where rules had been provided
i.ayey case dn Chafess fg extension e hds neser been
v Io 10 eramiHe The papsble fasehoods ana msrePre
sensations contained he Sges 100 numerous 70 De
noticed here But many Of them noticed In pehc anu
subsequently, linked the margin OF the printed copy
They are The came those which went the ROUNDS OF ne
hases CO &c was under consideration and which were al
The same time pressed upon the Senate by every means
could invent L. d. g.. Fix.