The New York herald., 1851-11-06

spring, and adapt his apparatus to the eircun.
stances Of the moment.
The main line, thus arranged, with its delicate
receiving magnet and its short recording circuit at
each extremity, made provision for interme-
diate or collateral stations. But as it had been
found desirable in practice to distribute the bat
teries in which the electric fluid was generated,
different parts Of the line, so as to reinso
the energies the csrrent in its progress it
almost obvious suggestion to connect. at these Sc
veisl points receiving magnet of adjustable cha
ractes, either with the main line or with the bat
terry forming part of it, and to attach to this re-
ceiving magnet local registering circuit, or
branch circuit leading to one or more collateral
Such understand to be Mr.. Morses local or in
dependent cir suit His patent of 1885, as re-issued
in lSiS, claims il in these words -
"The employment in q certain telegraphic cir
cult, Of device contrvance called the receiving
magnet, in combination with short local indepen-
dent circuit or circuits, each having register and
registering magnet or other magnetic contrivances
for registering, and sustaining such relation to
the regHtering magnet or other contrivances for
registering, and to the length of circuit Of tele-
graphic line, as will enable me to obtain, with the
Intervention Of local battery and circuit such
tion or power for registering as could not be OBJ
tanned otherwise without the use of a much larger
| galvanic battery, If at all. -
That the local or independent circuit, as we have
described it, and as it is more urately and per-
haps mere intellgibly set out by Mr. Morse, in his
specification, was original with him, cannot be
riousy questioned. The devices referred to in the
patents Of Cooke, and Wheatstone, and Davy, are
at best imperfect notifications Of the combine
series of Mr. Morses first patent; one OF them not
| improbably borrowed from it. The adjustible re-
ceivipg magnet, the indispensable and Characters
tic element of the local circuit patent, no one has
claimed but himself.
1t is only.s make the first approach to con.ro-
| versy this point, to prove to that Professor
Henry had, as early as 1928, made the intensity
magnet, with which the scientific world is now
faIniliar-or tha, he afterwards and before Mr..
Morses FIRST application for apaten, had illustrated
before his class at Princeton the manner in which
one circuit could operate 20 hold another closed
to break IL at pleasure that be had foreseen the
applicability Of his discoveries to the purposes Of a
telegraph. The question is not one Of scientific
precedence; and If it were, this is not forum that
| could add TO or detract from the eminent fame Of
| Mr. Henry. Il is purely question of invention,
applied in practical form to specific use; and SO
| regarded, il admits but Of q single answer.
| In passing from the questions Of originality and
identity ofinvention thar have been raised in the
cause, without detailed review of all the tes
tim0ry, there is occasion, perhaps, for an explana
| tory remark. 1t is this the decree Of a Judge
| finds its appre pirate and only justification in the
| facts proved before him, not in theories however
ingenious the less speculative inferences OF other
minds and where the essential facts Of a case are
as clearly established they here, it would be
Improbable we'll as painfal to discuss the parti
culars of variance between the witnesses. There is
no place in which the evidence of scientific men upon
topics within their own departments of kno Wedge,
is to be de sired than in this Court, VIXEN SIT
ting for the trial Of patent causes and the opinions
also of such men, when duly supported by reason
ipgs founded ascertained fact, must Of course be
valued highly. But il is mis- Jake to suppose that,
even a question Of science, opinion can be dgni-
fed here elsewhere with the mantle Of authority.
Still less allow IL TO avail Us here, when il
assumes contested sa,ts or volunteers to aid US in
determining the imp portant written instruments
! These remarks are not dictated by spirit of un-
kinds or uncoarteOus commentary on the deposl-
| hafor NNa Ennu hat tvuhe min ia
tive il is not always easy to limit its range. There
| is besides very much Of accurate scientific history,
and OF just and we'll guarded deduction from it, in
these two volumes ofcxhibits. But it must be con-
fesed also that there is to be found here and there
not little ofimperfectly considered dogma, well
as something of doubtfuly regulated memory-and
has seemed to as, In this case as well as in some
| others, that the toll and expense and excitement
| of litigation might have been moderated perhaps,
if the appropriate tone and province Of testimony
had been more exactly understood by some of the
| witnesses
The objections which have been taken to the
terms of the re- issue of Mr. Morses patent Of 1916,
may be answered By simple reference to that part
of our opinion in which We have considered the ar
! guments Of the same character that were urged
against the patent of 1910.
| 1t ia beyond controversy that the local circuit
patent has been infrnged upon a. some of the sta
tions of the respondents line and it is the opinion
Of the court, that it is also violated whenever the
branch circuit Of Mr.. Rogers is employed. We
have not been able to the asserted difference in
principle between the two devices. Both are equal
| ly well described as branch as local circuits.
They have the same purpose they effect it by the
same instiumentalty, even in appearance to great
| degree and they seem to vary only in this-that
the one derives its electric fluid from battery placed
within the line Of the main circuit the other, from
! q battery placed without it. The change may be
for the better, il may not II it be- it Is patenta
bic as improvement; but it cannot be used, with
out Mr. Morses license, until after his patent has
expired.
I'll. The third patent is for the chemic al telegraph
We do not propose to enter the discussion of this.
The subject Of it is clearly within the original pa
tent Of Mr.. Morse, If We have correctly spprehended
the legal Interpretation and effect Of that instru-
ment We win only say that we do not hold it to
have been nvaidated by the decision of the learned
| Chief Justice Of the District Of Columbia, on the
| question Of interference. The form Of the two
chimes before were not the same and the leading
principle OF both having been already appropriated
and secured by the Magnetic Telegraph patent of
$50, nothing remained but form, to be the subject
Of interference.
The course for the omplainants will be pleased
to prepare for the consideration Of the court the
draught Of decree In accordance with the prayer
Of their bill.
Counsel for complainants- Hon. Amos Kendall,
| George Clifford, st. George T. Campbell, aud Geo
| Harding, Esqs For respondents-Wm. M. Mere
! dith, k. II. Gillette, VIM. Schley, and Peter Nc
Call, Esqs.
The counsel we're directed to draw up decree in
accordance with this opinion.
|
The Decision Of Judge Wosdbsry, at Boston.