The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-02-14

To The Editor Of the linton

ia. ~ssdvvs~sA Patent.
To the Editor Of the linton
The Hon Mr.. Burke, in an article published In the
Uason OF the sih instant IN reply 10 my former eommu
assertion that he had as error
which had occurred in the reissue thereof but says
clerical error. and that The CORRECTION OF u dd
imply appreciation by him OF the reissue Tie fur-
Their says that until three years after be knew
nothing OF the circumstances oi The Iessue and noahng
OF the previous action OF the office IN relation 10 IT. and
denies that he ever did approve OF the reissue and charges
it to have been frsudalen He also adds as follows
IAN say is that II had been present the time.
ONCE D IN psslsnos 10 H. should have peis,ed il 10
have been reissued" & H
In saying that Mr.. Burke both knew OF the circum.
sustained by his admissions, made while he was
acting Commissioner II his opinion has undergone
change now, is not amiss that the reader should be
made acquainted with the tendencies OF his own mind
and the bias under which he writes Having already
volunteered his testimony in the form OF an afhdav,
which has been printed and extensively citSS Ts
through the country with view to prejudice the Wood
worth patent and uphold the cause OF those who infringe
it. he may well desire TO sustain what he has sworn 10
On the 2Oth Of October 1885, the reissued patent con-
tanning the error referred returned accompanied
BY letter from me to Mr. Burke with re3nes. Una. Ins
letter addressed 10 him. advising MN tnat exception
had been taken in court to the act OF Mr. Sylvester who
had signed the ressned patent as acting Commissioner
To these letters Mr. Burke made the following replies
UNITED srArxs PATENT OFFicx, Oct. q, lsb.
SIN have received your letter OF the ooh. and have
sd T q s and Of the
acting Commissioner, with the seal OF mis- oics Axsd to
am pie evidences Of his official character and more pacn
lary had reference been made 10 the law Of Congress
org anizng this office IN 1850 #Hsa 1
1920 EDMUND BURKE
Commissioned OF Patents.
j. @ WILSON. ESD Albany. n. Y.
70 IJrrrrp SrATss PATENT OsrIcE Oct "a 1915
sra, Your letter Of the 10th, with the patent Of W. W.
Woodwork, was Iecsiyed this morning.
The which had Inadvertently occurred has been
The COW aso which was returned Ly Mr. Curtis Boston
has been corrected and him by this days mail
EDMUND BURKE,
Commissioner Of Patents
J. @. WILSON. esq. Albany. N. Y.
Before the date of this correspondence (viz the
called 10 the patent bya letter from G. Harrington. Of
New York. in which he asks for certified copies Of all
the papers and drawings in the office having relation to
the surrender and reissue OF the Woodwork patent
In answer to that letter, Mr. Burke replies as follows
PArssr orYcE, August 26. 1916
5Rs Yours of tho goth instant hand. Copies OF
the following which seem TO be all upon he ~ 70.
laon the Woodwork patent, be furnished you The
No ), speoitication and AFFIDAVIT, 0a
Commissioned Ellsworth TO Pr Jonsss letter, %
Ssh July, 1916, and all the papers and draw
ings connected with II, IA oz
SIT 3.
which please remit. IS H.
EDMUND BURKE,
w. G. HARRIsoros, esq ~ Wall street, New York
On the oath Of December. ls45, Mr. Joel Stone. j.,
who had been sued for an infringement. OF the Wood
worth patent, writes letter from Lowell to MIR. Burke
in which he made grave charges against the patent i'm
pugnng the novelty OF the invention. the validity Oh the
reissue, and of the patent ITSELF and particularly calling
MIR Buke's attention to the subject 10 tins ieer Dlr
Burke made the following reply
PATENT Orrlcs Dec ~, 1876
SR have received your letter of the Gath instant on the
,SSss % 70, on e hi. ocs
in the controversies srlsnx rom pa.eneo' .no
BE- presumed was proper act surrender Of the
old p.ssn. Of another las. summer and with
thai act the agency Of this Office ceases
Yours, respectfully, ,,,,>.,,>., prprc
Mr. JoxL sroSx, Lowell, Mass.
The reader will Judge whether have committed any
error in asserting that Mr. Burke had ample means oil
knowing at the time the patent was before him Tor
would have been fatal to il. whether have not gwen
sufficient evidence that he approved OF the whole pro-
cseding OF the office in relation 10 the reissue.
But Mr.. Burke is OF the opinion that II was re-
issued improperly, and in fraud Of the public and the
head OF the Patent Office at ,hiu time. II y certainly
somewhat extraordinary, and not a little morhylng that
profound an expounder OF the law should be found
posing bis judgment that OF ne Supreme Court OF the
United States The great value OF law 49, that should be
may know their rights, and how TO defend them But
while learned urs with the weight OF character oil an
Commissioner OF Patents, declares one opinion and
the another who is TO decide which judgment Is
safe follow Efr Burke says the reissue was I'M
proper and fraudulent So said the counsel Of Rousseau
and Easton in the case OF Wilson against them which
was tried in the Supreme Court at the February term,
isi6-a trial which occupied nineteen working days OF
the court aad in which every possible objection winch
ingenuity could frame raised ,ans this patent and
all the proceedings in relation TO IT. and when all had
been reviewed and deliberately argued. the following
question submitted. viz
Whether the lettc patent OF rene val issued to
Wood Sor shnnisrn the 9Th day oil july, lss9
the amended and explanatory drawings
then fled be good and valid in law or whether the same
be void. for uncertainty. ubiguy on multiplicity Of cs'
or any other cause -
The reply was as follows:
1.-THE court 10 satisfied spon examination OF the spec
hcations and drawing to- question certified
that IL sufficiently full md explicit, and - not snoee 10
any of tho objections ia zen to H."
JAMES g. WILSON.
LiKht-1o
To the Editor of the Union
The subject OF lighthouse Improvement has often
found place IN your columns allow to trespass upon
them now The late Congress appropriated upwards Of
huuI al al far