The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-11-13
The Recent Telegraph Decision.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW YORK HERALD.
The late telegraph d. ision does not seem to have.
claimed the usual rigiance Of the press, and to.
have called forth their views of the justice and
equity of the finding cf The Court. I presume thi1
seeming inattenticp be attributed to the COM
PICK nature Of the case, Involving it does im.
mense amount Of evidence, which has to certain,
extent to be examined before attempting 20 en-
tighten the public Every one who has had occa-
to look into the telegrap n controversy, well as
ninetenths Of the scientific of the present days
will agree as to the manifest injustice Of the dec
sion of Judge Kane, decision most certainly I'M
looked for, and not rendered upon the facts Of
the case. l will not ind fault with the length Of
the decision but it is composed--not of citations
from the evidence and the sacts-but seems q labor
ed argument to prove that he, Judge Kane, offered
il opinion frem other Judges to the extent Of the
fexbity of the patent la VS. to cover reissues, dis
Chalmers, ard extended claims that, in fa:., ho
was not disposed to regard the law as il stands,
but s he thinks it Intended it should apply,
and in this compre he osive and convenient view,
allow Professor NOISE TO make any snd all such
alteration to his specifications and claims rs he
might find advisable from time to time. la the
second place, this model Tor all future decisions
bears most plainly upon its face, and carries
yicton to the mind and heart Of the in tere steG.
ones, that Judge Kano is of opinion that Professor
Morse should have the honor of the discovery Of
the art of transmitting Intelligence by electricity
tDat ne came so near lnvtntlng s0met1lDH anu put
forth bis claims so ingeniousy both for what he did
Invent as well as what be did not invent backed
up by Hon. Amos Kendall, +. o. j. Smith, the
employees Of the Pa,eot Office, and others-that
he, Judge Kane, is willing to grant an injunction,
and thus stop up one Of the channels Of commercial
pursuit in which the public directly interested.
IL is well TO let the public understand that there
have been prer decisions relating to those patsnts
he first was an application OF MIR. Bain at the
Patent Office for patent for his Electro-C Chemical
Telegraph, which was refused by the Com missioner.
upon the ground Of a Interference with the GLAZING
OF Professor Morse. From this decision of the Com
missioner, Mr. Balm appealed to the District Court,
and the case came before Judge Cranch, who, after
patient hearing of the evidence both sides, an6
OF course much OF the same evidence as offered in
the Philadelphia CASE brought to bear upon
this, Judge CraDch decided, sand do further de-
eide and judge that the said ). F. b. Morse is
entitled to patent for the conf ination which he
has invented claimed and described in his speeiica
ton, drawings, and model; and that the sad Alex.
BAN is entitled, under the same section, TO patent
Tor the bipation which he has invented, claimed
and described 10 bus specification, drawings, and,
model There was then no Interference bet veeu
TIE claims Of Morse aId Ban bat both were en-
titled TO patent os their peculiar arrangements or
&C III bill alton.
1: is well kaoTp, ,hst no claim can be laid
to air, water or electricity; they are elements,
open by the gift of God to all. Notwithstanding,
Judge Kane hss seen ft, in his ,erior wisdom, to-
give the exclusive right the latter to Profes-
sor Morse; and the element therefore, caunot bo
ella aimed, but only the means ma &c availab by the
element itself This, therefore, gives a patent for
any peculiar arrangements OF machinery, by which
the object OF recording or writing by electricity is
ef,eted-hence the decision Of Judge Cranch, just
quoted.
We next find that Mr. O'Reilly was sacd for
the use Of the Columbian instrument $50 called),
the Gaze coming before Judge Munroe, of Frank
OFT, Kentucky, who decided that the Columbia
instrument was an Infringement upon ProfeJsoc
Morse's patent, and issued an injunction, which,
afterwards, was so altered as to allow the use CT
the Balm instrument. In the State Of Tennessee an
irjur elton was meved for, as against the Balm in
strument, and retu.ed by Judge McKinly. Again.
IN the State Of Ohio in which case, altho lgn not
finally determined, 1t is we'll understood that
Judge Mclean prepared and expressed an
opinion, ing that Morses patent vi Juneo.
lsiol and the 1Ie-i,sues theIeupon, we're void
their application for an injunction refused.
To come to more elaborate opinion, aud involy--
ing the ,ame principles, | would cali attention to
" Morse VS.. House." at Boston. This opinion,
yoapublihed ut length, in your paper, a few days
since, and 70 which | shall again more p.rticu.
larry refer; but. for the present, | will mako bat
one. quotation Again, regarding Morses %
new combination Of old parts or improvements.
with one rev part invented by him, which 4.
perhaps nearest the TRUTH IL then mlni;est that
u House does not adopt tho 1ew part, or all the
different elements Of the new combination, il is
no. an Infringement. The last machine in such
case being, in parts In principal, and combinations
so unlike the first, except the general use Of
e'eIv-uhkheuful, inNenttu Dy neither, cannot De
regarded ~ an infringement on the first, bat its
author bss TIE same rig ut TO invent and employ u
as the author Of the first had to invent thas. The.
public too, as well as Of genius have the right
to make and employ stll further improvements in
tslegrsphng by elsctro-msg ctism, and in record
irg its results, Morse had in lS32 SIS, $50.
On the evidence presented to me, on both sides,
and after a careful examination of that, aud the
legal principles which should govern my decision.
have beer forced into the conslusion, contrary to
my previous impression, that the defendants have
not been proved guilty Of any such WONG
Tsis clearly gives to NJ )rse ali be can claim which
his particular arrangement for recording, Sc
The electro. ma Rnetism, Of which so much has
been said and ellimed, is, by Judge WoJabury's
decision. public property. The proofs upon which
he thus founded hi decision, will cndeavor TO give
you hereafter. VI. l..