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

ri the Union t. ths Ssta Snseant - a. ancss
Plain Maj" ia which tas St''sfi reak'"x o inc
Woodwork pat ut planning machine. ssys as.,.4 .es &
~ Man, The prsssat aAirsyQa Ma Obtained In ths ace
dental absence Of the late Comm ssoaes Pasns
pYi sna Y esaass q by Previous dsc's,oa and q that
posi- a aeius, snd Illegal If No,
Who this " Plain Mao',is lido no, know bot that hi
assertions are unioundcd and totally false IN their mate
nal points shalt proceed show Indeed, the aisty
OF thus statement 10 be partially admitted 10
ticie inserted in the Union OF the BIs OF January signed
by Oas Who Knows. and whom all probability is the
In that article il s stated that the patent was ressued
| IN The absence OF Mr. Burke. the Commissioned and
without bis knowledge Il is true that Mr.. Burke was
absent al the time this reissue bal is true that
the transactions passed without his appfobaon The
facts are these The Officers in charge of the office had
IN the execution OF their duty in this proceeding.
mitisd which would, il supposed render
The reissue worthless Being anxious 10 avoid any
take error OF which an advantage could be taken by
the numerous and vgllaht opponents of this patent,
took TO MIR Burke and proposed again TO surrender IT,,
and have amended reissue II he thought it necessary
He examined into the matter, and sad that such
der not necessary that he would himself the
error, and 20 10 Mr. Buchanan Secretary of State and
get bis certificate that il was properly done This he did.
And Returned the patent To- me with the proper endorse
the appreciation only Of Mr. Burke but OF his Official
superior, the Secretary Of Slate IA, a ,,t a,f st
II is further stated IN the article above referred toi
signed by One Who Knows" thai the Woodwork pat
emf has hitherto been sustained by the courts OF law bat
that only because the courts have moi the power to
inquire into The acts OF The Patent Office ia such
In reply to this very bold assertion, beg to say that
out OF large number OF IN which the merits of
This patent have been review before the courts. would
refer the readers Of the Union 10 one tried before The
Hon Justice Woodbury. in the circuit court of the Uni-
ted States Tor the Massachusetts dstrCt in March, ls43
being the case OF Woodwork u.s. edwards and others
In that the learned Judge made elaborate charge
to the jury, IN which he made OF the following Ian
| guage s1s
"Genemen proceed TO the first objection. IL i. that
the patent was de;pcye lfso. may be unendered, and
the mistake corrected The Comm Toner the light
upon that surrender cause patent 70 be issued Tor
the unexped term bat The allegation is that This amend
done deceive, ard Included through fraud
otherwise, what was not Originally Invented II the
new spechea',on Ought no, TO he upheld Now, lock at
recnon but the courts held that propr and when
the patent law d 1898 underwent revision ia 1896
ton was Incorporated annofzng the aenee 10 Surrender
The patent and take and amended patent, IN
OF error in il through indifference mis- AXE Their
aetwo points n'lemei, about which ,hese can b.
doubts FIRST, the respond ns do not deny that the
patent be snrend red. il Insufficient; and. secondly,
mat The Commissioner IS the Judge. II surrendered OF a
mistake The law makes il 30, and bis decision evidence
that there mistake o unless fraud
praotssed on hin IS sud that the mistake mnst have
been iaal one do not SO understand IT, IL the patent
was nrnged, and some expression of doubtful con
siucon Leading to litigation, essen,E The value OF the
fiRh and rendering Il IN some degree imperative, that
would be sufficient That the wih this patent
The spec tcaon detective pessnreroleis, and
va. surrendered anu nssne YOU gen,e'"en that The
render tue orlsnal pateIi ana mat the Cnmnissoner OF
Patents had right TO patent to be Issued with
amended including rollers,
were part Of the glnai invention, aud omired by
inAdyerlenceaud that the patent thus ressued is good and
valid IN lay, unless IL is shown to have been Obtained
Nov, gentlemen. what is brought the fairness
this anne ndnenta Way what occurred al Hudson IN the
summer OF 1928 showing that such rollers sed there
Thus we viii examine hereafter Il is also said that tiiers
is tense in The language a,he two patents; that the
new Paen has something different and which is not in the
original patent ! mentioned the otner day the case OF
wr, if The same language is 70 be used. II amended IL
must be for the cause of action but not IN the
nvrnon The Language i ,erent and in writ The Ian.
guage would be different Why get amended writ
or patent even IN substance IN the same language! o.
Mex as TO the Hudson Machine The true inquiry here
is to the covered by the amend ID language
had been used by Woodwork, December. 1925 when
took out his s'eat Tue testimony given At Hudson goes
| oember. Thats species Of evidence Tue machIue
built Hudson the summer OF 1928 and which al
forwards taken the DIV dock in the city oil New York, is
to be considered; aud Dunbar isa II did not
tain pessude-roes But machines, with alterations,
Morse Respectable eitzen that ne there IN
October, with such rollers Between the summer OF 1923
and Ostobe hat Wood worth added cannot tell, except
py the evidence Is agreed, and proved that at the dry
dock there several machines which under.
tax and that some OF them were not uselal. sf
Bot the change is the pressure rollers which were
used to carry forward the MATERIAL TO keep down. and to
aid in reducing 1t to equal thickness The question
then Is did exist IN tns 9,,gnal machine a.
Them afte rwards from E,nmonsl Beside the oath of Mr.
Morse Just referred who was Al tue drydock aud saw
s Ss9 M s "ss %as
aud Mr. Srons wao drew the specification, ha he knew
then Of presspf- golfers Tor y,o pass upon this
evidence. Ths machine OF Danbar with hts evidence,
might be fncs against this But u may all be true.
Hudson the summer OF 1928 and
Woodw oh might afterwards have added taem before ID =
cember, 1925 tor his witnesses testify positively that
October rollers had been introduced by Wood
worth, aud be fore hs took out his patent Il .
a the point OF fraud that Is settled by the previous
decision In favor OF his actual use of the ers
before taking tile patent There evidence OF fraud
genemen except that growng out oil iha new spechca
on and, isatgned, ayeHing too mnch. II you be-
Der, 1928 then that ends Ibis nqary Frsud IL nohing
slight must be shown by equiVocal evidence;
fully made But s also said tat there fraud
paosed be the board OF comm and that tie
next point There WAS W tness The stand who had
objections renewal aud who went to Washington
oppose he uexal other gfounds assignee and
the gropud OF Wood~ortns not being the nvenior
Bat conference with Jr Wilson tie satisfied as
fraud the accounts that there several hundred
thousand dollars received, though not so much cleared
But the amount received is uniip ~ tue real
zed. Was the amonnt stated fsny Tuis !. Question
Tor yon II The tom exhibited, iueu II would not sp
pear any fraud D. accused These Al the
Jections AZ TO The letters. parni themselves. a
. What IL the pylor Invention mp II Is con-
tended that Emmons had as early 1924 attempted 10
plane AT racu-e do not intend to into the evidence
this II been that machine Syracuse
would work Clifford, for whom aud whose cost II
made, IL would work Upon the principle
which have laid down. must, in order to deieat the
patent Of Woodwork, nave been the thing In prn.
pie and suited effect object he have
perfected netting useful. IL 10 conceded on both
sides that IL did not satisfactorily work and II was nbsns
doned and taken pieces You look after doing,
OF Emmons in 1922 and whether must not believe
there snste purposes in theu You have heard IL
SAID that there had been piracy Woodwork and that
certain PERSONS had applied 10 Etnniops who, Tor con.
sderaon undertook Tor his former machine,