New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-02-06
THOMAS EWBANK.
charges against Thomas Ewbank, Commits
sioner of Patents, for Ohiciai Misconduct.
sA,,f,d "a tn pxsS,nt Of ne United StQtes Jun le51

~ HIS EICe1cncr MlLLAkD FiLLNpkk.
PTssdent Of The UHited Staies:
Sir: The following statement Of facts relative
20 the partial, unfair, expRrte aud unlawful official
conduct OF Thomas Ewbank. Commissioned Pat
ents, in the matter Of the extension Of the Patent
Of E. NJ Chsffee, for a process Of the India Rub
Der manufacture, Is respectfully submitted lol
your consideration 80,
or the many charges Of grave nature wnlch
have been made against the official conduct OF
Commissioner T. v bank, by persons OF Snar acsvr
And reliability, only is selected ana SiITtu
submitted in it's principal detaiis. II SuaI %
elesrlv and conclusively proved, that in the one
ease selected-that of the unlawful extension oil
CbaTee's Patept-the Commissioner OF Patents IS
nsr,;al and one sided in bis official conduct and
totally unfit for the high and responsible public
station he holds Your ExceIency will not need
otber demonstrations Of his unfarness and unit
ness for the Office of Commissioner OF Patents, to
induce such prompt executive action as Will cor
rect the evil implanted Of
EN-. Chafiee's Patebt, granted for Il years,
was to have run out and expired with the last day
Of August last
The invention patented had been in public and
common and unrestricted use. by India Rubber
manufacturers and manufacturing companies, IA
ring the whole time the Patent bad TO run Mr..
ChafFee as appears from his own testimony, mere.
with submitted, made no outlay oil money, and
was at no expense comparatively speaking on
account Of or to procure his Patent. On the Goa
trary he disposed of his interest in it for an annual
income, which he admits has amounted to :, .-',
but which, as there can be little or no doubt rs
actually amounted TO all of $4,000.
As by law it was proper to do the Patent Office
gave due notice in the public papers OF the appll'
cation Of Il. NJ. Chsnee, for an extension OF his
Patent. for seven years, and those interested 10
oppose the extension were notified to file their
testimony and reasons why the extension asked
Tor should not be granted in the Patent Office, by
the 5th of August, 1850. The time was subse-
quenty extended to the Goth Of August, 1850.
The parties opposed to the extension OF the
patent pom the ground that the process OF manu-
hcture patented, had for years been in common
use, and as much, and as rightly belonged to
them, as 10 MIR. ChaIfee; went to work, upon
short notice, 10 take testimony and frame an ar
gument setting forth their rights in the premises
Through their attorney George Clifford, Esq. OF
New.York City, they addressed letter to Com
missioner Ewbank to know if any testimony or
argument of either party could be filed in the Pa.
tent Office, after the Goth of August, the day OF
hearing specified; if either party could see and
examine the others testimony or argument at the
Patent Office, after the day Of hearing, and re-
eeived for answer from the Commissioner that
they could not.
And yet it is proved that Commissioner wbank
allowed Charles Keller, ESQ an Attorney for the
party asking an extension OF Chaffees Patent, to
see and examine the testimony and argument Of
the party opposing the extension, at the Patent
Office after the same had been filed there on the
Goth OF August and to file on the 23d of August,
reply to the argument Of the contestants
When it is understood that, If Chafee's Patent
be genuine and valid, this extension of said Pat
ept could not be worth less than si50O00 to the
party employing Mr. Chaffee, it will readily Oe
seen how potent and dangerous powers lodged
by law in the sole person OF the Com missioner OF
Patents, and how necessary 1t should be Tor that
officer to be fair and impartial, as well as
strictly honest man.
To show that Commissioner Ewbenk refused to
the party opposing the extension OF Chafee s Pat
ent what be granted to the party asking for the
extension, the following letter from the Commits
sioner to one Of the counsel of contestants is CIV
en- reTbattm ct hte' atm:
PATENT OFFICE, 2dh July, 1850.
SIR Your letter of the 18th inst respecting the appca
ion Tor ~ tension the Patent OF f. NJ Chaee, for pro
The ,pecifcaion and petiioR Of Mr. Chahee's Rpplca
lion not public and not open 10 inspecuosn. . -
thing in existence printed publications. such matters
should be presented fifteen days at least before The day OF
heHing that the Examiner may have 1t before hun In
II Won Wish 10 take testimony the case FOR rules see
directions page 49, and rules page H. Of me closea
The money sent for copy of petition again incIosed
20 yon herewith. Respectfully. THOS. EWBANh.
H. sMALEs, Wsl,st New-York
This letter was written 10 prevent the party
opposing the extension of Chahees Patent from
seeing and understanding the nature OF Chahees
petition and grounds for an extension. But alter
ward, and after the day OF hearing, when the par
Nv opposing the extension of the Patent had filed
in the Patent Office their testimony and argu
ment, the Commissioners permitted the Attorney
of the partv asking the extension to 60 10 the
Patent Office and examine the testimony OF the
opposing party, and write and hle reply to the
same. The party opposing the extension, learn
ing of this one sided partial and unfair conduct on
the part of the Commissioner, addressed 10 him
letter, to know his authority for such ACTON
Finding himself caught in taking sides, In his ON
cial capacity with moneyed monopoly. against
the rights and cause of the people, the Oomm.s-
siOner undertook to cover up has tracks a'ter tne
fashion following, TO wit
Patent OFFICE, Monday, Aug. 70, 1850.
SIN Yours OF saturday 2ih and OF THIS date respect
ng The extension Of Z. NJ Chshee, Is duly received
That Inc Commissioner had stated. substance, that
no testimony statement or Argument could be received
no statement could be- received IN evidence OF az te
nenyl the word aygu@entis no. included ...,.,,
9 That Mr. Keller examined Mr. Ohords argument
You ask il the Office grants the opposing counsel to
examine the others arguments, and also testimony
The Office does not refuse counsel the privilege Of exam
ming others arguments Tin the ofhce and also me
The arguments of not regarded as necessary
The scuon Of the Office They may be presented or net
lhey are not sought by the Office and they are not refused
when presented Respectfully, THOS. EWBANK.
H. H. DAY, ESQ., Present" =
The Commissioner thus attempts TO get out OF
the dilemma into which be had, by his partial and
reprehensible course, thrown himself He had
let the counsel of the party asking an extension
of Chaffees Patent go to the Patent OMee, and
examine the argument aud testimony OF the party
opposing the extension; and not only to examine
them, bat 70 write and file reply thereto, after
the 4ay Of kearing. Not only had he suffered and
even connived at this but he had carefully re
Trained frsm notifying the party opposing the ex
tension Of the extraordinary privilege he had
granted to Mr. Keller.
was this fair, aboveboard, and honest twas
neither How did the Commissioner act toward
the party opposing the extension
BY his letter TO Mr. Smales heretofore given)
il will be seen that he refused a copy of Mr.
Chafees deposition and application, and required
that all matters offered in opposition to the extern
sion of the Patent, should be presented 6tteeu
days at least before the day OF hearing. And yet