New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-02-06

should be observed that the rule was established
many years ago. that no copies or inform 'tion In
relation 10 pending cases should be allowed ex.
cept by authority OF the applicant, and hat Ia
htigated cases between parties claiming tns same
thing. no information relative to the case IF ono
should be given to the other except copies OF that
part OF the specifications and drawings VII IA pre-
sent the point OF interference nothing, Ia 4 word,
but what is clearly necessary TO a compre henson
of the point in dispute. Long expereAce has
shown these rules 10 be absolutely necessary, and
they existed long before the appointmen. Of the
present Commissioner
The case in question is believed to be the ms
in which copies Of the grouuds contained n pc
ttion for an extension have ever been de handed
Upon the hearing such copies are Of no possble
use There was no rule for such case. aid there
was an absolute necessity Tor prompt iecisioR
OF the point, as the parties were mucn ressed
for time, and il was regarded as the safest prac-
tice in the emergency to place this eass under
the same rules with other pending cases. unless
strong reasons existed Tor a different coarse. No
such reasons for taking the case out OF the CON-
mon rule were perceived The grounds OF ex-
tension are laid down in the 18th section Of the
statute Of 1896, and are the same in all cdSeS, 10
wit that the applicant is the inventor and pat
entee of the invention in question; that he has
failed during the life OF the patent, without fault
on his part 70 obtain a reasonable remuneration
for the invention: and that his invention q useful
and valuable to the public. This is and must be
the substance of every petition for sn extension,
and all its substance, however It may oe inter
larded, like an awkward declaration, "i.a othet
immateral matters and statements.
Ard these are prescribed by the statQtei and IL
all cases the grounds Of the extension can be as
perfectly learned from the statute as fro the pc
tition There can be no material variation De-
tween them II the grounds are insuihc'sntly set
forth in the petition, IL can be amended and the
opposer of the extension cannot take advantage OF
IT, Ii was determined that allowing copy OF the
grounds" of extension TO be given % the oppos-
ing party would be at best a work OF sapereroga'
ton That the statute gave fall inform alton on
the subject and that there was nothing IN me case
demanding a hasty departure nom the rales IN
forced IN analogous cases and the copies wero
the r. fore refused and the parties referred 10 the
statute Had there been time for full consdera-
tion perhaps the copy might have been allowed
rs a matter of too little moment to Justify an oo-
lection but as it was necessary TO decide prompt
w. il was safest to take a course which was az
once in accordance with the rules IN analogous
cases and by reference to the statute give ina
party the information he desired.
In relation to the second part OF This cnarge'
that the Commissioner volunteered 10 N aPPu'
cant copies of the grounds of the oppos tion, IL
NAV be remarked that the statement Is unquai
tiedlv false-no copies were volunteered 20 tne
applicant bat in answer to the reque's OF mis-
counsel he was informed OF the rule aoopteoo "
the office on this subject Ihere are Eery ipi'
|
do NOT appear when similar Information 10 de-
| manded on the other side. The applicant mas
se,eroI neints To establish before he can claim an
| extension; and il unsuccessful In any orc OF them
| he fails. He must cover them all, and cannot
vary his position, while his opponents know from
| the statute where to meet him. But he does not
| know on what side they may approach ihey
| may oppose him on any one or more points, OF
| upon all and as he does not know on when SIDE
he may be attacked 1t is reasonable tnst no
should have notice. Theopposer knowsperlectly
well the whole position OF the applicant, because
il is fully defined in the statute, but the applicant
does not know the position OF the oppOser, and Il
should therefore be defined The reason for
grating copies on the one side does not exist on
| the other.
The foregoing remarks of course, have no bear
| ing upon the question, whether copies OF the
statement OF accounts, under the oath oil the par
ty as required by the statute, or copies Oi otner
testimony In the case could, with proPrety DO
allowed. practice in relation TO pleadlngs can
| not obtain in relation 10 evidence. And II may
here be remarked, that in no Court has either
party right 10 demand the ertde1ce upon which
bis opponent proposed 10 go TO trial. until It Is de-
UeiODed on the trfai or hearing, unless toere may
be particular statute clearly giving such right.
One party cannot demand TO look into the hand OF
the other, and the same reasons which m axe this
the rule in Courts, is sufficient to sustain sim
liar rule here in this Office But at the time the
copies were demanded. no such statement Of &C
counts had been filed, nor was any other evidence
pertaining TO the case ON file in this Office
Copies OF these, therefore, could not have been
given, and those probably were the only cOpies
that were desired as the petition could not have
been OF the slightest Importance 10 Any point Of
view. There does not appear to be much left FOX
the second charge.
The third charge amounts to nothing am not
aware that there is eny tribunal before which,
when the evidence is closed, both parties are not
entitled 10 examine all the papers filed IN relation
10 it. The counsel on both sides were permitted
to do this as soon as they applied, AMI the tri-
bunal that did not permit it would be a strange
one. AS TO the counsel for the applicant being
permitted to file an argument in answer TO that
fled by the opposing party, it is only necessary
to reply that In all cases the party who goes for
ward in the case has the right 10 close the argu
ment, and this right belonged to the counsel Of
the applicant as a matter OF course.
IL is, however, stated on the fourth page Of the
printed charges: First, That George Clifford adj
dressed letter TO the Commissioner asking II
any testimony or argument could be filed alter tina
20 Of August, the day to which the hearing had
been pOstponed,) ana received for ans~cr that It
couid not. This statements false. Such cues
tion not asked He did not ask whether
afgumentS could be fled and the reply had Of
course no reference to them.
In the second place, it is stated that .aid Gift
ford also asked if either party could see ana exam
inc the others testimony or argument al The Pat
ent Office after the day Of hearing, and vas an
.wered "No." This is another fabricatiON.-
About four days after the testimony was closed,
Il. e., after the day of hearing,) letter vas re-
ceived from Day propounding such qaestion,
and he was answered in the affirmative
Naked truth does not answer the purpose Il
must be embelished
Arguments after the closing Of the testimony
are appropriate, bat testimony is not.
The foUrth charge alleges that it was proved ~
DISPOSITIONS Of Howe and Of Gregg that Chafee's
invention was in use long before he invented II.
These dispositions do show that certain machines
were used for preparing india rubber before the
invention by Chaifee, and would be qgite i'm
portsnt il the invention 70 which they relate were
the sAme as that natented 20 Chafiee bnL. unfor.