The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-11-19
IcosTIRuED ]

ICOHTIHUED
H. H. Sylvester was ca. led TO the stand and
sworn and testified that his place of residence
in New Hampshire, five hundred and nifty miles
from here; that he considered that was his place OF
residence; and that he left there TO come TO this
place at the request of the defendant to testify
witness in this case. Witness said that he was
member of the firm Of French * Sylvester, and
had an Office in this city.
MIR. Bradley then withdrew his request for leave
10 amend the declaration, account of the terms,
being the payment of costs. The fees charged by
this one witness for the defendant alone amounted
90 sixty Ave dollars.
The case was then proceeded with under the
original declaration, the opinion of the court OK
pressed yesterday being reserved till after the tes
timony is concluded, IN order that the whole case
may be taken up 10 the Supreme Court.
The plaintiff then read in evidence the following
memorandum, drawn up by Mr.. Burke:
PATENT OFFICE, January 30, lS4S.
MIR X. "a. Laskey, as the agentof Uriah A. Boy
den, calls for the following copies OF patents, in
GLIDING drawings, specifications, and claims or Of
all of them, which are recorded in the Patent OF
flee. viz: George w. Henderson and John T.. Cay
fords patent, dated April H. 1880; Charles Kennels
patent, dated July 1, 1885, and J. X. Miard's
patent, dated May 9, 1876, for which he offers to
pay the usual fees required by law for copies.
hereby refuse TO give him the copies called for
by MIR. Boyden, 10 transact any other business
for Mr.. HIisden with Mr.. Laskey. ] do not refuse
copies ofNany patents or other papers which Mr..
Laskey requires for himself, or for any other per-
son, except Mr.. Boyden / refuse TO do any bust
ness for MIR. Boyden, whether ne applies for the
Same personally or by agent, until he comes TO
the conclusion 10 observe, in his communications
with this office, its official head, the prophecies
usually observed in official intercourse.
When be comes to the conclusion TO address this
office, its head, in respectful language, any bu-
siness which he may have with it will be done as it
Is done for other persons whether he applies in per
(signed) EDMUND BURKE.
The above drawn up and read in presence
OF MIR. Laskey and Of the undersigned
S. T. SHUGERT.
James j. Grecnough, s,corn.-Receivcd q letter
from Mr. Boyden requesting me to obtain copies of
certain patents. i made the application to the
Commissioner for them the agent of Boyden.
The Commissioner refused to furnish them, stating
that he would not have any thing to do with Boy
den. requested the Commissioner TO state his
reasans for the refusal in writing. He did so, and
that paper containing these reasons sent to Boy
den.
Mr. Coke notified the plaintiff to produce that
letter.
ME- Bradley produced the letter, but objected to
sfs adniissibility as evidence. The objection was
argued, and the court ruled the letter TO be ad
missible, and it was read, as follows
PATENT OFFICE, January s. lS4S.
Sir: Your note of this morning is received. /
handed your letter of the 2lst umo, requesting
certain copies from Uriah Boyden, to the chief
clerk, with instr uctons to prepare an answer who
informed me that you had told him that you did
not desire answer; hence none prepared.
In my personal interview with you, apprizcd
you that could not cause the copies to be pre-
pared for you as the agent of Mr. Boyden, and gave
you the reason why could not. That reason was,
that Mr.. Boydcn had repeatedly written letters to
the Office personally insulting to the head of the
Office; that he had, but few days before your APP
pcation, written letter of that description, thus
showing premediated design his part to in
cult the head of the Patent Office. Under these
circumstances, could not, as informed you, per
application. that of any other person in his
behalf. Icannot permit him TO insult the head of
the ofhce in communications written by himself,
and at the same time have his business done
through the Intervention of another person. OF
these reasons for declining to the copies to be
made for him, which you requested, you were duly
apprized. And you were also informed, as MIR.
Boyden himself has been informed, that until he
comes to the conclusion to treat this office with the
civility which the customs and rules of official in
tercourse require, this office will have inter
course with him directly, or through the agency of
others. When he concludes to conduct his inter
with this office with decency and propriety
his business will be attended to.
You will readily perceive the necessity of this
course OF action on my part. Every public office
must have the means Of protecting itself from in
suit. All courts of justice and Legislative bodies
must have that power. If Mr.. Boyden had ad-
dresscd the insulting language to Judge upon
the bench, which he has used in his letters to me-
he would have been committed to prison for con-
tempt. If he had addressed it to me personally in
my office, / should have required the servants of
the Patent office forcibly, but gently, to remove
him to the street. Addressing me from distance
in writing, have no other recourse but TO return
his offensive letters, and to suspend all official in
tercourse with him.
These the reasons why declined to order
copies for him on your demand. AS my determi.
nation in this matter is inflexible / shall reply to
no more letters from him, nor from his agents, who
are opprized OF the character OF his intercourse
with this office, until he to the conclusion to
address the head OF the office in respectful lam
guage.
You were right in informing me for whom you
4 re he
ground that you did not tender che money for
them, but solely the ground of the repeatedly
insulting conduct towards the head of this Office Of
For yourself Individually, or as the agent Of others
who appreciate and observe the proprietics of official
intercourse, need not say that the Patent Office is
ready at all times to do any thing within the scope
of its legitimate duties.
am respectfully, &C.,
EDMUND BURKE.
], j. GREENoUGH, esq.,, Washington City
y. j. GresnOugh resumed. --The reasons stated to
me by Mr.. Burke were substantially set forth in
that letter.
Direct eTamination.--I that interview said no.
thing offensive to Mr. Burke. The offence had
been committed by Boyden previous to that. He
said Boyden had treated the head of the office with
great indignity, and that the language Boyden
had used demanded an apology.
Cross sIGmindtion.-Boyden addressed
letter to me while was in business with Mr. Kel-
Ter, with request that would hand it TO MIR,
Burke. did not deliver il TO Burke, but sent
~ paCk 10 boyden nave not seen That letter since,
nor could recognise it, ! sent it back TO Boyden,
with a letter, stating that must decline handing
il to Burke
Direct eraminafion.--I have seen Boyden hero
shink was at the Patent Office with him, but have
no recollection whether Burke saw him or not.
The plaintiff cloeed his case at this point
MIR. Carlisle proposed, on behalf of the defendant,
to read the following letter from Boyden TO Burke.
MIR. Bradley objected to the admissibty of the
letter as evidence
The Court ruled the letter admissible. And it
was read, as follows:
BosToN, MASS, December H. 1917.
SIH received two of nay letters, of the It'll and
18th Of September ls47, which presume you
turned; and have lately received the copies of
Rabbit %, Billings, and Wheeers patents
hoped, after sending my letter of September I,
lS47, that you would conclude to recede from your
improper conduct; but sufficient! time has since
elapsed, and as have given you sufficient oppor-
tunities for receding and you have only partially
done 30, 1t SCENE necessary for now to give you
further proof of the improperly of your manage
meut.
IN your letter Of August lS47, you say that you