New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-02-06
MR.. EWBANK's DEFENSE
AdmIuI.tration of The Patent ONCE.


The subioined document We were obliged to
omit yesterday, for want of room. 1t is now in.
serted as part Of Mr.. EwBANK's Defense.
Report ofDr L. D. Gale, Examiner in the Patent
Ofcs referred 10 IN the COMMISSIONER letter
TO the Secretary Of the INTERIOR
Hon THOMAS EwBANE, Commissioner ofPatents
SIR: In accordance with your request, have
examined the pamphlet you placed in my hands,
entitled " Charges against Thomas Ewbank, Com
missioner Of Patents preferred by Horace II. Day,
of the City of New York, and others"
Below IS a statement Of the most prominent
facts in the case
From the great accumulation of testimony
more than coo pages from the general nature and
ndeiniteness Of the charges preferred, some
what lengthy reply covering all the charges
seemed 10 be called for under the circumstances
and is herewith presented.
Mr. Day, who has been the prime mover in this
whole affair, is, and has long been, using the IN
vention pGtented to Mr.. Chaiiee, and as stated by
one OF the witnesses in the testimony, is the only
man, with a single exception, known 70 be using
Chatfees invention without paying for IL.
This fact considered IN its proper light, shows
the incompetency Of such a witness 10 testify
against the extension Of the patent ia question
and how much reliance may be placed upon his
statements in these charges, unless confirmed by
other competent testimony.
VI
rs witness, and in no other light is he legiti
mately known IN the case. Itis true, he recorded
bis wish to be heard in opposition TO the extern
siop vet be nowhere appears as such IN the taking
of testimony. The correspondence In opposition
TO the extension was opened By the counsel for
Day. known % be such, and partly conducted by
Day himself, and continued throughout By both
Day and MS counsel, sometimes the one and some
times the oil er conducting the spOndence.-
IL the mean time Day was asO occupied as a wit
ness on the stand, 10 which he felt himself com.
PEELED. before toe ordeal Of cross examination, 70
make Rineteen corrections on account of a treach-
er0us memory, ard lodged or refused to answer
serenfg fre creations oGs CT enc hundred aud
seventy five put ~ aim il the cross examination.
To show the c0nsummate skill Of Day ia the
management of this case, clerk in his establish.
ment becomes the nominal opposer Of the extern
zion, and thus Mr.. Day acted as a witness on the
stand, conducted the correspondence of the op-
posing party, and managed the witnesses ia taking
testimony
have given somewhat 10 detail toe doings and
character Of Mr.. Day because he is the principal
mover in the opposition 20 the extension, as well
as in these charges. Most Of the others whose
names are subscribed are little interested, and
have done little IN the case.
The charges are throughout full Of exaggerated,
conflicting, and fabricated statements, as will ap-
pear in the sequel.
In the first charge no specific sct is charged,
and II can only be answered by an unqualified
denial
The second charge alleges, first, that the Com.
missioner refuses copies OF the petition aud
grounds Of extension when demanded by the op.
poreuts Of he extension, And refers 10 toe Law au-
thorlzug copies ln general terms, % Dc allowed
second, that the commissioner volunteered copies