The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-02-08

To the Editor Of he Un,o..

last 10 reference TO communication published by me in
me ONO" OF previous dale, remarks as follows:
Is further stated in the article above signed
| by 'One Whe Knows that The Woodwork patent has
been sustained by The Of law. but that il is
| inri the acts Of The Patent Office in such cases"
lie then proceeds TO denounce my statement bold
sssilon, and in subsequent part OF his communica-
ton he that the acs of the Patent Once may be
inquired into by the Judicial tribunals OF the country
and, In proof OF his assertion. he copies long extract
from charge delivered by Judge Woodbury. TO the jury
on The trial OF one OF his (Wilson's) cases.
have carefully examined The charge OF Judge Wood
bury, and sustans precisely my statement which
that 10 the matter OF reissues The Commissioner the
absolute Judge whose decisions cannot be inquired INTO
else " here Judge Woodbury. states my position in the
following precise and Ineligible words;
There are two points, gentlemen, about which there
the patent be surrendered il insufficient and second
y, that the Commissioner The Judge, fsurendeed OF
mistake. The ia makes aud his decision Is evidence
that there mistake or inadvertence, unless fraud
pnctsed on him"
Judge Woodbury., the paragraph above cited, lays il
down unqualhedly that IN surrendeTs Tor reissue, the
decision of the Commissioner absolute and conclusive,
and can be inquired into only proof that fraud has
been practsed him. Thus is my statement fully
tanned by the very evidence adduced by Mr. Wilson
ds w. %sy y, now 10dvs woodh0rv as we'll J0dvs
Story, deciding that the acts OF the Commissioner of
Patents, in relation TO reissues except when frauds
practised on him. binding and conclusive upon all
courts Of Justice, as well as all persons Thus, #
Commissioners, and reissued BY him for steam engine
according to the law as settled by Judges story and
Woodbury., the decision OF the Commissioner Of Patents
in the matter is binding upon the whole word-upon
courts OF Justice as well as individuals.
In view OF this sweeping and arbitrary power OF the
Commissioner IN such cases, and the possibility that 1t
may be used to advance the interests OF favores OF the
Patent Office should not the law be altered to make
the Official acts OF The Commissioner, in all cases subject
TO revision and correction in courts OF justice Every
| honest man will respond in the affirmative.
| So much for Mr.. Wilson. In the Union OF Tuesday,
"An Eye Witness again appears, and attempts TO con-
trddict certain statements OF mine former COMMUNE
| cation. Let what he does not deny
lie does not deny that the application Tor The reissue
OF the Woodwork patent was made during Mr. Ellis
worths administration OF the Patent Office, and some
sireen eighteen months before granted during Mr.
Burkes administration
| 2 He does not deny that Mr. Ellsworth rejected the
application to reissue patents for The invention in the
! form requested t#
He does deny tina, after Mr. Ellsworths decision
the patent Withdrawn from the office, and not returned
again until sixteen months afterwards aud then when Mr.
Burke the Commissioner, absent from the Office.
He does not deny that Mr. Keller resigned his office
as examiner, and became the agent OF Woodworlhs adj
mnlsra,or 10 obtain the reissue
S. He does deny tina, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr.. Keler's
assistant, became examiner and passed the reissue.
Here are five pretty important facts, bearing upon this
case, admitted by the silence OF An Eye Witness" which
think it will be difficult for him explain to the salts
faction of disnteesed public Now, let us see what
He denies. first. tina, Mr.. Fitzgerald acting
am'ner at the time
give him the benefit Of this denial as il is an mma-
teral fact in the Mr. Fitzgerald was the examiner
who passed the He was Mi keller's assistant
when the latter resigned That il enough 1t subslan
TALLY sustans my averment Secondly, he denies that
Mr. Elswor,hs objection TO the reissue Of the Wood
worth patent to the substance OF the application in
ssng that II was only as TO form and, to prove
this, he, fortunately for gives copy OF Mr. Ellis
worh's letter. On tins point join issue with him, and
cite the same proof against himself @
| The application to issue three patents inste ad of
Mr.. Ellsworth objects to this, and his objection
a matter of substance and not form He says the old
patent was for an original iapention, not for combine
tons " and is that precise ground that he objects to
the application for three patents. he says:
.Could be supposed under the reissue of old
ent eoud be nSaned for .sperai eombna,ion.and
b1ry combinations ao-his would be going very far
TO say The sast"
Now was not this TO the substance. and not 10 the
form7 Mr. Ellsworth says the old paten, was for an
orig NAL invention The application for reissue for
three several patents for three several combinations
therefore, they rejected Yet, subsequently, Mr..
Fitzgerald passed the application Tor combinations and not
Tor Original invention
| stated in my former communication that Mr.. Ellis
worth nna;ed to the applicant or his agent that they
pushed hun TO decision upon the originality oil The IN
yepton, mig be fatal to the application. and upon that
significant and pregnant hin, they wthd the patent from
the office This An Eye Witness" denies Let us see
10 convict me of error He says
81 have delayed my decision the originally the
invention CANNED u~d n. old pate" but viii do it
| a final decision is required"
| And again he says
i
ally surrendered now) must abide that decision aud
not be rsiurnsd."
What this but pregnant hint that il they pushed
him to final decision upon the original patent, il would
be adverse to ii, and would not be returned And did
not the applicant withdraw it, and again urge the
matter uniil MIR Ellsworth left the office and in
cumbent in siIfeea months afterwards
| II Mr. Elsworths objection 10 the mere form OF
the application, why did they not change that iorn and
apply for single patent Why the patent NTH
drapa and the matter never again agtated during Mr.
Elsworihs term OF office IL required great skill
change the form Of the application, and the matter
in skul and experienced hands--ln the hands OF the
late DR. Thos. 7. Jones, able and weknown patent
agent
One half days time would have sutfced TO change the
form OF application in this Case 10 meet the pre-.
tended but not the true objection of Mr. Ellsworth and
yet moi done notwithstanding such change of form
and reissue OF the patent necessary 10 enable the
owner 10 sustain IT IN court OF Justice Mo- II
delayed until the old Commissioner went out and the
new came in srtsen months afterwards, and until
the old examiner became the agent and his old assist
ant The examiner and then IL passed during the
absence OF The new Commissioner, and without commu
ncang the facts Of the 10 the acting Commissioner
who sgned the patent Now, who will believe that all
this tram OF suspicious circumstances followed from Mr.
ELLSWORTH objection to the form OF the application
pretended by IAN Eye Witness p
! fear that writer has not ingenuity enough 10 ex-
plain these dark circumstances TO the satisfaction OF
dsinterested public. -
ONE WHO KNOWS