The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-02-15

To the Editor of the Union

10 inc Edaor 81 the Union
a communication over the signature of James G.
Wilson,, the present owner, not the inventor. OF the
Woodwork planning machine, appeared IN the Union OF
to-day in which the object OF the writer xppeard TO be
to show that J, while Commissioner OF Patents. ap-
proved OF the reissue OF the patent Tor that machine
will briefly reply to The real point IN controversy
leaving the iltempe aud ILL manners displayed by Mr.
Wilson IN his article TO his own reflections
Mr. Wilson attempts to show that approved Of the
reissue Of his patent BY publishing certain official letters
written BY The clerks OF The Patent Office. and signed by
The two first to Mr. Wilson himself. relating sole
" TO the mere eier,ta error which corrected. These
letters do not afford even the emoteo ground for nerrg
that examined into the merits Of the ressue or the his
tory OF the case. &
The letter upon which he relies TO sustain his in
ference ne. approved the reissue Of his patent is let
Ter to w, g. Harrington simply stating the fees required
for certain copies connected with the case.
How lrail and feeble this testimony is, may be under
stood from the fact that all those letters prepared
by clerks without the Commissioner ever seeing single
paper referred to- Mr. wilson himself yell knoWs.
And yet from this circumstance he would have the pub
lie infer that approved the very improper proceedings
terms OF my letter, the emily inquiry OF MIR Harrington
was the cost OF the copies required The answer
of course, did not involve an examination into the history
the merits OF the Woodwork patent but mere cal
culaton OF the amount OF fees for copying
The next and last letter relied BY Mr. Wilson is an
official reply from me, under date 81 December ~. lsd5
six months after the reissue to Mr. Joel Stone to the
effect thai the Patent Office took part controversies
concerning patents Such was the invariabe rule while
was Commissioner. And IN that very teller 1 III
terms decline having anything to do with the conro-
versy between him and Wilson, the ground that it
TO be presumed that all legislation official acts are
correct until the contrary is proved That letter implies
no examination into the merits OF the and no APP
| prevail of the reissue. FL.
And the fact is, have before stated that never had
occasion to, and did, examine into the history Of
the Woodwork patent and lis reissue until, think
Si7 and then in reply to inquiries put TO me by com
mittee of Congress, relating TO the Emmons patent
also for planning machine which imposed upon me tht
necessity OF making personal examination OF the case
! do not understand Mr.. Wilson to deny the facts
shoDn by The files and records Of the Patent Office which
have the public eye touching the OF thu
Woodwork patent. His only desire appears to be Il
show that approved of the transaction, dark as those
| facts show it TO be.
/ / never approved it, as Mr. Wilson has reason t.
know and. had known the history OF the case before
the reissue, the patent would not have been reissueG
in its present form. In the first place, should never
have disturbed the decision OF Mr.. Ellsworth, my pre-
decesso; and, in the second place, should not have
permitted the patent 10 be reissued for invention
which believe old Mr.. Woodwork, the original pa,
entee never made. a
dosed and sanctioned the reissue OF his patent, sustain
ed it is by such frai and weak testimony, only ex
hibs the desperation OF engaged in what he sus
poets everybody believes to be a bad cause,
/ Mr. Wilson has forced me into the explanations which
| | have, this and one former occasion, been com
PEELED 10 make through your columns, by unauhorzee
and improper illusions 10 me by name; and trust tina
| he will now be satisfied that he gain nothing BY
such unwise and imprudent acts on bis part.
He cites a short extract from an opinion OF the Su
prene Court in of his cases, showing that that r
bunal has pronounced his patent valid. .pE
Ii that be true he has nothing TO fear from those who
believe that it is not good patent But in my belief
The facts relating 10 the reissue has patent haze we
been brought before The Supreme Court And ifthe law b.
Of the judges hold, they can never be brough
before that tribunal without further legislation by Con
gress. EDMUND BURKE
FxBRUARY IA. HFssss#as +