The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-09-11
ARGUMENT OF Mr.. CUTTISa CONTINUED.
SATURDAY MOENING. March "a. IS5


yesterday remarked, that the evidence that had
been offered of the genunencss ofMr. Goodyear let
ter to DR.. Jones' was Of an exceedingly slight cha-
racter and was certainly open to good ceal OF cr
cous that they should have suffered many parties,
familiar with Mr. Goodycars writing. to leave the
stand without proving that paper which constitutes
their whole case upon this point, beyond doubt
Your Honor asked, if we had any proof that II was
not genuine. began to reply, but had not mo-
ment to observe, rs the time for adjournment had
arrived, that the letters notwithstanding these par
ties had been 80 many months taking testimony,
won't say was kept back, but will say that it was
not produced until the last day OF the examination
OF witnesses, when there was no opportunity TO call
witnesses side to reb 1t their testimony That
is the exact fact about it. AS the last hour Tor tax
ing proofs expired, that letter was produced, and
under the circumstances that have been observed.
But, even If your Honors could in matter OF so
much importance, rely with confidence upon the
thcnticty OF this letter. il lacks all the clements
that would be necessary TO make out an invention
on the part Of Goodyear. co extensive with the new
patent-tbat is 10 say, the invention Of curing rub
Der mixed with sulphur or any OF the gases OF SUI
Ibur, without the Of lead, by means Of heatte-
cause 1t contains on its face description whatever
OF this alleged improvement. tdoes not undertake
TO define any mode, any process, or any ncGls BY
which il can be carried into practical effect, and
more tlsn that, Dr. Jones immediately wrote back,
saying, 'if sou desire your specification to DC en-
larged. sou must inform me how to describe what
you meGD you must state clearly what i Is you
WANT ard that letter which called upon Goodyear
To describe bis invention GOo1y to have left
totally unanswered Now, Why was i unanswered!
Not because At was not subject Oh importance,
or Of sufficient magnitude, but bocuuse II escaped
the attention ci Goodyear. Dredoncs says:-lt you
want foratCutlhF asa clailu, sou must describe tt
and not word isa0duccdip ansTer.o that letter
Consequently, II strikes me thai ms piece OF cyl
deucc, tho only mottCT upon which they rely =, IA
tie first place, very insulicicntly proved, susp-
citusly produced. and i'm reduced under eircum-
"A ar
testimony was offered Oh their side: but even, II
genuine, shows ur0u its face that Goodyear had
then 10 idea 81 that which u now cl9imed TO lave
been his discovery.
Now, n opposition Il this evidence, sligbtin every
aspect in which il can be regarded, wi refer your
Honors to proof that IN point Of fact Goodyear never
had produced any iuccessfu result Ia the respects
now claimed
Assume, Cor one moment, tho letter or Goodyear
to be genuine letter. and assume that the lack Of
any description Of any invention other than tie
mere 0nnunciation Of an abstract idca, Is to he
deemed Sufficient 70 establish that 10 was, as carly
as 1874. the inventor 81 practical procese: then
insist that the re.issued patent in respect TO he
subject matter Of this letter to Dr. Jones, utterly
yoio, because tie thirteenth section OF tic act of
ie56 authorizes reissue only In tho GASES mem
tio0td, viz where the original specification is in
operative, by reseon Of oy0t guity, inadyeTtance,
mistake accidental onisson and this lctteriucon
testify shows that he aware Of how tho speci-
iication Of 1871 was drawn. lie knew exactly what
1t covered to wit, the triple compound in combine
ton with heat IL proves that before the patent
had issued, he had discovered that thore was an
omission in the specification He wrote to DIR:
Jones, expressly declaring that he had discovered
more than was described in the specification lie
says:-"l have discovered that rubber, in conbina.
tion with sulphur alone, or with sulphur and its
gasts, may be cured by heat. have discovered
that, and Therefore i wish 10 amend the specifca-
tom DR.. Jones wrote in answer :--'If you want
this alleged invention described in your spcci6ca-
tion, you must tell me how to do It." (page 300,
vol 3, Defendants Printing, Brownies evidence.)
The fact is thus established, that Gsody ear, be.
fore the isue Of the patent Of 1874 knew the extent
Of the specification. and that it described triple
compound to DO subjected to heat in an oven or
coso room, and In that particular mode only. This