The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-06-17

VIdua articethe puTchasercerialnly would mol be VII
ling 10 do that. Then you may suppose the case OF
man claiming patent OF that kind which may be ihe
property OF third person He publishes IN the newsPa
pers, warning the cemnun'y against me consumption o.
lion of the article would be entirely destroyed MY ob-
lection is that think the paenees can be provided Tor
without making the consumer OF the individual article
Mr. MILLER This bill was introduced for the pur.
pose OF meeting known existing evll-io prevent whal
The Committee the judiciary thought gross violation
OF the spirit of our patent laws Ii is intended To
reach any case which the gentleman from Delaware
(Mr BAyARDl has suggested-tha is, OF going and sez
ing article merely because man may be found ~ Inc
Of il but the object Of the bin topreven persons
who could not evade patent laws within The nilel
! States from taking the machine across the line into
foreign territory, and there manufacturing The article ana
sending into the United States Tor sale and for use,
/ Now sir IL this machine those machines which are
now IN operation in Canada, were within the UnIted
States under present laws, they could be selzed and
al taken possession OIL and the parties violating Inc
patent laws would be punished. But, inasmuch az me
party, knowing that such is the state oil ihe law IN 'he
United States carries the machine across The De there
is remedy for the protection OF the patentee, unless
Congress gives him remedy asked BY the bill, 10 WI
that il a man or men shall the line bringing
these articles into the United Staes knowing them 10 be
manufactured by this machine then lrauduieniy IN ope
ration or sha sell or use them here knowing them 10 De
manufactured, this law reaches them. Now. what is
there unfair unjust about that II the machine was
within the United States, this law would not be neces'
sary, because the paentee could go and prosecute me
persons who manufacturing the articles But this is
very different. This evasion OF the law makes II neces
sary II you intend to protect the rights OF the paenee al
all, TO do il in this way
One word in regard 10 the particular point referred TO
by the senator from Delaware Mr.. BAYARDl lie objects
10 this law being applied TO persons who are using The
article Now, agree with the senator that II struck me
at first, hen the word " use" put in the bill, that IL
would be carrying the law far that il might be op
press've TO allow to 90 into shop where the
article IS IN use and seize IT, But the amendment pro
posed by the senator from Kentucky Mr.. UHDERwooDl
remedies all the difficulties in tue case because you can
not seize the articles in unless you make affidavit be-
ioreband that the party using them knew them 10 have
been thus suIeptlousy brought into the United States
Now, with this provision there can be officially IN the
matter A man may go inio market anywhere and buy
any article; but II would be hard TO seize that article.
though he does not get any title TO IT, unless you prove
sc,e"fer But II man buys an article knowing IL 10 be
fraudulent when he bought it, there certainly be
objection to making him suffer for 1t.
| Mr.. bAlARD. Suppose the case OF pa,eniee havHs
made publication in wspaper, which can be read by
any party, that certain article Is patented BY himself
II be finds this article in use, and files bill against the
party using II, would not the notice the newspaper be
deemed Sufficient evidence OF knowledge!
/ MI. MILLER That brings up the question of knowl
edge, and The Judge would have 10 be satisfied that the
man had the knowledge would have no objection to
The word use being stricken out, were it not tor the
fact that the law would be evaded again because the
man would say, did not import these articles into the
United States for sale, but Tor use !; and you would
therefore have 10 amend the laws 10 meet that IL
10 meet that very difficulty that the bill is framed because
II The word use" is IN y, men will not purchase these
articles knowing them TO be imported, and use them, and
SO the importation will cease.
Il Mr. SEWARD. Mr.. President, the constitution Of the
United States provides that Congress shall have power
promote The progress OF science and the useful arts By
securing TO inventors and authors the exclusive proper
" in The productions OF their genius for limited term
oil years IS provision that II became necessary 10
lngratt on the constitution OF the United States, for the
reason that the subject IN which the property is
ed was matter OF commerce, and commerce was ne
cessarly placed within OF the federal government,
instead OF the government OF the States IL is anon.
ally 10 the constitution, because the rights OF private
property are secured TO their owners by the legislation
M lP NNIh ltaFV
Ii was policy borrowed IRON the government from
which we derived OF the mo.t valuable of nst
mtons-the government OF Grea, Britain. Ii adopt.
ed IN that country IN the time OF James l. when no-
nopoes granted by The Crown revised. All in
Iurious monopoes abolished, and the royal power
OF granting monopolies was limited vigorously 10 the
granting Of patents with view TO encourage science
and the useful arts. The which adopted
by the Congress OF the United States 10 carry out these
provisions were the measures which bad been
adopted by the Parliamen, of Great Britain. The went
10 The extent, and they went further and, in
the MAN, those remedies, they have been continually
amended and improved, have answered the purpose But
case has arisen when the existing remedies found
Inadequate 10 fulh the constitutional purposes, and the
inventor oil machine Tor useful manufacture hnds that
while he pays TO the government bonus for its protec
ilon when be has invented the machine and surrendered
IL 10 the government forever after fourteen years, upon
the condition that the government will secure him the
elusive and benefit oil IL Tor That term oil years. such
inventor finds the products OF this machine in the
market in his town, sale al lower prices than he
can afford when made by hs patented machine, ope
Intellectual, because the egisting remedy only be
forced by reaching the person Of the nirnger aud the
machine with which the article is Manufactured But
the nlrnger is IN Canada beyond the reach OF legal pro-
cesshe machine is in Canada, beyond The reach OF the
Jurisdiction Of the United States The products there,
and The inventor, when paying tax TO the government
/ for the privilege OF manufacturing bis own article, Is
suppaned in the market by the foreign manufacturer,
who uses the inventors property for that purpose.
Now, cir, the remedy which is prescribed by the
suiion and which ls secured by law, is inadequate
The right OF property Is nevertheless 10 be protected
else the great and benign constitutional provision fails
What, then must be done Either you must abandon
the protection Of property or you mus furnish new and
better remedy. That Is the object Of this bill, IL fur
nishes ither emedy and thafis ny providing mat he
product introduced from abroad shall be
forfeited TO the of The true inventor What objection
is there TO this
II is stated by the honorable senator from Delaware
Mr. BAYARDl that il is founded on new principle. But
I hunbly submit that there is pnncple-nothng that
Is worthy OF the OF princplenvoved in the matter
The principle is that the inventor shall be protected in
his properly and the duty OF Congress is TO see that be
4 is protected The remedy involves new duty what
ever. II is carrying out the same principle.
VI But The honorable senator maintains that heretofore
have seized and subjected manufactured products,
but have left them free and open TO commerce, and that
therefore, we should establish Dew principle by seizng
products this Well, cir, that involves prin.
ciple for certainly the who the property Of
that inventor claim protection OF principle IN the
use OF il. Then il - only making the existing remedy
more stringent and not departing from principle at al
Tor the principle is protection OF property
When tbs new and additional remedy is proposed two
Questions arise first, whether !, Is necessary. And
the TACT that IL il necessary ls conceded on all
hands. The property cannot be protected unless some
new remedy be given nor can the wit OF man de-