The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-09-11

that used ia the vsrpish establishments. This gen
tenan Is advanced IN years; he was s0eected
| to the most unparalleled cross exauinstion. IL
proceeded not by hours bat by days; the Questions
are counted not by tene, bat ~ hundreds he stood
the whole battery Of successive EXAMINATIONS,
| by counsel who relieved ench other at intervals
This single old witness with three or four able pro-
feesional lawyers at him, pressing BIN, purruing
him, relieving each other as they became wearricd,
passed through the ordes unscathed, and the Court
| can see how little they have shaken the force aud
effect Of his testimony. Some weight Is attempted
10 be attributed loose remark, that he supposed be
had remained from ten TO IF cen minutes in the room,
and the criticism made thst if it had beeo heated
10 the Yulcanizpg point, life could not have been
maintained in II during that time. need not say
| 10 Court Of 70 much experience as this, that when
witnesses speak In general way OF time or distance
but little importance ought TO be given to it, They
do not speak by the watch, or by any exact stand
ard and no dependence is usually placed upon their
testimony in this respect. They speak Of minutes
without the least respect TO accuracy in regard to
time The fact is, that durDg the whole process Of
curing his compound, he might have been in the
room ten or fifteen minutes He himself expressly
qualities bis testimony by adding, :" mean when l
say from ten to fifteen minutes, the time would
have amounted to ten or fifteen minutes"
II is also worthy Of remark, that one of the plain
TN witnesses testified to tho same thing, upon ex
aetly the same point. In reference to vucanzing
rubber, he says that he 6 saw it done, he saw the
goods vulcanized," and being asked how long he
was in that room he ans weIed, " ten or fifteen mi
| nutes."
| Mr. Cutting then proceeded to comment upon the
| dispositions Of numerous other witnesses, who,
| he insisted. established the fact tina. tho pro-
| cess of curing rubber by heat had been known and
practised by them and others in various places long
Irior to the alleged discovery of it BY Goodyear.
1t follows, then. if tho Court please, unless we
altogether deceived in the bearings and effect OF
the testimony, that Goodyear never invented tho
curing of rubber compounds by high degree Of
/ l.1r+ u IL. Lcl
the contrary, the knowledge of the process was
| communicated to him by others who had discovered
| it.
| The next deduction from the evidence that II pre-
semi to the Court is. throwing out Of view for
ment the successful experiments Of Collins, Of Pratt
and of the Others to whom reference has been made
ard assuming for the present that the honor Of dis
covering the curing process belongs t0some OF the
parties who interested in. and are engaged in at
tempting to maintain the patents, that as bet yeen
Goodyear and Hayward, the latter in truth the
| inventor, and that by private arrangement the
latter for valuable consideration, has yielded the
precedence to the former as he had done previously
in 1888, when he transferred Goodyear his alleged
| invention of the Sulphur Patent.
| Mr.. Cutting then read extracts from the testi-
! mony Of twenty-one witnesses, and also numerous
letters and documents upon the point last suggested
| He then proceeded:-I submit to the Court upon
/ this evidence, taking the have presented
it, that as between Goodyear and Hayward the lat
| ter, and not the former, was the inventor Of the
heating process. Though, by private arrangement
and by pccuniary barg aims, Hayward was induced
to give certificate, in 1913, that Goodyear, and
not himself, was the real author. Was thore ever
mere suspicious circumstance than this certificate!
Is it not a remarkable incident that Goodyear, in
lSi3, who pretended to have just perfected this in
yention at time when he pretends that no person
but himself was even experimenting with any view
to result, that he should have gone to Hayward,
who was then in his employ, to get him to certify
TO his character as an inventor, between the m
selves! How much did that certificate cost! What
for IA Of
tracing from Hayward this paper! Why, as de-
cisive answer to this inquiry have collated and
produced five separate and distinct agreements, all
bet ween the same parties and all bearing the same
date with this certificate. by which Goodyear made
over and transferred to Hayward the most valuable
and important branches OF this manufacture, pro-
missing to pay him in addition considerable sum
of money, and securing it by another instrument.
We have shown, taking the whole transaction to-
gether, that it certificate bought at the very
highest price that Goodyear was able give, that
Hayward could succeed in obtaining for transferring
the merit and the honor of the authorship of this in
yention to Goodyear. The fact is beyond all sort
Of question, and established by proofs not in the
least dependent upon the slippery memories of men,
TO be varied by the changes of interest which is
so apt TO make men one thing to- day. and another
to morrow 1t rests upon the incontestible evidence
Of written documentary evidence What could have
been the motive or reason for paying exorbitantly
and enormously for mere certificate of fact, if that
fact were true! Ought it to have cost sixpence.
especially when Hayward was his friend, and in his
employ! Hayward's price was extravagant, and
that price was paid Will it not satisfy the Court
that there was knowledge on the part ofbcth these
men that it was worth money, and required money
to transfer the authorship from one to the other!
Nor is it the first instance between them Of selling
out inventions. Goodycar's first appearance upon
the stage the purchaser Of Hayward's right,
to the invention OF sulphur combined with rub
Der, which lies at the foundation Of all this
matter. Mr.. Goodyear obtained it by purchase,
and by purchase only, and thus appears as the
patentee. Afterwards, endeavoring 10 by dry
atmospheric heat, he failed completely that, in
despair, he took the rubber goods, threw them on
the ground, and confessed his inability to accom-
plish his object Mr.. Beers was finally hired by
Goodyear, and it through his ingenuity that the
secret of success, in the application Of dry heat,
gradually rased
In ISi6, Mr.. Tillou discovered the capacity Of
steam to cure rubber. Goodyear Immediately went
to Tillou to purchase his right, and requested Mr..
Gilbert to obtain patent for this Improvement.
This plan was defeated, simply because there was
prior discovery of the same thing in England. AS
far as am able TO judge, such is the state of this
case. But if, against all this evidence, Goodyear
is entitled to the merit of discoverer, why, can
only say his title comes In most questionable
shape.
The next proposition that I submit is. that the
patent of 1919, far it embraces the process Of
curing by heat. of any kind is void; because, even
prior to the issuing of the original patent and as
early as the 2lst November. 1913, letters patent
were granted in England to Thomas Hancock for
compounding sulphur and rubber, and for curing
them by various applications Of heat, and among
them by steam.
His specification was published IN January, 1916,
in the Refertory OF Patent Inventions, vol. v, p.
l5l to 1862.
The American public thus became possessed of
the invention, and it too late for Goodyear, even
if he had been an inventor, to surrender his old
patent, and obtain reissue, covering the improve
ments already published to the world by Others
This point wss decided in Ba.ten Va Haggat, in
1851.
IT is true, Honcosk's patent did not include lead,
and from that circumstance, Go0dyears patent Of
tent have been affected BY Haneock's patents but
wren be extended his claim by the re-issued patent
of lS49, he embraced the curing of sulphur and
covered What was described in the pre- existing spo.
cfcation Of Hancock, published in the scientific
l.. r.. a