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

Durns rie yssr We nAAs greet quaesisss & sosds
Wis ross carriage cloths and ess ARTICLES; these VEN
the India rubber b the1 sssausacsuras aod slso us
the other dryers above mssfioned. Prom 5eptsmber
isss To-, 70 April 1875 made ns1oss Of .as!es q
rubbee white csd. spits (purAed With suiphurl mag
nssia mari. and slex these dlderrns Ingredients weSo
From that time down 70 the present have ned 20
msnuaoture lnds rubber goods With tho above ipgre-
dients used In valtons and irppinsrAbte proportions,
York. Philadelphia. Bstmore, New Orleans aud other
places have worked part Of the time in woburn and
Der 0c,obcr made two diving dresses for Mr. sw,n
ton which shred at the neck the eeves ear tho
hand and at thu anclas Dresses Inia rubber
cloth and made elastic in this vsy by being snrrod or
wrirklst ut those parts About the time early
In 1912 made bathing caps upon the priacipls
ineioed stretched "trip OF India rubber in shoe
which Is not stretched. NATHANIEL HAY WARD
Boston Nov 9, 1874.
nAssAcHusKrrs, SUFFOLK So. Nov. Q. ls44-The above
eihdast was sworn to befors me, WILLARD PaiLLlps
Justice OF the Peace
have placed before ycur Hcnors very formid-
able mass Of evidence, which, in my judgment, is
conclusive upon tie question, that this fabric of
rubber acd sulphur. CURED and compounded in the
manner set forth in Hsysard's patent Of 1899: was
and 1889. was made in this establishment as an
article Of constant sale, continually pat before the
public. entered into tho market, became source Of
profit and sold with view to profit. in such way
an article is susceptible Of. Our proposition upon
this state Of facts is. that the sale Of the thing
patelted, viz the rubber mixed with sulphur, and
practically applied to the only use Of which it was
susceptible, viz In the shape Of cloth or fabric
prior to 1889, deprived Hayward aua the plaintiff,
us his assignee, OF the right to patent
OA the other side, they insist that putting
t into public use is not such an act, or such
.. series of acts, as depriyes the discoyerer Of
his title TO patent subsequently, taken out
and ! understand the argument to be this, that
frubber and sulphur mixed and spread upon cloth
End dried, will produce new and useful manufac-
lure, the putting upon sale Of the fabric so made
without disclosing the process BY which it is made
will not deprive the inventor Of his right to pa
tent These goods were made not for the purpose
q experiment, but as regular marketable commo-
dty, and were sold for purposes Of gain; the argu
mtnt on the other side is, that if mehodi disco
vcrtd by which a new fabric can be produced, il
may be mado end sold for as many years as you
choose, SO long as the public do not discover tho
mode in which the commodity is made. You may
stock the market, and still be in time for pa
tent.
1t said that the public are not possessed of the
inye ntion but Only Of the products Of it, and al
though the inventor is enjoying the fruits Of his dis
coyery and wthhods his secret from the public UNI
til he is satisfied with his gains he has still the
right to 60 to the Patent Office and obtain an ex.
elusive grant for fourteen years moro. The result
IS, that ifan article be manufactured in a way that
avoids detection, it may be used for profit for any
length of time without impairing the right ut any
time afterwards to patent
This is very remarkable proposition, and one
that it is impossible to maintain upon principle or
authority 1t is clear that a sale, or use Of the
composition of sulphur ard rubber spread upon
cloth ard dried, Is sale Of the thing inyen-
ted within the meaning of the Patent laws. The
use of the fabric is use of the invention It is
against the language, principles, and well settled
rules Of the Patent laws, to permit inventor to
withhold his discovery from the public. use it for
his private emolument. maintaining his secret till
prudence calls upon him to diyulgo it, and then to
claim the reward Of fourteen years additional ex-
elusive use, with contingent right to q removal.
All principle ard authority are opposed to it. Web
ster's Patent Cases, 49i-Morgan against Seaward,
Meeson & Welsby, page 5+i. Laud on Patents,
page "a. holt's Nisi Prius Cases 6s-Wood against
Sey mour
My attention has been called to note in Curtis
on Patents, section 800, introduced by the other
side, which it is supposed countenances the doc
rine, that the dcoyerer actually sell and real
ize profit without prejudice to his rights to
patent, so long as the public do not discover
the secret of the invention, and that even after
series OF years OF use and enjoyment Of it, he can
still obtain patent.
| have looked into the cases contained in this
note, and submit that it is not no authority on which
the plaintiff can rely 1t seems 20 the contra
~. to furnish very pointed decision in favor Of
defendant. If a discoyerer Systematically and in
.enonally Keeps his discoveries secret. with view
to his own profit, as lorg he dare, putting its pro-
ducts on Gale and Ieapug tho rewards, he thereby
loses his right to patent.
All the learning on the other side, has not
brought case to Sustain their proposition-how is
1t possible that an invention be kept secret by
the inventor, and used rs long as he chooses, and
be entitled to patent! 1t would be an encourage
men to parties to keep their discoveries within thair
own breasts, in order to make them source of pro
Lit to themselves. III the sale OF the fabrics nude
according to the identc combination patented be
not sale of the invention, so az to effect an aban-
donmeDt, know Of 10 state of things which could
have had that result
/ 70 St IN tba
the discovercr of tho triple compound! and then
will turn my attention to that which is the most i'm
portant-who was the discoverer Of the heating pro-
cess! We say that this composition was known
and used by. Others long before the time of the
lSA.
There two principal classes of witnesses, bear
ing upon this branch Of the case together with
the other additional and auxiliar circnmstances
The first class that shall refer to, is that which
has been so especially attended to by the other sie
AID made the subject Of so many severe and caustic
remarks. Their testimony relates to the discovery
by Collins, in Baltimore in 1879; and the next class
refers to the discovery Of the triple compound by
very respectable man, conceded so to be, named
Pratt, residing in one of the Eastern States; hut
these witns ssesI mean Collins and those who sup
port him ard Pratt, and those who corroborate and
confirm him. arc extremely numerous. In regard
to Collins, before examining his testimony, beg to
say word or two Of his history, as dorive it from
his evidence. 1t seems that in September, 1883 he
was in Baltimore, and there made a discovery Of
the compound Of lead, rubber, acd sulphus, which
he subjected to the action Of heat. This occurred
in September, 1873. In October afterwards. he
went TO Boston, where be was taken SILK; ho soon
recovered, and he, who is now made the subject OF
so much abuse and is branded ms an impsstor, early
in 1881, was employed by ef the principal manu-.
featuring establishments at Lowell, in Massachusetts,
for the purpose Of inyenting and putting up new
system Of machinery in tne manufacture OF India
rubber goods How happened it, if he was man
Of no repute, and Of no inventive genius or
quirements-how happened it, that this stran-
gel. from Baltimore. who claimed that ho
had made this invention, should in the
Eastern States, and in a cart Of the country cor.
tanly equal 70 any otl,or in point OF skin and inge
nuity. have so readily obtained employment in enc
Ioaeil Menuiacturlrg Company. 10 pur up y set III
machinery for the manufacture Of this new fabric If
inoa iuetcr! Ia 1854, after heving c9mplete q the
machinery Tor tho Lowell establishment Tie vent 20
Newton, whore be made machinery iOr tho maBl.
faotme Of India rubber goods fog another company.
who ordered machinery SIMILAR to Tint which he
made for The Lowell company IL 1886 he made