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

said IL was impraerioable 80 0'ssn
This last is q witness produced on the other s;ds
whom they have employed for long time In
1876, Goodyear told Mr.. Gilbert tina. he had bsa,J
that there had been such thing the introduction
Of steam for the purpose of curing goods and ex.
pressed apprehension that it would affect hs patent
and, subsequently,, Mr.. Tillou informed Mr. Goodyear
that he had discovered a mode Of curing rubber
by steam, and Goodyear advised him to take out
patent for it. and sent MIN to Mr.. Gilbert
for the purpose Of proof and Of satisfying 10 the
value Of the discovery. Gilbert then directed their
attention to the patent taken out in England and.
told Iiloc that he was not entitled to IL; ne SUBJ
sequently informed Mr. Goodyear Of the existence
Of this English patent and recommended Goodyear
py no means TO allow Ticu 10 apply for a patent.
In the face Of these facts is now pretended that
Goodyear in 1874, was the discoverer Of the apple
cation OF all kinds of heat to the curing OF rubber in
any form, In any mode. atmospheric, vapor,
steam, boiling acids. no matter what; that he is
the author Of the whole general application of the
principle Of heat to the curing Of rubber, with or
without lead. These pretensions cannot be main
tanned. In 1874, when Goodyear applied for a
charitable goods. by boiling in hot acids at above
PIP Of heat, was process veil known and used.
will give the Court few references to the evidence
to show that that process Of curing goods was ex-
tensively known and practised prior to 1887 and
1859.
Armstrong; Evidence, (vol. A, deseudsnt's
printing, page AZ, questions 100 to l22).
1o9 Before Goodyear your establishments had
and If So what Nash! An-wsr we lad man in our
employ BY the name of John Y. Nash.
ITO Do you recosct Of invention discovery bv
said NASH about 1887 '3s Of mode Of curing vu
caniziug rubber If yea any circumstances connec-
ted therewilh. Answer Az The time Charles Goodyear
was at The factory experiment ing Goodyear trying
experiments to cure IDda ruboer goods with acids His
process was with cold acid. n. not with gooi
success and he did mis- goods perfectly. Mr. Nash
took some acids and heat eb acids 10 kettle cured
the goods perfectly aud claimed the discovery OK curing
GODS with heated acids
Ill, About high i Nash heat these arids hav
the rubber was into 70 aud shcer it
was boiling the acids ana wbs, sind Of acids! Answer
doot Know TINT til. operation of curing these
gooas knew the fscts from Mr. Nash and Mr. GOODYEAR
IL, State how you came 10 know the facts from Mr.
Guilty between Mr. Nash Mr. Goodyear Mr. Nash
claimed the discovery. his. and Mr. Goodyear also
claimed Ii, on the ground bsi Mr. Nash in his ern-
poy and they came into the Office and referred she mat
ter to me to eettle the differences between them de-
ened doing any thing about It and told them they had
better arrange ,beir Own matters
ll3 Previous 10 their coming In company TO you had
Mr.. Naah communicated to you and hov, any thing
the subject! Answer Dir Nash came into the c0ce and
brought piece Of rubber saying he had discovered
the way to cure India rubber words to that eject he
showed me piece he sait be bad cured.
ia. Whether not that piece alleged to be cured
BY Nash different from any thing you had previously
ieen 81 Mr. doodyear.! ADs"er The piece sAown me at
the time was better than any thing had the
kind.
lI6. Whether or not at tho time Goodyear and Nash
Nashs or Goodys ar, Ans Goodyear clairaed the
discovery, the rrouI that Nash in his employ
Il
l16 You then that Goodye did ad init tha. Nash
was the dscoverer but claimed that belonged to Good
year because Nash was IN his employ Ans mean that
he claimed 1t On the ground that Nash in his
ploy.
lii Did Goodyear at that time, then and there claim
that he Goodyear the first Of The heated
acids. Independent of the 4nest.o OF employ
tohected to BY plaintiffs counsel as contradictory to
Ans He claimed it the ground that Nash was in his
employ; did not hear him claim it any other ground
u.s. whether no in that conversation or previous
sai nv Ma abOut
patent for such heating Il acids curing rubber
Ans When Nash showed me be piece Of rubber he had
pattntiDg his discovery Goodyear was not present at
about patentpg BY Nssh at e time that he and Good
year you 10 tie tor them their difference
Ans The difference between the parties which they did
submit to me- and wished me to settle was which
entitled to the patent Tor tn. discovery.
100 Do you mean which entitled to take out the
patent or what Ans. Whit understood OF IL was,
whether Mr. Nash was en,i.I.i TO the patent not
IA. What kind Of good' and how were hey cured did
BE made various kind goods and cured them with hot
acids as o general thing.
122 Did he putthese goods into the market and sell
hem orwas he merry exp rncrtirg to what h
could mske? Ans. THY were in the Marcel AID sold
n the market some OF Them
Harlow's Testimony, (vol. t. defendants printing.
page POD he was witness examined by tue
plaintiff.
The new patent claims that Goodyear. before
1914, was the dscoverer of the means OF curing rub
Der by heat, whether by atmospheric heat, or by
boiling in hot water acids.
The evidence establishes, that rs respects the
curing in boiling water, or in boiling acids, the dis
coveTy was made by Mr.. Nash, and that he commu-
nicatedit to Goodyear IL was after this commu-
ncation that Goodyear described his invention to be
process OF curing the goods in close vessel, BY
applying atmospheric heat
How is it, then, that man who claimed 40 little
IN 1874, should pretend, in lS49, to 80 much The
mystery is unravelled when the facts arc disclosed
that he has sold out hs rights to numerous specu-
Iators, who made him covenant to surrender his
original patent, and TO apply for one, If coun-
sci should SO advise. He had remained perfectly
satisfied, down to the LIST of July, 1913. He knew
what his improvement was He had declined to
extend it, when invited so to do by DR.. Jones He
had openly admitted that he neither patcntee
OF the application Of steam nor Of boiling acids
he claimed merely the process of heating in an
oven But ut this period be had sold out his rights,
and j. is these men who required that no should
amend his patent, "under the advice of COUNSEL
de shortly after surrendered it. In less than one
year nom the date of his agreement with
them, proceedings had been commenced, in tho
Patent office, for q better and moro extensive
monopoly. In 1879 it accomplished nomlnilly
by Goodyear, but in fact by others engaged in
the business of manufacturing rubber, VINO sleva-
TED him as discovtrer 10 point high enough to,
cover ana protect the whole extent of India rubber
manufactures. Ii the contrivance stands il will be
utterly impossible until the lapse Of long series
W JNesn, " iithc dDy improvement Without lnbet-
ferng With the CLAIMS set up; it is q patent
which at once and completely occupies the whole
ground, and prevents all Improvement. This is
great ana grave question Tor the community. ad-
NIT that the real and honest discoveries OF men Of
ingenuity and intelligence ought to be protected
and cherished, aud nursed by courts OF Justice.
They ale benefactors OF mauknd but at the same
time, IT is in VAIN 10 deny that the statute which
authorizes the surrender and 70 issue of patents,
opens very wide door to frauds, and that when
beie y paipaole difference between the new and
the co patent. and upon investigation, IL appears
he actual invention was only to a limited extent,
much less than that covered by the Ieissusd patent
= seem to mo that such grant, obtained IN fact,
parties, not one Of whom pretends TO any merit
rs . discoyoser; 10y purchasers upoa speculation
merely, ought not, by any filso symptthy crsased
eminent counsel ~ favor Of Mr.. Goodyear 10 be
oriiued or countonanced
For these reasons. respectfully submit thu. ibis
fatent of $50 Is utterly void.