The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-02-09

treaties is to put yourself upon the footing with
other nations Are you not making law which will APP
DIV TO all patents which may hereafter exist, that all
articles made by machine which is patented IN The INT
ted States will come within the prohibition, and be liza
Bile to seizure II they from adjacent countries, bu
shall not be liable TO seizure when they come from re-
mote eountTy Thus the objection IN my mind 10 ms
bill is, that conflicts with your treaties. do not wish
10 be misunderstood do not say thai were A. merely
applied those particular PATENTS and 10 ARTICLES winch
come from Canada alone IL would be violation Oh any
existing treaty with Great Britain but the law Is made
general; and while II is made TO attain particular 90
ect the law will apply TO all patents hereafter and 10 all
articles which may hereafter be made IN violation OF any
existing patent Therefore IL is bad as general law
suppose this objection is now well understood and as
do not purpose 10 into any extended argument, VIII
lei that branch OF The subject rest there.
The next objection is, that II may well be questioned
whether II is sound policy N any case or inns govern
ment 10 depart from what has always been It's previous
policy SO as TO give any exclusive right TO patentees
within the limits OF her own jurisdiction, and 10 compli-
cate her revenue laws by undertaking to prevent the
manufacture, by machine after 1t is patented here, OF
any article which IS patented IN any other country and
It's importation into thus country Certainly such law
has previously existed and this certainly entire
change, which may widely affect your laws, il
II do not cause conflict collision with foreign powers
Undoubtedly. Mr.. President, the human mind, in refer
ence TO inventions, singular il may seem. is consi
ated that the same subjects come up IN different
tres al about the same tme IN different modes. There
always will be discussion with respect 10 the priority oil
Inventions and now, II you pass general law like this
IN reference to any existing PATENTS will operate upon
The future as well as the present You will ind cases
constantly arising to be priority OF inventions. brought
up by inventors here which YOU undertake to determine
for your jurisdiction, by giving exclusive rights in
that jurisdiction, or extending these exclusive rights so
as to prevent the importation OF articles anufactnred BY
similar machines in any other country. Now, MIR
President, think that policy is at least questona-
BILE, and il would be well to consider il carefully
before 1t is adopted There is strong reason Tor
hesltating about passing such law now, because
il is well known that by the existing laws OF
France and England-snce these great powers will be
likely to compete with in matters OF that kindly the
nya tlnuIa nj kran. and tandu xtnUan
secure TO himself patent there. which will extend TO all
the British colonies and certainly it be great
hardship upon him to cut him oh here. while II would
operate lar more unfavoraby on parties who seek to pro-
cure exclusive right within the limits OF the lursdc
ton of any country for The manufacture OF particular
article in particular mode. that shall apply TO that us
dclon in order TO protect the rights OF its citizens
This bill violates that principle entirely There is,
therefore, regards the general feature Of the law, no
necessity Tor IT. for every paehee has the right tor the
Eng land France; and The existence OF patent here
does not deprive him OF 1t, provided he can make the a
pcation there, and prove the priority OF the invention
also There is, therefore. no necessity Tor this provs-
ion and az stated BEFORE Mr. President. you pass
ing general bill for the purpose OF protecting individual
rights Now, sir, do not say that if this bill was
brought in properly framed for the relief OF these two par
cuar paientees the owners of The patents and
10 confne itself finding remedy for the Importation of
which the owners OF these patents complaint IT were
to be made OF special legislation. for which the
bill was 10 provde-l do not say that would object TO
it, My objection is to The bill il stands. affecting all
patents.
This brings me 10 The second section of The BILL and
my third objection TO ii, which would apply 10
special bill And that is the extent of summary power,
and think arbitrary power, given by The terms OF
this second section Tor the purpose oil relief 1t pro-
vdesnot in reference to these patents alone but 10 ref
erence to alllha upon Hing bill IN chancery upon
oath affirmation. complaining that any person or cor
poTaon has imported has in his possession Tor sale or
traffic. any OF the articles described IN the preceding sec
ton, all this to be made evident to the satisfaction OF the
Judge which of course pqrie, and by aidavis thai
the alleged UTObaby rue-then said Judge
shall issue order to the marshal requiring the seizure
of the articles specified in this bill, and they are TO be
held subject to the final order OF the court Now, there
may be obscurity here but read the words employed
" final ORDER" it means the final adjudication OF the
case. Now, if the word finai means that the party
may in in any other case in chancery and put IN
his affidavit as the real merits and facts OF the
then the word is very napuy chosen for The purpose OF
giving such jurisdiction in this case II II does not mean
that then. according TO this bill he would make no order
for the seizure of these articles until he had hnaiy de
ermned the upon lis merits III he does, then that
seizure would be the exercise OF very summary power
Now, why should the power OF seizure be gwen al all
The principle upon which you grant rights 10 paenees is
that they confer benefits upon the community by the DIS
covsy OF inventions Tor which they OBTAIN patents The
reason for giving the exclusive right OF property IN the
patent u.s. that benefit conferred upon the community
aud therefore is that the patent laws by necessity are
limited 10 certain time. because Otherwise by giving
perpetual grant of and night 10 the object patented, you
would overbalance by the perpeuly the benefit conferred
upon the community, IN consequence OF The tax that
would be continually imposed by The individual That has
sole possession OF The right 10 the article patented The
principle OF all that is, that the right, the special right to
this article OF property which The party can obtain under
the statutory enactments upon that SUBJECT based upon
the principle that the community derives commensurate
benefit from the mode which The right is scared. Now
YOU give an exclusive right for certain time. Is not
that sufficient No, but you go further by this bill
and give only exclusive night OF property founded
upon the invention, for given time, but you propose 10
give peculiar summary and arbitrary remedy which does
not attach any other species OF property Now, why
should we do this You have already secured an exclu-
sye right the paenee, and the party can enforce
his right by OF the ordinary laws oil the land ap
plying to any property, whether eaoses IA ae'on or things
IL POSSESSION. Now why 20 beyond that Is not The
principle of summary jurisdiction dangerous one for
purposes OF legislation OF adjudication between man
and man The party would have the right, under The
law 10 secure himself the exclusive right and
The right OF action against the tTesIasser or volaor OF
his right, and injunction would be granted by any
court oil chancery without any reference TO the provs-
ions of this bill And yet will you go further and say
that he shall have the right OF sezng The articles upon
his own statement and affidavit with only probable proof
in regard the nature OF their possession, and take them
out of the custody oil the possessot at The time The
tenee may choose 10 exercise his night OF seizure. |
Now il seems to that The principle OF The patent
laws does no, require that But If you do accord this
further remedy then you sacrificing the interests OF
the community 10 the object of securing better remedies
to the patenee That is my third objection 70 this bill
will say, in making these remarks that believe our
paent laws are deficient in some respects. l think
here are grievances that the pa,en,ees labor under which