The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-02-03

sickles were made 'coarser than. they had been
and all cut in one direction as they were. &C., tn
machine choked, especially IN damp sCheat. Ther
is no machine at this time that will cut clear ii
damp tpheat without my Improvements in sub
stance, fsee the failure Of Hussey's in damp whea
in late English reports,) and still it is not said her
that no reversed cut sickle had been used before
far from it. Nor can it be supposed that petition
of this sort lat the time it was drawn) would b
drawn with particular accuracy upon points no
Il essential to its object All the Improvement
combined and claimed in the patent of 1845 were
necessary to complete the cutting apparatus, anc
had my patent, and they were not abandoned
while in a course of experimenting, and it was mo-
necessary in that petition to state at what date any
one OF the improvements was first made
As have stated, and as is seen, much expert
menting was necessary in the limited time afforded
for it to complete delicate an operation, and q
repeat that} the reversed cut sickle first in
vented and used by me in my machine prior to
the daterfrom which it is claimed BY Moore Il Has
/ call. so
But in the course of the discussion Of Moore &
Hascalrs bill in the Senate, it was stated that il
1 had been reported and passed by the House, when
it was passed, however, without being read to it,
and evidently without being understood at the
time by the House, the committee that reported IT.
for while II Is obviously designed to relieve from
abandonment or dedication to the public. not to
another dndicidual tDho cannot appropriate to him
self the invention of another-any thing that can
be proved to have been in the burnt model (what
was claimed not being found in drawings or speci-
hcations, as explained, and therefore extends to
an indefinite period behind their patent it also
lieyes from abandonment improvements" prov
ed at any time subsequent to- the date of the pa
tent; and yet, in subsequent report of the
same committee, in the case Of Woodworth, the
/ ground ls clearly taken, that whatever has been
dedicated to the public cannot be recalled, which
4 1t is said would be emonopoly,'' &c. And
the object and effect of the bill seemed equally
misunderstood by its advocates in the Senate Sena.
| tors Badger Cass having both argued that it
would interfere with no existing lave, and there-
fore amounted to no more, in principle and effect,
than renewal f the patent (the former, how
ever, seemed more to consider the effect of pro-
| posed amendment than the character of the bill
itself. having thought ssif good with, it would be
good without the amendment;'') and the only
reason assigned for making the application to
Congress instead of the Patent Office was by
| General Cass, who stated that .sit might be, in
some part. his fault' that the application was
| made to Congress, because extension of four
| teen gears could be obtained by Congress- instead
of seven years by the Patent Office. General Cass
did not explain, however, why the patent for the
improvements was not applied for at the Patent
| UDsce, If no unpatentabie improvements were
meant to be cIaimed for to them his reasons would
not apply. Itcould not have occurred to him that
there was any difference, if, indeed, he was aware
at that time that patent for, the improvements
was to be included in the patent to be extended
My machine and my patents have. not without
long and laborious application on my part, been
| prominently before the country for many years,
| and are of acknowledged value and importance to
Y,
Moore & Hascall has not been on record in the Pa
tent Office since the year twas granted, required
BY law, and there therefore notice t. the pub
&c that they had patent at all; and the single fact
That but i've or Six OF their machines have ever been
built, and that they are not known out of their
neighborhood, while they are contesting claims
| rather claim-with me, dated by them in
1885, Is sufficient evidence that their machine
Is OF no practical ualue ask then what around
there Is for party, under such circumstances,
connecting themselves with other Infringing parties
| as In this case--or without any such connection.
after lapse of seventeen years. to present them,
selves to Congress and modesly request that they
be relieved from abandonment, and patent be
granted to them for little Improvement" in sickle,
which they omitted to include in their patent, (of
1850 and which has for ten or fifteen years been
IN general use, under another's patent ,ctbout OBJ
1ectson-without, say, even placing the party
having the patent upon equal ground in sustaining
has patent against the hydraheaded concern he has
tocontend with, on the equitable principle claimed
OF sspriority of inyenton.'' But have not stated
this application just in the manner n which it is
made. Whilst have stated its object and effect,
lts form upon its face is such that. as has been
shown, some of its friends and advocates in both
houses OF Congress have not 30 understood it. In
stead OF stating iohat it designed to patent
der it, when its polish of apparent simple justice
IS such as to screen its real character from the
scrutiny of such minds as Senators Cass and Bad
ger, and the House Committee Patents, it is in
1niely worse than if it had clearly borne upon its
lace It's true character and purpose. g va
Nho could have supposed, further, that under
this bill, without having taken the first step, dur
ing the period of sixteen or seventeen years. to es-
tabhsh right by patent, according to the forms
prescribed by law, for what Seymour & Morgan
say improved theeutting apporatus in all the reap
ing machines in uee-Bell's, Hussey's, and ALLY
or without having given notice or intination of a.
clam at al it was designed to obtain patent for
an Improvement proved TO have been in the
r burnt model, which would override an existing
patent and (retrospectively) make the patentee
liable for the manufacture ofperhaps thousands of
reaping machines-whether from 1886 or 1850,
(date of the patent, or its expirationD / am not
myself quite certain. Such is its design lsay; and
that, it probably calculated, would have sustained
Seymour &Morgan in Aforementioned infringement
of my patents. Would Congress knowingly
undertake to settle rights of such character and
magnitude thus summarily, informally, and unin
telligiby-not to say ,snatgfuIty and unjustfy?
How many members of the House who voted for
this bill understood the provisions and conse-
quences involved in it Or, rather, may not re-
specially ask, is there single impartial member Of
Congress 1rho looad haoe voted for tis bill Nth full
knowledge of its concealed character and designs
ask, further, if after the passage of such bill by
Congress-, without having been understood or read,
the consequences described should be visited upon
some party where least looked for, whether the
first business done at the following session of Con,
gress would not be to repeal the 0dios act and pro-
vide such other remedies as the case would adj
NIT oil? IS j. sce1 gss
Although at the first glance, it reads as if writ
ten by plain, unsophistcated farmer; the LACQUER
VINO prepared tnaC Dill Tor Moore q HGSclu, and
| submitted it to the Committee on Patents--he
| kneto what they toanted. and he knew well how to
obtain it! should call him smart Iatoyer at all
events. This is my judgment, and have now
shown whatI know of the M. & FL. bill. confess
that its Retrospective feature had in measure
escaped my notice, until excepted to by Senator
Bayard in the discussion of the bill in the Senate
while had confined myself to endeayoring, in
any way that ght meet the judgment of the Sc
nate, to effect n amendment that would place me
on equal priority ground with Moore & HascalI-
| as will be seen by the amendment proposed to
them and at the same time relieve me from preiu-
dice that might have been created by their repre-
sensations as to priority. And other interests as
well as mine, might OF course be affected and may
be aimed at. With its unlimited sweep, it is im-
possible for any one man to conceive at what inter
est in harvesting machines its (poisonous) shaft
might not be leyelled. Relieved from abandon
ment to prove priority, through the model apiihot
an oath to the inuentiof 1t is just equivalent to
placing all in the power of the parties relieved;
/ for it might be even easier to PROBE thing had
| been in model not in existence than to swear to
i'll. Does any one thnk5this an impossible case?
cam. from my own observation, furnish, in nv
i judgment, more daring one. know of an an
peaIed case from the Patent Office, in which an as
signee, after being beaten in The euidence mmedi-
4 ately made new application and had a new in
reference declared in the name of another assienor
whose right (whatever it was) in the thing he nos