The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-02-15

Professor T. c. Leland, February I. 1858
May please your Honor:
should have esteemed il my duty, as il would GER
ainy be very great pleasure 70 to omit this agu.
ment and leave the case oil my clients where aud
was when my learned friend and associate closed his
labors on Saturday. And would so have DONE if the
early experiences have had in practice had not warned
me that under all circumstances, Is the duty of
sci 10 present and represent, the tribunal whose
Judgment the Questions are committed, every phase i'm
presson point that is suggested upon the law to the
mind OF the counsellor. And though might and should
be glad 10 rest upon the arguments bearing upon the
ons of law and fact that have been ably presented
you by my associate, yet shall the short time that
allotted me in this naiie again pass the ground
that has boen taken by hn and urge far upon
the testimony and the law, that the prayer OF this petition
should be unequvocally denied And, may please your
honor, while regret The duty that impes thus do
should do myself injustice did apologize TO the court,
and the counsel TO whom have the honor to stand OPP
posed for calling their attention again TO the facts and
circumstances OF Tins Case But my position mpels me
to urge upon your honor to consider broadly well
in detail the objects Of the law which you pass
upon and the peculiar circumstances oil this individual
il touches the broad question Of public utility.
shall urge with plea and proof that the applicants in this
case have failed 10 support before you any point
made necessary by the law, with that sucency of proof,
with that funess OF argument and logic that would
BILE them TO sustain their petition did II rest upon one
condition precedent instead OF ten thus early 10 this
argument call attention TO the controlling influence public
unitarian considerations have upon The law and upon
the facts presented under thi. petition call your alien
,ion that particular view OF II at this tme because IN
nv belief from the beginning the end, that is the great
sympathetic OF his question: through which the
whole circulation and OF this case must run and
from which every caton OF the law, and every theory
raised upon the proceed and receive their life
II would afford me little qualification did feel at lib
ery topass directly TO the legal questions that are raised
in this case; but much time has been taken by the
learned counsel for the applicants in this in present
ing the true issue before your honor not the question
whether Hayward or Charles Goodyear jointly or sever
ally entitled extension OF this PATENT and press
this monopoly for longer upon the shoulder OF
the public bu, The question whether Horace Day has
sGnauc,ea w Ma , a. o,a aa1 M W
math and others, opponents OF this application, come
before you in garments quite Immaculate. say much
time, so large proportion OF 81 Tho tims has been occa
pied on that question, that feel called upon 10 spend
in effort TO recall the attention OF the Commits
sionsr to the real question IN point Whether Mr. Day
has hired witnesses, Mr. Hayward has hired witnesses
whether Mr. Day has in all particulars conducted this
long, wearisome, deaih-deang litigation with that pro-
prey which will meet the APPRECIATION OF court sitting
adIadicate matters OF tasle certainly the point
in issue and nigh, say 10 the court, sink Mr. Day
pedition you choose, but deal with this issue in your
office as Commissioned in view OF the whole crcum-
presented by the record and the evidence and
der the law by which your commission has existence.
But stand here TO protect Mr.. Horace n, Day as well
A. 10 protec, his case have The honor TO represent him.
and Mr.. Wnslow, and MIR Wilmarth, and know noi-
ing that appears before The Comnisei from which
impuaton be casl upon either OF these Let
ask your honor TO look INTO that record and say whether
there is not much before you TO efect and mpicaie
the character OF Mt Hayward, or OF Mr. Good year,
that of Mr.. Day II Il were not Tor The allegations and
charges made by the learned counsel for the application
charges unsupported by proof. and unfounded in
acs there not much 10 charge upon the one upon
the otherl | believe MIR Day is amply competent
10 protect himself but mus, say here, ,ha, ia all The
intercourse have had with him touching the ubecl be-
fore you, and all others there has appeared nothing,
and there Is nothing, that spots his garmentthete rs
nothing that could mott be opened before the word-there
10 nothing that exposed would present bis character
In light less favorable than the spoess character o
the learned gentleman TO whom have the honor 10
stand opposed shall leave Mr. Day the belief that
nntll 4 rye ~ ns.a
chage will lar from Causing any prejudice against
him, have tendency TO turn the attention OF the Comms
sIoper to the manner in winch ihis application is con-
ducted-wil lead hun to inquire whether an application,
pressed with the percacliy and spirit with which tnis
application has been urged here and outside the office,
appears before the court IN an aspect as favorable as
where the external pressure has been less and the
founded imputaon more discreeily distilbuied
May II please your honor, this believe 10 be new
case. | am fully aware, and was before the counsel
presented their OF the decisions OF the Patent Of
nee bearing upon questions like this; but am not
aware that this case, upon argument and resistance ha
been presented 10 the Commissioner OF Patents, and
passed upon in his judicial capacity. The history OF the
law would further forbid to TO any other conelu-
sion that point The statutes upon which you pro-
coed passed IN 1885, aud not very many qushoos
have been gaied before your honor your predeces-
touching questions OF extension. Pror to that tune
extensions were sought through ihe grace OF Congfess
Alter that they committed 10 tribunal frequently
mentioned in the progress oil this case tbs not TO be
supposed that upon the question OF extension there can
have been so many decisions made IN the Patent oee
By the Com OF Patents m his judicial capacity.
TO open all the law espound TO the entire n,eni
of the statute The statute OF frauds, now nearly two
hundred years old opening every question OF commercial
policy, is the parent OF much litigation, and is
under discussion The Supreme Court at the Capitol to-
day This act Is ooy seventeen years old. Therefore
say that reasonably expect 10 hRd IN the books
comparatively few judicial decisions upon which coun.
sellon or clients may rely The particular act which we
discussng passed in 1887 and was the hst sci
in this country allowing patents to be taken by the as
sgsee of the inventor. Hence, the question that we
here raseviz: whether such assignee OF an invention
having taken patent in his own name, can come before
the Commissioner for an ertenson-can never have been
raised in and until about the year 1891
that about the time o the expiration oil patents granted
under the of 1897. There ,s exception TO this
and only, and that where patent may have been
taken out in foreign country prior 10 the year 1875 and
country and took patent here and then the patent
his extension might date earlier than this, But am not
aware that there has been any such case
Commissioner. lhink there has been none AT least
! know OF none.
Mr. Hodges | only alluded 10 II with the view o
making the proper exception. With this view OF The
case. then, il may pease your honor believe tha, unde
The statute you may 81, here judicial officer, to
ercise and pronounce nj ibs tine the Judgment OF The
Law upon case Of entirely novel impression.
While the magnitude of the present case is alone sucf
asto call for the utmost caution, yet SINKS INTO insg
nhcance compared with the importance OF establishing
IN this office accurate legal exposition oil Tins statute
and OF giving TO petitioners and 10 all parties who appS
mere rule which shall govern them IN dealing with th
olnce-viib their inventions.
lhe pa,en, granted in 1899. under discussion, u