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

to show that Mr.. Moore con urps
gaisa ss Ssfsts b. ss rs .
Of, any supposed inhpen<se his pssss IL hssvin
misled Moore and havS fB proof at hafaIfn tn
| statements make hays COPY Of thesedeposi
, lions from the clerk Of the e8uttssr - ~
I; Hiram Moore stated to ms In q corvereatio
which bad with him in thesmopth.of Novembe
last, on my farm in the town ct SchOoIcraft in til
county Of Kalamazoo, Michigan, that be had writ
ten proposition from Seymour & Morgan, the de
Pendants above stated, for the purchase Of an in
f terest amounting to one fonrth, in Moore & Has
calls harvesting machine; that they propose t
lfpay him sum not less than five thousand dol
lars" s'He also stated that part of the con
sideration connected with said proposition wa
the right on the part of said Seymour & Morgan
to use his said Moore's sicklein the construction
OF their reapers = - = + " Hiram Moore hal
repeatedly stated to me ia conversation that al
the main featuresin Mccormick 'sreaper were his
said Moore's, invention; and ~ also stated to thii
/ deponent that the reason why he had not prose
cuted persons for an infrngment of hispatent, wal
sfs tent iassss ( s sss
4 chine. = 50 - * s@s = 49, sSaSs -
.E. LAKIN brown (
"And this deponent states that Hiram Moore, in
the year eighteen hundred and thirty six cut for
him, this deponent, three acres of wheat with the
harvesting machine aforesaid, being the first acre
i that had ever been cut with said machine from
that time to the present date; this deponent has
been familiar with said harvesting machines ope.
L
miliar with all the operations of Moore Hascall's
/ harvesting machines in Michigan, and only five OF
said machines have been used in said State. This
deponent further states that the estimate placed on
said machine by said Hiram Moore, when Offering
TO sell the same was never less than sixteen huns
| dred dollars. This deponent further states that
the machine aforesaid requires in its operation a
train of sixteen horses ssThis depo-
nent further states that said Hiram Moore has seve
raj times told him, this deponent that said plain
TN, McCormick, and others, were using substan-
TALLY his, said Hiram Moore's, invention, in all
the reaping machines; but that he did not intend
to prosecute for an Infringement of his patent in-
asmuch as be wanted first to procure an extension
or renewal of his patent by Congress- y =
'And this deponent further states that he this de-
Ponent, never used zigzag sickle until the year
eighteen hundred and forty two, and further this
| depont saith not ANDREW Y.MOORE.', y
| What lowe find here? Instead of this good,
innocent man coming on to Washington to obtain
his patent at the Patent Office, for advice as to
the course to be pursued, it is found that he III
ram Moore) has srepeatedIy stated, to different
persons that all the main features Nc Corn,ick
reaper acre has, said Moore's invention and stha
the reason. why he had not prosecuted persons
Tor an infringement of his patent was'' that be
wanted first a renewal, sc. Another witness
states that Hiram Moore sssevera tiiness told him
that " Nc Cormiek and others using substantially
mas snuentien in. all the Keeping Machines,'' bit
before prosecuting for an Infringement of his pa
tent, HE WANTED FIRST TO PROCURE AN ExTEN-
SION on, RENEWAL OF HIS PATENT BY CONGRESS-
Again, had stopped short of the object of this
bill, it would seem. From what bad seen lat
COURT OF shas PATENT and heard him swear of his
first experiment, the impression was left on my
mind, and had supposed the sickle was what ne
was after; but it turns out that under this bill he
had anedtfated claim for-of course to be proved
IN the 5modeE-my Wh0le machine SC and Others ~
This may have been prior to has oath at Canandai-
qua, as before mentioned, firing the gear 1885 as
The time Of his first experiment, the year after mi
first patent, in which is found the sickle. Butt UNI
rio IRA HoY
facts as they appear. Instead Of giving notice to
anybody, he knew better than that. He would be
perfectly quiet until he got his Congress patent,
and then he would make the fur fly. Seymour g.
Morgan, however, have not the slightest cause to
be alarmed. If they are not interested with Moore
& Hascall, why is it that they raise no voice
against ssreviving this old property''-nay, Gre
atsng property in what they Is. & ND have
been rightly using, from their own account of
1t !! The conclusion ia irresstible;. and further
comment is unnecessary.
Now it was for the purpose OF assaiIing the claim
in my patent of l845 for the reversed cut sickle,
that the testimony of Moore was taken upon that
claim at Canandaigua, (where the jury disagreed;)
and as there was no allusion made to it in the
charge OF the judge, who charged in favor of costs
and damages, of course it was unavailing; and at
the Albany term, in October following, the patent
OF 1916 was not on trial. because ofthe oath of the
defendants to the absence of SAID Moore and two
other witnesses, (Which overruled by the court
as to Moore and one other while the deposition of
the third had previously been taken upon the point
on tDhich his testimony acas reguiredi) making it
necessary for me to go to trial on the patent of
1S47 alone, or submit to continuance of the case.
delay being the object of the defendants. The re-
suit has been stated.
While my application was before the Senate
committee, objection being made to some of the
provisions of the Moore & Hascall BILL as it passed
the House, as calculated to operate unequaliy and
injuriousy to the rights and interests ofother par
ties, 1t aoas proposed by a friend of the Moore &
Hascail bill on the committee give the bill in my
case the same form of Moore & Hascalps; but TO
which objected, on the ground that it would be
impossible to pass bill for the extension of my
patents IN that form; and, moreover, that the pre-
else form of Moore & HascaIls bill, drawn to suit
the peculiarities ct their case would not apply to
mine as to them. And finding afterwards that
Moore and his friends were circulating as widely
as possible, as stated, that / had in the manufac
ture OF all my machines used has Moore & Has
caits) sickle, proposed to him Moore, through
another person) an amendment to his bill, simply
placing other parties who might have to contest
rights arih him under 1t, on equal ground with
himself as to priority Of invention, without any
wise; indicating at thesame time that with such
an amendment should not object to the passage
of his bill. To this proposition he unqualifedly
objected When afterwards mentioned the cir
cumstance to member of the Senate committee
favorable to the passage of my bill, and opposed
| to the form of Moore Hascalps, he remarked that
At any such arrangement was made he would vote
against both bills on account of the principle in
proposed by me, dated June II, 1852:
csc. lind be 1t further enacted, That, if the
said Moore and Hascail or either of them, or any
person or persons deriving title from them, or
either Of them, shall set forth and claim any i'm
provement device not included in their original
patent, when the same shall be extended by the
Commissioner of Patents as hereinbefore provided,
the said Commissioner shall, before he allows said
extended patent to issue cause examination to be
made in order to ascertain whether said improve
ment or device interferes with any other patent,
existing or expired; and, if such interference ex-
iss, he shall cause all parties interested adversely
to the claim said Moore and Hascali aforesaid
to be duly notified of such interference and shall
in all respects proceed in such interference as is
now by law provided in similar cases, subject TO
thesame exceptions and right OF appeal from his
decision by either party. And if the question of
originality and priority of invention shall be dec.
ded against said Moore and Hascall, or either of
them, or any person or persons deriving title from
them, or either of them, on final hearing and de-
termination by the Commissioners of Patents, or
any court of law equity to which the same may
transferred by appeal or otherwise, the person
or persons in whose favor such final decision NAV
be, shall be entitled to the same rights in relation
to the new or additional matter 30 claimed, as the
said Moore and Hascall, or either of them, or any
person persons deriving title from hem either
of them, would have acquired and enjoyed by yir-
tue of the provisions of this act if said question nf