The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-02-03
WASHINGTON: FnvRspAY Noas1rs. rnnny gss

sickles were made coarser than they had been
and all cut in direction they were, &C.. th'
machine choked. especially IN damp scheat There
is no machine at this time that will cut clear in
damp trhedt without my improvements in sub
stance, (see the failure of Hussey's in damp whea
in late English reports,) and still it is not said here
that no reversed cut sickle had been used efore
far from it. Nor can it be supposed that petition
OF this sort lat the time it was drawn) would De
drawn with particular accuracy upon points not
4 essential to its object. All the improvements
combined and claimed in the patent of 1645 were
necessary to complete the cutting apparatus and
bad my patent, and they were not abandoned
while in course of experimenting, and it was not
in that petition to state at what date any
one OF the improvements was first made.
Ash have stated, and as is seens much expert
menting was necessary in the limited time afforded
for 1t to complete delicate an operation, and q
repeat that) the reversed cut sickle was first n-
vented and used by me in my machine prior to
the datefrom which it is claimed by Moore & Has
1 call. 8:
But in the course of the discussion of Moore s.
HascalPs bill in the Senate, it was stated that it
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 publ. not to
another indiridual, sco 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-
fications as explained, and therefore extends to
Ian indefinite period behind their patent; it also
iieves from abandonment sfimprovements,o 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 is clearly taken, that whatever has been
dedicated to the public cannot be recalled, which
| 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 laws, and there's
fnf
than arenewal 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;'O 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 fauit'' 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
Office, if no unpatentable improvements were
meant to be claimed; for TO them his reasons would
not apply. 1t could not have occurred to him that
there was any difference, if, indeed, he 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
the country; while on the contrary, the patent OF
Moore Hascali has not been on record in the Pa
tent Office since the year was granted required
by law, and there therefore notice to the pub
lac that they had patent at all; and the single fact
that but five six of their machines have been
built, and that they are not known out of their
neighborhood, while they are contesting claims
rather ctatm-with me, dated by them in
1885, is sufficient evidence that their machine
| IS OF no practical uGlle. ask then what round
there Is for party, under such circumstances,
connecting themselves with other infringing parties
amt ofYrh
after lapse OF seventeen years. to present them
selves to Congress and modestly request that they
be relieved from abandonment, and patent be
granted to them for little "in,provemet'' in sickle
which they omitted to include in their patent (of
1860 and which has for ten or fifteen years been
IN general use, under another's patent toitbout OBJ
Jectson- without, say, even placing the party
having the patent upon equal ground in sustaining
has patent against the hydra headed concern he has
tocontend with, on the equitable principle claimed
OF ssprlorlty of invention" But Ihaye not stated
this application just in the manner III which it is
made. Whilst have stated its object and effect,
Its form upon its face is such that. Us has been
shown, some of its friends and advocates in both
houses OF Congress have not 80 understood it. In
stead OF stating aoaa it was designed to patent, un
der 1T, when its polish of apparent simple justice
Is such as to screen its real character from the
scrutiny of such minds Senators Cass and Bad
ger, and the House Committee on Patents, it is in
lnitely worse than if it had clearly borne upon its
lace It's true character and purpose 5
ttho 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
tabisn right by patent, according to the forms
prescribed by law, (for what Seymour & Morgan
say improved the cutting apparatus in all the reap
ing machines in use- Bells, Hussey's, and all y 4
or without having given notice or intimation of a
clam at all, it was designed to obtain patent for
an improvement" proved to have been in the
burnt model, which would override an existing
patent and (retrospectively) make the patentee
liable for the manufacture perhaps thousands of
'reaping machines-whether from 1886 or 1850,
(date of the patent, its expiration,) am not
myself quite certain. Such is its design / say and
that it was probably calculated would have sustained
Seymour &Morgan in their continued infringement
of my patents. Would Congress knowingly
undertake to settle rights of such character and
magnitude thus summary, informally, and unin
telHglbly-not to say unla,cfuLty and unjustly?
How many members of the House who voted for
this bill understood the provisions and conse-
quences involved in it Or, rather, may Inot re-
specially ask, is there single impartial member Of
Congress agh0 1coud hGve voted ts bill NTH full
knowledge of its concealed character and designs?
ask, further, if after the passageaof 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 odiols act, and pro-
vide such other remedies as the case would adj
NIT of? sas5s
Although, at the first glance, it reads as if writ
ten by plain, unsophsticated farmer; the la,cyer
who prepared that bill for Moore g. Hascalt, and
suOiilltted IT TO tne committee on Patents-he
knesu what they tUanted, and he knew well how to
obtain it! Ishould call him smart Ia,oyer, at all
events. This ia my judgment, and i have now
shown what know of the M. s. II. bill. I confess
that its Retrospective feature had, in some 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 might meet the judgment of the Sc
nate, to effect en- amendment that would place me
| on equal priority ground with Moore & Hascal-
as will be seen by the amendment Ieproposed to
| them and at the4same time relieve me from preii-
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 man to conceive at what inter
est in haryesting machines'' its (poisonous) shaft
| might not be leveled. Relieved from abandon
ment to prove priority, through the model aoitho,.t
an oath to the inuentio,s 1t is just equivalent to
placing all in the power of the parties relieyed;
| for it might be even easier to proue thing had
| been in model not in existence than to swear to
/ i'll! Does any one think this an impossible case?
cam from my own observation, furnish, in my
] judgment, more daring one. know of an ap-
peaTed case from the Patent Office in which an az
signee after being beaten in the evidence, immedi
/ aiely made new application and had new in
reference declared in the of another assienor
vuhaae right whatever it was) in the thin h nos