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


/ tions from the clerk Of the o0ofttst
Hiram Moore stated to ma iii a conversatio
which had with him in ths4Inoath of Novemb.
last, on my farm in the town Of Schoolcraft in II
county of Kalamazoo, Michigahs that be had "a wri
ten proposition from Seymour s. Morgan, the d.
I Pendants above stated for tie purchase of an II
terest amounting to one fonfth, in Moore & Has
caiPs harvesting machine; that they propose
lfpay him sum not less than i've thousand do
lars" ssHe also stated that part of the cor
slderatlon connected with said proposition we
the right on the part of said Seymour & Morga
to use his, said Moore's, sicklein the consructio
repeatedly stated to me III conversation that a
the main features in Mccormick 'sreaper were bis
said Moore's, invention; and ke also stated to thi
deponent that the reason why he. had not prose
cuted persons for an infringmenh of hspatent, wa
Of the patent for Moore & Hasoalfss harvesting ma
chine. ~ = ssss = ssSz
/ sc. LAKINBRoWN.,
4"And this deponent states that Hiram Moore, i,
the year eighteen hundred and thirty-six, cut 70
him, this deponent, three acres of wheat with tn
harvesting machine aforesaid, being the first acr
that had ever been cut with said machine from
that time to the present date; this deponent ha
been familiar with said harvesting machines ope
ratlons. = ssThis deponent has been ia
miliar with all the operations of Moore & Hascalt
harvesting machines in Michigan, and only FIVE 0
said machines have been used in ssid State. Thi
deponent further states that the estimate placed
SAID machine by said Hiram Moore, when Offering
TO sell the same, was never less than sixteen hun
dred dollars This deponent further states thai
the machine aforesaid requires in its operation
train of sixteen horses nTbis depo
nent further states that said Hiram Moore has seve
raj times told him. this deponent, that said plain
TIL, h1cCormlck, and others, were using substan-
TALLY his, said Hiram Moore's invention, in al
the reaplng 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- =
land this deponent further states that he, this de-
Ponent never used zigzag sickle until the year
eighteen hundred and forty !twos and further this
depont saith not. ANDREW " MOORE
What do we find here? Instead of this good
innocent man coming on to Washington to obtain
his patent at the Patent Office, or for advice as to
the course to be pursued, it is found that he (Hi-
ram Moore) hasssrepeatedly stated'' to different
persons "that all the features IL, Nc Cornck'
rsaper aree has, said Moore's, inventions and ssthat
the reason why he had not. prosecuted persons
for an Infringement of his patent was'' that be
wanted first a renewal, SC. Another with ass
states that Hiram Moore tsseveral ti1nes told him
that lc Cormiek and Others mere tssing substantially
has anuentien sra all the Keeping Machines,', bit
before prosecuting for an infringement of his pa
tent, HE WANTED FIRST TO PROCURE AN ExTEN-
SION OR RENRwAL OF HIS PATENT BY CONGRESS-
Again, had stopped short of the object of this
bill, 1t would seem. From what bad seen Cat
court) of shas patent, and heard him swear of his
hrst experiment, the impression was left on my
mind, and had supposed the sickle was what he
was after but it turns out that under this bill he
had geditated a claim for-of course to be proved
In, the m0deL-my tchole machine and others ~
This may have been prior to has oath at Canandai-
qua, as before mentioned, firing the gear 1895 as
the time Of has first experiment. the year after mn
first patent, in which is found the sickle. But un-
dertake explanation further than to present the
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 be would make the fur fly Seymour e.
Morgan, however, have not the slightest cause to
be alarmed. If they not interested with Moore
& Hascall, why is it that they raise no voice
against " reviving this old property''-nay, Gre
atsng property in what they Is. & NJ have
been rightly using, from their own account of
1t The conclusion is lrresistible; and further
comment 10 unnecessary. ~ Il
Now it was for the purpose OF assaiIing the claim
in my patent of l645 for the reversed cut sickle.
that the testimony Of Moore was taken upon that
claim at Canandaigaa, (where the jury dsagreed;)
and 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 lS45 was not on trial. because of the oath of the
defendants to the absence of said Moore and two
other witnesses, (Which was overrued by the court
as to Moore and one other, while the deposition of
the third had previously been taken upon the point
on achich has testimony acas required) making it
necessary for me to go to trial on the patent of
case.
delay being the object of the defendants. The re-
suit has been stated
z While my application was before the Senate
committee, objection being made to some of the
provisions of the Moore & HascaH bill, as it passed
the House, as calculated to operate unequally and
inurously to the rights and interests of other
ties, 1t ,oas proposed by friend of the Moore &
Hascall bill on the committee to give the bill in my
case the same form of Moore & Hascall's; but to
which objected, ON the ground that it would be
impossible to pass bill for the extension of nv
patents in that form; and, moreover, that the pre-
else form of Moore HascaIps bill, drawn to suit
the peculiarlies IF 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 his Moore & Has
calPs) sickle, | proposed to him (ldoore, through
another person) an amendment to his BILL simply
placing other parties who might have to contest
rights arith him under 1t, on equal ground with
himself as to priority Of invention, without any
further regard to legal rights BY patent or other
wise; Indicating at theysame time that with such
anamendment should not object to the passage
of bis bill. To, this proposition he unqualifedIy
objected. When afterwards mentioned the cir
cumstance to member of the Senate committee
favorable to the passage of nv BILL and opposed
to the form Of Moore & Hascalps, he remarked that
If any such arrangement was made he would vote
against both bills on account of the principle in
VOWED in it. The following is the amendment
proposed BY me, dated June II, 1852:
''SsC. -.~dnn Oe u J1Tuter enacted, mat, II the
said Moore and Hascall, or either Of them, or any
person or persons deriving title from them, or
either OF them, shall set forth and claim any im
provement or device not included in their original
patent, when the same shall be extended by the
Commissioner OF Patents as herelnbefore provided,
the said Commissioners shall, before he allows said
extended patent to issue, cause examination to be
made in order to ascertain whether said improve
ment or device interieres with any other patent,
existing or expired; and, if such interference ex-
ists he shall all parties inter rested adversely
to the claim ofsad Moore and Hascali as aforesaid,
to be duly notified of such interference, and shall
in all respects proceed in such interference as ia
now by law provided in similar cases, subject to
the same exceptions and right of appeal from his
decision by either party. And if the question of
originality and priority of invention shall be deci
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 Commissioner of Patents, or
any court of law or equity to which thesame may
be transferred by appeal or otherwise, the person
or persons in whose favor such final decision ma .
be, shall be entitled to the same rights in relation
to the new or additional matter so claimed as the
said Moore and Hascall, or either of them, or any
person persons deriving title from them either
of them, would have acquired and enjoyed by yir-
tue of the provisions of this act if said question Of
originality and priority had been decided in favor
of them or either of them =
1t is respectfully submitted that less than this no
justice or equity can demand. If Seymour & Nor
gan, in connection with Moore & Hascall shol,
thus be relieved By Congress from the operation Of
| evi 1ouc h0v rights