Washington sentinel., 1854-07-13
Mr.. STEVENS. | do not know how those

they are TO go for just what they are worth.
Mr.. LETCHER. Then it is remarkable that
while the gentleman characterizes the testi-
mony introduced before the Patent Office in
notice to Mr. Colt as unfair, he has never I'M
dertaken to ascertain whether afidavits on
which he relies have had the same formalities
for fairness Ought he not TO have ascertained
it before he came here? Ought he not to have
been enabled to show that Mr.. Colt had prac-
tieed towards these parties the fair, just, and
liberal rule which those parties practiced to-
wards him? But the gentleman tells you that
he does not know whether notice was given.
He does not know how that is.
We have some evidence to show what amount
is invested in the establishment in London,
which has been erected for the manufacture Of
Colts pistols. Here is the petition of Mr. Colt,
which has been presented to the House, as l
have already said, on the 18th OF December,
1853, in which it is stated that the property
and machinery in London are worth $25O,OO0.
If there was such sum of money as $250,OO0
which could be transferred from the United
States to London, for the purpose of establish
ing q mandatory in that city, is not the IN
ference irresistible that there must have been
an immense profit made here? Does 1t not
warrant the conclusion that Colt has been well
remunerated for his invention, and that his
patent ought not to be extended?
Mr.. STEVENS. ] ask if Mr.. Colt did not
state in his petition how he came by the money
invested in London?
Mr.. LETCHER. He does not state that;
but he states, when he got out Of his partner
ship in New Jersey, that he was $4,000 worse
than nothing; and then that he started of upon
his
Mr.. STEVENS. Does he not state in that
petition that he has been aided by friends? l
do not know that he has, but ask the question
of the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr.. LETCHER. / think he does not. he
says that the expense of this undertaking has
been already $250,000 that the cost is increas-
ing every day, and that no profit has yet arisen,
and it is doubtful whether it will be profitable
for some years to come. Mr.. Colt went to New
Jersey in 1912, and leaving there the same
wear with debt weighing upon him of $4,000,
he goes to Hartford, and puts up extensive i'm
proyements there and, according 10 the news
papers, he is extending these improvements at
a very heavy cost at this very moment Ac-
cording to the petition presented to this House
by him, he has $250,000 invested IN England;
and according to one of these afidavits, he has
$3.50, 900 invested in the United States. 1t
was but yesterday morning saw the statement
that he was putting up an extensive establish
ment, in connexion with his other improve
ments at Hartford, that would cost from $780,
600 to Sl50,000. From the best evidence that
could be obtained at the time the commissioner
made his decision, Mr. Colt had realized nearly
Sl,OO0,OO0 from his invention.
Had not the commissioner sufficient evidence
to warrant him in coming to the conclusion he
did in this case? Take the testimony on file
before us here take the statement made IN the
affidavit, on which the gentleman from Michi-
gan so strongly relies, and take the statements
in Colts petition, and the sums which may be
set down as profit amount in the aggregate to
sum approximatiDg very closely to million
of dollars. If a party, by his invention has
received million of dollars, has he not been
amply compensated for that invention, and
has not the government done its duty towards
him when it has protected him so long in the
enjoyment of it? Besides, the patent does not
expire until February, 1851. How much
money he make between this time and Feb
ruary, 1857? At a reasonable calculation, be
will make at least $5O0,O0O, and the proba-
bility is, that he will realize a much larger
amount. The claimant in this case comes
here, and asks an extension of his patent, after
having failed to comply with the law Of the
cts he has made out OF his Improvement And
now when he comes 20 this House, after the
rejection Of his petition by the Commissioner
of Patents, he again conceals the amount OF
profits which he has made. / ask the House
If, under such circumstances, they are willing
to extend the patent for this improvement seven
years longer? He will have had the use of il
twenty-one years in February, 1857.
Every session we find persons coming here
and seeking for patent extensions which have
l.x.x e. al II -
1t that this House is one Of the worst bodies in
the world to be set up as an appellate tribunal
from the decisions of the Patent Office. The
law wisely leaves the matter to the Commits
sioner Of Patents, who examines and decides
upon all applications, with the evidence before
him. But, under the practice which has been
growing up of late years, this House is to be
called upon to review the decisions OF the COM
missioner, and to annul these decisions, and
extend patents TO all who have been denied ex.
tensions at the Patent Office. Not only is
Congress interfering with the duties Of the com
missioner IN extending patents for seven years,
as provided for in the law Of the Patent Office,
but we are actually, in some cases, extending
them TO terms as long as fourteen years. Not
only are we doing that, but we are giving the
parties such latitude as not to require them to
be limited by their specifications or models
Such bill was passed at the last session Of
Congress, extending patent, and which al
lowed the owner to claim anything he chose
whether in or outside of his specifications and
model.
This kind Of legislation, Mr.. Chairman, is
likely TO lead to abuses the most serious. II is
likely to lead TO abuses to prejudice the inter.
ests Of other persons, to an utter disregard OF
their rights. And this is uniformly the case
whenever special legislation is resorted TO for
the purpose Of accomplishing private ends
Congress ought to have nothing TO do with
such cases The only case in which Congress
ought ever to interfere in patent extensions is
where party has applied TO the Patent Office
for an extension, and where the testimony pro-
duced by him is ruled out by technically, or
where, by some other means, be has not had an
opportunity to have his case heard on the
merits. There, in such cases, il is right enough
for this House TO allow the patentee TO have a
chance to produce his testimony, and to allow
the commissioner to judge fairly and candidly
in relation TO the matter, with all the facts be.
fore him. But, instead Of acting only in such
cases here, we are extending patents day after