Washington sentinel., 1854-07-13
Washingtun geatinel,
PATENT TO SAMUEL COLT.
SPEECH or MIR. LETCHER,

In the House 81 RepTesenfdticeS, 1uty Q, io'f'
The bill to extend the patent Of Samuel Colt
being under consideration
Mr.. LETCHER. ! shall not detain the
committee very long with what have to say
in regard to this bill; and, in the first place,
take occasion to say that nobody representing
Mr.. Colt, and nobody on the other side, has had
ANYTHING to say TO me in regard to this matter,
have made up my opinion without word
from the friends or enemies OF this bill, IN re,
gard to its merits or dement's. l am opposed
to this application upon the principe that
special legislation By Congress has become
the curse of our times. There are existing
laws in regard to patents which prescribe, that
when a party or parties desire an extern
sion and renewal of patent, they shall apply
at the patent Office, to the commissioner OF
Patents; that he or they shall lay before the
commissioner certain evidence in regard to it,
showing the profits which have been made out
oft; and if such a case shall have been made
out as demonstrates to the commissioner that
he or they have not received full and fair
compensation for their invention, he shall be
allowed to extend to them the benefits OF the
patent for seven years longer
Now, sir, Mr.. Colt went to the Patent Office,
not a long time ago-for what? Was 1t for the
extension of the patent which this bill proposes
TO extend? That was extended some three or
four years ago. But when he went there the
last time, he went to obtain an extension OF
patent for q 'rammer" which ne had attached
10 the pistol as a part of his invention That
was denied him. AT the time he went there
he made no statement of the profits which he
had derived from the invention. He laid be-
fore the Commissioners not a particle of evi-
dence There is no statement, derived either
from his affidavit or that Of any one else, show
ing what profits he has realized from his orig
nal invention, or from the time the patent was
extended, in February, 1850.
Now, sir, why was this? Why did he not
comply with the requisitions of this law, which
must be complied with in all other applications?
call upon the gentleman from Michigan to
say whether he knows what Mr.. Colt has made
out of his invention.
Mr.. STEVENS. I do not know how much
Mr.. Colt has made. / answer, in all frankness,
that do not know.
Mr. LETCHER Then ask the gentleman
from Michigan whether, as member Of the
committee to which this matter was entrusted,
he called upon Mr.. Colt to furnish him with
evidence showing how much had been made
out of his invention? Did he allupon him to
know whether he had been sufficiently conipen-
sated?
Mr.. STEVENS. have now in my posses
sion evidence in the shape of sworn affdavits
upon this point.
Mr.. LETCHER Then why did not the
gentleman have those affidavits printed, and
give them to the House. The committee have
presented us with no evidence of the sort in
their report, but here, at the last moment, we
are told that an individual has affidavits in his
pocket, and upon these pocket afidavits We
are asked to pass upon this measure.
Mr.. STEVENS. VIII the gentleman allow
me word?
Mr.. LETCHER. Certainly will.
Mr.. STEVENS. / stated in my remarks
that / had these afidavits in my possession,
but that was anxious to take up as little OF
the time of the House as possible, and, there
fore, / did not have them read. L did, how
ever, state their substance. But the gentle
man now, not very fairly, as it seems to me,
comes forward and charges me with not having
them printed and presented TO the House.
afidayits. '''-'
Mr.. STEVENS. Here they are and the
gentleman can examine them for himself.
Mr.. LETCHER. The first thing that strikes
the committee, in connection with this NATTER
is the total want Of evidence to justify the ex-
tension of this patent. The report made by
the committee upon it contains nothing but
what is to be found in the petition of Mr.. Colt
asking for the extension of his patent. And
there is another significant fact connected with
this application and report. You will find
that the petition was first presented 10 the
House by the chairman Of the Patent Commit
tee, on the 18th day OF December, 1853, and
on the 2lst day of December 1853, this bill is
reported. This very significant fact con-
nected with the case.
Mr.. CHAMBERLAIN, (interrupting.) l
desire to ask the gentleman from Virginia one
Il .L.
mitiee are to understand the time occupied by
the gentleman from Michigan, is TO come out
OF his timer
Mr.. LETCHER. Certainly, SO understand
Il. And if it will be any relief TO the gentle
man to know it, will inform him that do not
intend 10 claim any more time. Laughter.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. / am happy TO know
that no more of the time Of the committee is to
be consumed under the privilege of the gentle
man from Virginia.
Mr.. LETChER. These afidavits bear date
January l8, 1854. These afidavits furnish all
the evidence which the friends of Mr.. Colt rely
upon to secure the extension Of his patent, and
those affidayits mere taken without notice to his
opponents The testimony taken, and laid be-
fore the Commissioner of Patents by Colts OPP
ponents in reference to this case, is testimony
which it was perfectly fair to present-testi-
rnony which, according 10 the information given
by the gentleman from Michigan TO this com
mittee, was in all respects fairly taken; for be
admits that notice was given Mr. Colt of the
time and place at which il was to be taken.
Then if Mr.. Colt had due notice, the oppo-
nents Of the extension of his patent have shown
disposition to deal fairly and honestly with
him. They have not been willing to take any
unfair advantage Of him. They have not been
willing to take their testimony, which was TO
be laid before the Commissioner of the Patent
Office in regard to this extension, without Civ.
ing Mr.. Coli the amplest opportunity Of show
ing that the testimony did not warrant the con-
clusion that these parties sought to establish.
But, sir, the gentleman tells the House that
although Mr.. Colt had this notice, although it
was important for him to show that the conclu
sion was unfounded, yet he declined to exam.
inc the witnesses after the notice was given.
Mr.. STEVENS. The counsel Of Mr.. Colt
was engaged in other business, and elsewhere