Daily Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1860-1862, 1860-10-08
Remarks on HoVe's Sewing Machine
Extension Case,

| In our las. number we announced in brief para
graph, that the Sewi Ma hine Parent of Elias Howe
.Tr.. Ia been extended nv the Commiss oner or Pa
tents for years. The fact well-known 10 the
pubic that tie ntee had re llized large fortune
ire his invention, together with the severe manner
which tie appl cation was discussed by a portion
the spaper press of this and other ties led tc
very general conviction thai the patent would not
| be extended.
There's re some yTh7 not hesitate to dennunce the
action OF the Comm suner IF Patents in this matter
and accuse n m OF being inf Iencd by improper mo-
Y This we cannot lint REGARD nninst for unon
fair and candid review of the testimony brought to
/ bear in favor of the extension. and which was no.
where impeachnd, the CT is fully established that
the sewing machine is one of the valuable and
inv entons ever made and that no in yeDtion
of greater value has ever been secured by Letters
Patent in this country, and without which secnrty
every invention would be entirely at the mercy Of
| the public.
In acting upon such cases, the Commissioner as
sumes grave and important duty, one which he is
bound TO discharge in an upright and Conscientious
manner, and upon such sworn evidence as is present
ed to him the trial We incline the opinion that
this the general verdict of the public will be
mat as judicial dec'slOn II Is based on sound and
| correct principles. Let V unprecedented reader
make this his own, and take consi Ieration
the leading facts and cirCumsta connected with it,
In the first place, do not believe there Is sin lie
inventor past presct 1 who, under the same cir
Cumst noes would not have applied for an extension
of his patent and streuuously advocated the Justice of
his claim. II must be borne in mind also that not
whilst ,ndng all the claTnor which is made about it,
Howe produced original invention. one of great
Importance, even though 1t were but the foundation
stone of many others of more or less value He did
not simply take what others had done, and by adding
little here, taking of little there produce an i'm
provemeDt or some and pat ntable cOmbinati
He ST ucN ont ntoa and comp Irat vely unknown
Held OF research, and he net success not only this,
but he he gan life poor inve tor, and had to
t'nd Sharply with poverty and pr judcc, and at
ffneS aim st reduced TO beEgary. II only after
the hTt seven ars OF his patent had expired, that
he gan TO real any profit from his in ention. II
Is true that Howe his zed within the past six
years / rye Of money for his invention, while
II "a also true thai he IS eeiy expeud ri itnnt in
II Us llvi Z. but in such always accept.
able t. the community. We testify from pro-
iessi0n expert nce that are many cases where The
pOrr but worthy UT,th-r inventor has received from
How Substantial and much reded aid: while il he
had gone 10 thO-e whJ had maligned Howe and his
motives, his ase would have been met with the cold
Shoulder aid tn frown- We admit that such consd-
eratiOns as these, ~. wei-h arguments to sup.
port bad cause; Bat We do say that tue inventor
who uses the me acquired from his dscove les to
advance the v fae OF his ce, and does not stngilN
smut up us Do" els ii cOmpissio aS 81 those who
Seek and need his iendy aid. Is Ju-uy eutitled To
more Of the subst ais lie THAI a those VINO
spnrn tn ipsen,"r a Door delu t bel g.
ne question Is Il smp Y Low much has an inven
'oT made uus ui his at0ut-D {. Is hi inv uti'n VAL
liable TO e publ {? II s he used due diligence to
iurDiuceI? Has he been e, ticently remunerst
90 the inve IiOu considering IT. value? his the
pub &c &c pee I'd the rights o, tie pat nieeS
Ia cas-, IN r. 81 where the parties holding the
Whe c il kown thai infring, uad invaded TIL
CHS q Iaientee, lord brougn m, in giving the
juis" Of tile Prvy Cornell, exp ess stated, IN
grant the ensiUn. that It a. OF berar Sc tn
pa eutee5 "ad not large prof s. bu; b nuse 9TH
ers IN air ats" pied TO bt In oSsessi &c he
IN eHon efOre he patenthsd expired, 'nu al they
.. II 10 be ushI 10 esp CT rigHts # III T - |
10" sc, ems to u, one Tal Ell 10 this, and
think tie ju gmeDt 81 ri Bruus ham might have
D. en- prop ry Piled - il. la
lie pubn d as its Ii.n 3 but il has not right TO |
deprive tht i1Neit OF he peaceful 7ossess 10 an
prop usc If Ills invention, contemplated by law,
a Il is Oh Il nc that Thu incple more seuer-
ally TeCOgn Zed respected.
. Az. II we viii now eng his invention for term
seven years then 1t will become the prop rty
o pu fore .er, as il will never az in be
te1de..
=" c confess TO a prise ST The oppos ion viii ar
rayed Rs-if at tn Patent on Hg this SION.
l. was weAS and mpotenI, mi just sucn OPPOSITE as
could have bot title Influence. Il CO ST prnci-
lIsly OF those who known infrInsere Of II we's
pat at and the slBgula sect e also pr, scented
u ttent i-ent ap eIi g, without client friend;
10 light on his own ho,k,
There are SON in.er.s ing statements 10 connection
with this case published an Their Tue fact l.
estdb i>bed yun controversy that tee first pracG-
cal Sew ing machine the IN etun OF one of our
Iwn count en.-ScieRtifc 4HaericaH