The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1869-09-14
PALLADIUM CORREsPONDENCE
WAsnrNGToN, D. c., Sept. 8, 1869.
ath Of Secretary Rawlins, al

The death Of Secretary Rawlins, al
though not altogether unexpected, casts
a general gloom over this city, flags are
displayed at half,mast OH all our public
buildings. and many private, as we'll as
| public buildings are draped in mourn
ing. Death is no respecter Of persons,
In the language Of n great statesman,
| 'One may live as a conqueror, King,
or Magistrate ; but he must DIE like a
man. The bed Of death brings every
human being to his pure indivi duality
The latest telegraph brings to US the
| sad tidings of the death of another Of
| Americas nOblest sons, Senator Fessen-
den. His familiar face among US we
shall see no more. His long public ser
vices in Washin gton has endeared to
him many friends, who deeply mourn
his DEATH both as private and public
/ calamity.
PErsNrs RE ISSUE.
| The late decision of Judge Fisher Of
the Supreme Court Of the Dist. of COL
umbia, reversing the ruling of Commits
sioner Fisher upon an application of
Mrs Hawkes., of Troy, New York, for
reissue for an auxiliary air chamber for
stoves, is of no little Importance to in
ventors-particularl so if there were
no redress in the Supreme Court-and
in consequence there has been no little
written about it by Washington CORES
pondents. / profess to know som ething
Of the internal workings of the Patent
Office myself, and together with what
learn from other reliable sources, feel
that am competent TO give you sub
stantially the facts connected with this
decision, and by so doing I shall show
how absurd correspondent of the New
Y DIRK Sun was in an article published a
short time since, in which he attacks,
seemingly in a revengeful spirit, both
COMMISSIONS Fisher and the whole
corps of Examiners, and states that the
new Commissioner. Fisher, for some
unexplained reason, changed the rule
SO that an applicant on a reissue could
only claim what was shown orig inally in
his model of drawings, thus shutting
him off entirely from the benefit of any
thing described in the specification, if
it did not happen to be shown in the
model or drawing; and holding also that
the drawing must not be altered or con-
nected at all on a reissue
Let us refer to the Commissioners
decision and we will see that he ex-
plains a reason for the adoption Of the
amendment to rule SO in so many words,
That case (Hawkes) and four others
brought to my notice then and since,
disclosed the dangerous practice that
was sought to be fastened upon the Of
flee, and led to the adoption of the
amendment to the 53rd rule
The 53rd rule reads as follows: The
general rule is, that whatever is really
| embraced in the original invention, and
so described or shown that might have
been embraced in the original patent,
may be subject of reissue; but an APP
plcant will not be allowed the benefit Of
proof that there was more in his inven-
ton than is shown in his original appli
cation, drawings, model or specimens
The amendment to this, the reason for
the adoption of which he explained, is
as follows: The drawing or model may
be amended, each by the other, but
amendments of the drawings or model
founded solely upon the written descrip-
ton will not be permitted
| The case of Mrs. Hawkes., the Com
missioner argues, falls within the letter
and spirit of rule SO, and citing to the
latter portion of the 53rd rule to verify
his opinion.
1t would seem that since she obtain
ed her letters patent, April, 1867, she
has conceived of new ideas, and, wo>
man-like, wishing to make the best of
them, applied for reissue. In her re-
issue application, she filed an amended
specification and drawings so different
from the original that the Commissioner
decided that they were interpretations,
not amendments, and stated that no man
could undertake to conclude from the
original patent in this case, that the ap>
plicant had in her mind the forms in the
reissue drawings, and that the Office
could not undertake to certify TO draw
ings which she presented, and say that
they correspond to her mental concep-
ton. 1t is seen on comparing the por-
tons amended in the reissue drawings
with the original drawings. that in no
essential particular are they alike. and
hence the Commissioner decision that
those amendments were purely new mat
ter, and, therefore, should be expunged
before any examination or consideration
whatever that the applicant had no