, 1870-06-28

The Chicago Times, in its 1abored dev
fenoc'of Judge McA11iateffs decision in thd
sanuela patent casa, Displays its usual in-
geauity IN avoiding the real point and rnul-
tiplying words on collateral but unimpozt-
ant issues. We desire to draw its attention
to the subject once more Judge McAllister,
in his decision, said:
"DcCntyer i NpCfell4nd, though not the lowest
nms, n1aae Ge re nsdsona e Mhom he contract n
c,uxtvc rt3ht and control Of acersln pstcnted pro
ttas by machinery and chemicals for preserving
wood, called the 7samuels process,''t
This statement, the agent Of the Sam
uels patent aays, is untrue. Healso says that
there WAS nothing in the record Or outside at
It showing, or even alleging, such state Of
facts, and, hence, that it was pure fiction
imported into the case By the Judge for the
purpose Of giving color to charge Of cor
ruption against the Board Of Public Works.
This is the point to which We called attention
editozially, and which The Times does not
answer, or even pretend to.
But, says the 7inses, it COSTS Sea, 900 to
erect machinery for preserving lumber by
the Samuels process and DeGolyes g.
McGle1land, and one other firm, have the
only machinery in operation adapted to
that purpose. That is not what Judge Nc
Allister said. 1t may be tue OF false, and
still the charge against Judge McAllister
remaina in full force, entirely unaffected
by it. The agent Of the sanue1s pat
ent says that DeGo1yer 4, McCle1land, and
the other frm, were required by the terms
Of the contrsct with the patentee, to treat
all lumber offered to them by the city or
any OF its contractors, at certain price
per 1000 feet, exclusive OF royalty. Also
TINT the company which be represents had
advertised that they were prepared to treat,
by the Sanuels process, ail tho
lumber offered to them by any
body, and had personally notified all
the bidders for the Fourteenth street pave
ment Of TINT fact. But that is outside of
the case, and does not affect the statement
Of Judge McAlister that DeGo1yer i Nc
C1eland shave, either as patentees or
assignees, the exclusive right and control
Of certain patented process by machinery
and chemicals for preserving wood, called
the Samuels process" This statement of
the Judge is either truo or false. If it is
tue, the 1in1es can show 1t to be true, but
it cannot escape By raising cloud Of dust
about collateral ISSUE In judicial deci-
sions, if anywhere, md especially in cases
involving the character Of individuals, we
look for the truth, and not for mere guesses
and coniectures affirmed as the truth, and
sent forth with all the gravity Of equity
jurisprudence.
But xha TINE. says that we ought not to
hare publiahed tho visnpesatiye advertise
ment of Er. Kickerson. We did not write
the advertisement. II ne had done SO, we
ehould have omitted from it everything e1-
cept the square charge Of untruthfu1ness.
If We had been writing the advertisement,
and had believed that the decision was vii.
fully untrue, We should have said SO, onit-
| ting all vitnperation, although We might
have found plenty to copy from in tho de-
cision itself.
We do not deny that the specifications
we're defective. We do not even question
the propriety of granting the injunction.
That is not the gravamen Of the case under
consideration The point that needs clear
ing up is thia: Why did Judge McAllister
60 outside Of the case, aud bring in matter,
not necessary sor the decision, which was
not in accordance with truth7 That. is
what Mr. Nicke,son alleges, and what the
| Times does not deny. Was It done tomake
| political capital, or not2