New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-12-14

marine canals 10 lighter the largest yes
sells over the bar at the mouth of the river,
prove a success. New Orleans has great
future before her if her people viii only as
sist nature to make her what she ought TO
be. This is the natural outlet to the richest
country on the globe; If any of your readers
will spare the time to make visit up the
river, and see for themselves, they VIII be
astOnshed at the enterprise and prosperity
throughout the country, and especially at
the little city OF ChioOt, Arkansas:
An Important Decision Relating 10 the
Future of the Fine Arts.
In the decision of the suit Of the G0rham
Manufacturing Company VS.. White, the
Supreme Court of the United States has
rendered signal and important service to
the progress of the fine arts. By the statute
of 1912, Congress authorized the commits
sioner to grant letters patent to those
whose industry, genius, efforts and eN
pense" should produce new designs for
printing, statues, bas relieves; in short, for
all forms Of ornamentation. 1t was the in
tent of this act that the art of decoration
should enjoy the fostering care and protec-
ton which has conferred such conspicuous
benefits upon the American inventions In
the mechanic arts; and in constituting this IN
s,lo1, r,,nar 80 to- g;ve practical nr6tection
10 tha iesirrer. the court has doubtless lent
. ,roITIarla iynrnlse tn the artistic culture of
the country.
Although passed twenty years ago, this
act has remained almost d dead letter.
Very few suits were brought under it at the
Circuit, and, until the present, none have
Goan aa,rini n the Snnrptne Court.
ja+ fyiT If
5ae;gn 1,a+nn+s have hncone almost uni
,,ers7,! M sooner did a pattern. devised
a,1 ir+rod1cna at great 6xnense become
nnnnIar in tha market. than it was copied
h., ether n7arrf, ct,lrers. who TINS. without
80 and almost without loss OF business
,n,,SiSara+ion on;nved the frnits of the ga
r,;,1s' aT,5 en+arnr;sa Of others. This became
~ LOT a aerinna evil which seemed to
tbraaten he Terv existence Of American
3a.;g1 for no one ncuIH afford to pIrl,ioy q
,.or,is II artists aud incur the cc6r Of bring
Go, 3,a,a [n"3s INTO the market # his nroT
-, IN ia raet7,t was omen to III. shared
Inv All tha world.
q s., ne state of the hnsincsa which
+la C.orbar, WaTnfar+nr;Dg CoInnanv nm
SoItnoIr +o rema6v They were. 27 every
one lnows f1rem6st among American sill
T-aTgnTifba far +hc heauty and novelty of
tI.a;I, rro@9a 5Indismaved nv .ha r,o%inu
,I,ac+;ea nf ;nfriDgn7npnt which 7jsgraced
e. +1eJ. .i,nT- II.S,,+ :, Ia1re corDs nf 9rtis+s
~ t71ri, e3nnlny whosa hTsi0ess it was to
Iayise new ana beautiful forms and decora-
tiane These we're. Az a GENERAL rnJe, copied
nv ntl,ars and the GSrhalu con,pany re-
sGl,rad Ia see whether the law which had
,Hy,r,izaI +I,o,r ,tacti0n vas a1pnna4e to
furnish them relief against this great end
stsr H.rbaf Tbey have c3rrfsd on This
%ond fioht far art and their rights for six
EToo~s n.ided save nv the moral suDnOrt
~ The traGn and +ha decision of the Sin
nraTne Court has AT last crowned their
Ionrage and endurance with brilliant
tri13,,,9b They selected as the ground on
y-hirh tn make their fight. the uatent for
tie DESIGN of the we'll known cottage pat
fern of snoons and forks. The intTingers
ceIInd their goods the Gothic pattern. and
had also n9tent but the GOrham com
many charged that this was an evident COPY
n+ their design. varied only for the purpose
Of asranino lie law. II was an additional
Grievance In this case that the cottage goods
T2are in silver. while the imitation was in
base metal.
They proved. by nearly all the leading
silyersmiths of New York, Philadelphia.
Hoston and tine West. that the defendants
Goods we're nearly SO like the plaintiffs that
ordinary purchasers would mistake the one
for the other They further showed the
rrnat value of their design which was pro.
Touncad by an eminent dealer the best
nlaiD ua4tein he had ever seen, and which
was estimated by another leading silver
smith to be, in his Judgment, worth $50 900
nj least. And they called witnesses in the
trade who narrated occasions when they
had actually mistaken one pattern tor the
other.
None Of these facts we're denied 10y the
defendants, who rested their case solely
upon the fact, not controverted by the Cor
ham COMPANY. that there were certain dit
terfnces in the details Of the two designs,
which exnerts and persons accustomed TO
IooE al siiycrware would certainly observe.
And the question was thus fairly raised
whether a patent for design WAS infriDged
if fine infriDger was clever enough to pro
duce mon the eve the same artistic effect.
and vet vary from the details shown and
Described in the patent. The plaintiffs
claimed that if. to the eve Of the purchaser.
+ha resemblance was s., close that the pat
terms we're the same. then that. IN law, they
ynr-t he deemed shs same; while :hc De-
PENDANTS urged that !. wa. for experts and
DESIGNERS 10 de.ernin. the Sdea!i.y OF the
TatI9rns.
The cause was heard IN Hewport in the
sumnler. Of 1870. and che views OF the de-
PENDANTS we're sustaine,! 1y IL" opinion OF