The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1872-12-12

AN tARoRTANEr r;DRo1Moao REt,Azssa 10
THE FVTUaa OF THR FINN ARrA -b1n the
;decisiop Of the suit Of the .Gurham. Ma
.pufsoturing Company ,ss.s White. the
Supreme. Court Oh thu United States hss
rendered signal and Important sesvice 10
the, progress Of the 6ne arts. By. tho
statute of 1S42. Congress authorised the
commissioner to grant letters patent to
those whose Industry. genius efforts
and expense" should produce new de-.
hgns Tor printing, statues, has relieves;
IN short for all forms Of ornamentation
Il was she intent Of this Act that the art
Of decoration should enjoy the fostering
care and protection which has conferred
such conspicuous beneAts upon tho
American Inventions in the mechanic
astss and In construing this lav in suoh
the designer, the court has, doubtless,
isnt valuabls impulse to the artistic
culture OF the country. - ~" ~
Although passed twenty years ago,
this Act has remained alpost wholly q
dead letter. Very few suits were brought
undar it at,the Circuit, and, until the pre-
sent, none have been carried to the Su1
preme Court. - .3i,
The feaalt las been that jnfringAmehss
OF design, patents have become alnlosp
universal. Nois0onet did aIpattesu, de-
vised and introduced as great expense.
baooma popular in 7the market. than it
Was copied by other ant,facturets, who
thus, without risk, and almost without
loss OF buslneaM, consideration; enjoyed
the fnits OF the geniud dand enterpriae'of
others !This became at last a'ssrious
evil, which aeemed to- threaten the very
existence of American design pfop no ono
conld afford TO employ corps sof artists,
and incur the Icost Of bringing new
goods into the market. if his property in
the result was opencto be shared by all
the wnrld.7 j,..N .an.s s,,lu -5ro,, :: II
THIS was the state of the: business
which the Gorham Manufacturing Com
nany undertook 70 remedy. They were.
as every one knows, foremost among
American silversmiths for the beauty and
novelty Of their goods. Undismay ed by
the growing practice of infringement,
which disgraced the trade, they kept q
large corps of artists in their employ,
whose business it was to devise new and
beautiful forms and decorations These
were, as q general rule, copied by others,
and the Gorham Company resolved. to
see whether the law, which had pro-
missed them Profession, was adequate to
furnish them relief against this great
and serious mischief. They have carried
on this gool fight for art and their rights
for. aix. years, unaided save by the moral
support of the trade, and the decision of
the Supreme Court has at last crowned
their courage and endurance with bril-
linat triumph. They selected, as ground
on which to make their fight, the patent
for the design Of the well-known, cottage
pattern of spoons and forks.; The in
fringera called their. goods the Gothic
pattern, and had, also. patent; but the
Gorham Company charged that this was
an evident copy OF their design. varied
only for the purpose of escaping the law.
1t was. an additional grievance in this
case, that thetcottage. goods were in sill
YER, while the imitation was in base
metal They proved, by nearly all the
leading sllversmitbs of New York, Phila.
.delphia, Boston and the West. that the
defendants goods were so nearly like the
plaintiffs, thatOrdinarypur would
mistake the one for the other. They
further showed the great value OF their
design, which was' pronounced by an
eminent dealec'the best plain pattern he
uhA eSoT Seohs ldpu WulCu was eBLlmat6Q
by another leading silversmith to be, in
his Judgment. WORTH $50, ,OaO,, at lenss.
And they called witnesses in the trade,
who narrated occasions when they had
actually; mistaken one pattern for tho
other: .'It
None of these facts were denied by
the defendants. who rested their case
solely upon the fact, not controverted
by the Gorham Company, that there
we're certain differences in the details of
the two designs, which exports and per-
sons accustomed to look at silverwnre
would certainly observe. And the quea-
tion was thus' fairly raised whether pa
tent for q design was infringed il the
inffinger was clever enough to produce
upon the eye the same artistic effect,
and yet vary from the details shown and
described in the patent. The plaintiffs
claimed that if, to the eye of the pnr.
chaser, the resemblance was 80 close that
the patterns were the same, then that, in
law, they must bs deemed the. same;
while the defendants urged that it was
for experts and designers to determine
the identity OF the patterns. The cause
was heard in Newport in the summer of
II l.