Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1877-08-22
COCHRANE'S MILLING PATENT.
How II was Received and What il is
Worth.
Washington special to the lnter.ocean.

In the platform adopted by the Ohio
republican convention occurs the follow
ing plank:
Resolved, That we are opposed to the
renewal Of patents by acts of congress,
which are Cumbersome and oppressive
to the masses of the people, and cspc-
cially to the laboring classes.
1t is asserted here that this resolution
was inserted through the influence Of
the millers Of the United States, who are
Just now fighting in the courts what is
known rs the Cochranc patent, being a
method of milling wheat called "thc
high process of grinding" Low grind
ing" is a term used by millers to de
scribe the operation where the upper or
revolving milestone is brought close to
the neither or lower stone, and the flour
is of II poorer quality On account of the
difficulty of separating the bran, which
is ground into it. High grinding" is
the operation by which the crust of the
kernel of wheat is only broken by pass
ing through the stones, which are not SO
near together, SO that the bran is blown
off, and the little granules of pure flour
are left for n second grinding. This
process was introduced from France
into this country about six years ago.
and is now almost universally adopted
by millers throughout the United States.
1t is stated by persons interested tina,
VIM. +. Cochrane went quietly into the
patent office in 1873, and got the pro-
cess patented, although it was in use by
hundreds of millcrs ut the time, and
,,.,s NOT lyS ,,,, t,,,otfinn Than h.,
brought suit quietly against Il small
miller in Georgetown, ID. G., and succeed
ed in having the case rushed through
the courts of the District of Columbia
and intothe supreme court of the United
States, where n decision was rendered
in April last by Judge Bradley, confirm
ing the patent of Cochrane. justices
Clifford and Strong dissentcd from the
opinion Of the court.
Having received this decision, Coch-
rane, Warder, Mason and W. ). Cox,
owners of the patent (the two last being
wealthy patent attorneys of Washington
who had managed the easel, applied for
an injunction TO prevent all millers III
the United States from using this pro
cess. Several of the prominent western
millels are now fighting this injunction,
and will bring the matter before congress
with a bill to have the injunction can
celed.
A great many millers have recently
visited the patent Office here to obtain
information in regard to the case, which
promises to be Of u popular interest
equal to the recent sewing machine
agitation. They contend, in the first
place, that Cochranc had no right to this
patent, and that it could have been SO
shown had any one known that an at
tempt was being made to secure it.
They say TINT the whole proceedings
were conducted with the utmost secrecy,
and the facts were almost unknown un-
til they were brought out in the argu-
ments before the Supreme Court, 1t IL
also claimed that these Georgetown mil
lers who We're the defendants in the suit,
were practically men of straw, who made
no show Of defense, so that the court
was not properly informed regarding
the true state Of the case. Both sides
of the suit, it is claimed, were conduct
cd in the interest of "A party Of Wash
ington spectators with a view of antic-
ipating any legal proceedings that might
be brought into the future, and that the
Georgetown millers were simply acting
rs dummies for the spectators to shoot
at.
In order to answer the many inquiries
in regard to the matter, the commission
or of patents ordered the decision Of
the supreme court published in the OF
fetal Gazette of the patent office.
The men who own the Cochranc pat
ent have made propositions to all the
millers Of the United States to allow
them the use of this patent on the sign
ing Of n document recognizing its valid
ity, and the payment Of $4,000 for each
run Of stones. As there are about six
thousand runs of stones in which this
process is used in the United States the
spectators will realize $3G,0O,0O0 from
their patent.
While primarily this royalty will come
out Of the millers, in reality the con
sumers Of flour will have to pay it, and
indeed this litigation has already increas-
ed the price Of the staple.
The p~atcntecs, all Of whom reside III
Washington, reply to these statements
by contcndinG that the patent was a
legitimate one, and that their proceed
ings have been legal in form and spirit.
They say the suit in the supreme court
was no sham, but fair and open, The
supreme court merely affirmed the de
cision Of the commissioner Of patents
and the court Of the District of Column
bia, and settled forever all question
about the validity Of their patent. 1t is
a valuable one, they say, and they intend
to make a legitimate profit from its use.
The millers will bring the matter be-
fore congress Us soon as the session
| nnntna n11 ihn nntirn rnhrnannfniInn of