The Worthington advance., 1879-04-10

| .-A"~~S AAA@PAOS0AACulSs 1u6y aUOQLGO the
French system Of putting their miilstones
further apart SO as not to crush 50 much of
the husk nor kill the life of the flour. They
also developed the glutinous properties Ct
their own flour by q successive grinding.
modifying the faces of thu millstones and
reducing their speed. Consequently, their
reground middlings produced better flour
than they had ever had.' =
T1NKERINo UP TUMBLE. r:
"D'd the American patentess make auy
changes in their apparatus to meet the de-
scription of the Cabanese machinery?''
"They tried to reconstruct it in the summer
OF 1877, and had some of the features of the
french invention, but it was of no account.
Inc additions they put on bore no reference
to their reissued patent. Indeed, the Ameri-
can inventors and millers knew nothing
whatever about regrinding and reboltin0
their middlings. =
"The counsel who argued this case intro
duced before the court working 1nodels not
only OF the Cabanese machine and the Coch-
rane machine, but also of the Cove Fariue
machine. he made the whole process clear
as day to the court, aud SO annoyed the op-
posing counsel that he referred to the fact
that set of banded robbers had grouped to-
gether to fight a por inventor! Harding
replied that the opposite counsel had availed
himself of their working models. and that
not cent had been spent except to get up
the exhibits, diagrams aud models.''
] TRACING OF A MECHANICAL SNAKE.
! "Dld he argue the point about the invalid
ity of reissue?'
every ably; he showed that by the act of
1870 the introduction of new matter is e.
pressly forbidden in the reissue, and altering
the drawings annexed to an original patent
ls also expressly forbidden. Both these pro-
visions were violated. Parts of the original
patent by Cochrane were omitted. He first
claimed that the boiling was only aided by
strong blast. In the next patent he speaks
OF the process of publication as wholly
independent of any blast operation. He
added the words: Reducing the meal by
subjection to the combined operations Of
screening and blowing, and afterward re-
grinding and boiling the purified middlings.'
he never knew anything about middlines
before. Mr.. Harding also took up the con-
fusion of terms as to middlings, meal, bran,
| etc., produced by the corresponding terms
in France, which led to close overhaulino
OF the dictionary. Old Oliver Evans reap.
peared from the grave to verify the aGvo-
cate. He showed that such re-issuea pat
ents, when amended, had been set aside in
| uch prominent cases as the Fiber Disinte-
rating company, the Hat Body patent and
the Sat Liquor patent. In the SO of the
| Giant Powder company, the supreme court
| ruled that the abuse to be provided against
was the temptation to amend patent SO
| as to cover Improvements which might have
been invented by others after it's issue. The
! damages claimed from the millers were 80
! immense that the conspirators proposed
V0y np1f0 0rIIu ot11 nh S1.~
compromise or even by special law
Mr.. Harding closed his argument with the
following words: "Can a man give such a
patent to the public, as Cochrane did in
patent 1917, and then reissue it in the new
form in which it is reissued in 5,941, and
hold the whole milling trade of this country
subject to it? If that can be done, it aaav
be right, and if your honors say SO it aoilI be-
| right. But, may it please your honors, many,
! many will think it hardly in accordance with
the advance of civilization and progress of
| laws in this, this last quarter of the nine
| teenth century.
oBrusENEss OF THE SUPREME COURT.
"How did the aupreme court allow such a
case to slip through"
at was very shrewdIy worked. Such law
yers as Walter Cox, now judge of the fed
eral district court, and the son of ex judge
Peck, of the court of claims, and Rodney
Mason, patent lawyer, the son of General
| Mason, of Springfield, were let into the
patent, expecting that they would socially
influence the court. 1t is also believed that
the case against the Ges rgetown miilers was
got up and poorly defended on PURPOSE by
an obscure lawyer named Cady. In short,
| the supreme court ROW knows that this
| patent was reissued and test case made in
order to get their instant favorable de-
cision.''
"What way had the supreme court CT cor
| recting such an error az tnatI''
"As soon as their attention was fully
| brought to the case by the public indiena-
| ton and by the lawyers they granted com
J MISSION which they seldom do, and never
like to do, empowering any circuit judge to
| try another case of the same kind, and then
let an appeal come up to them de novo; that
| ls, as If there had been no previous trial.
''The happy patentees then set to work to
get money out of the big mill of Washburn
l. Christian. They admit having obtained
$4,000 in all as compromised ROYALTIES from
! the miilers, with which they conducted the
litigation. They came from Minneapolis
down to st. Louis, and struck the mllers
there. Mr.. E. 0. Stannard, formerly a
| member of Congress, and big miller, was
| weak enough to pay them, notwithstanding
| the general agreement of the St. Louis mil
lers to resist. He was expelled from the
Millers' association. The case was then
| brought to trial on behalf of both the Mime
apolis and st. Louis mills before Judge Dill
lon, sitting on the bench, with Associates
Nelson and Treat, at St. Louis. George
Harding, who probably got an immense fee,
| went into court, as l have said, with his
working models, exhibited large diagrams,
| baked bread in the presence of tho court,
! and made this intricate matter a. plain a
day."
FUTURE OF THE CASE.
"Is it to he tried again2
"The Cochrane patentees say that they
mean to carry it up to the supreme court;
that their only weak point is about the reis-
sue of the patent, and that they will have
stronger counsel than before. You can i'm
agine how much the millers have saved when
you conceive the enormous number of bar
rels of -four ground in this country and the
infinite mass of middlings, hitherto refused
and used for horse-feed, which, by the
amended methods become superfne four
| "What were the points of the decision?"
| "All the judges concu1red. Judge Dillon
boiled his conclusions down in these vor is:
| Auo IueA OI NAr. COCnrane was the use OF
the blast in the reels AZ an aid in the mere
process of boiling, with the view of obtain
ng An increased quantity of choice hour
and not for the production of purified mid
dlings. The reissued patent having been
expanded to embrace . claim for purifying
middlings, when no such process was de-
scribed, suggested or claimed ia the origins
patent, it g void"
Judge Nelson expressed the same idea in
these words: "The actual invention of
Cochrane has been enlarged by the addition
Of new matter in the reissue, 10 that when
the two patents are compared the extension
is apparent. The new patent is not for tho
same invention secured and embraced in the
original letters patent.'
Judge Treat at length discussed the two
methods and said of the case already decid-
ed against WEIGH by the supreme court: ''If