National Republican., 1880-11-09
THE s1EEpING-oAB CONTROVERSY
Conclusion of Argument of tho Complain
nj

ants,
baltimore. Nd, Nov. s.-The case of the Pull.
man paace-car company VS.. the Baltimore & Ohio
railroad company for infringement OF patent was
continued in the United States circuit court to-day
Mr.. Thuston of Providence, II. l., resumed and
concluded his orgamont begun on Saturday last
on behalf of the complainants.
After recognizing the previous existence Of
great number Of lotterpaent for sleeplng.car con-
struo,lon, the character of letters-patont which
profess to be only for new and useful combinations
of old elements fully presented In the light Of
the decisions Of the supreme court of the United
States, which, ho claimed, established first that
such patents are entitled to liberal construction
and protection, and, secondly, that such invention
cannot bo impeached by proving that the elements
composing the combinations are old, for the rea-
son that such patented inventions rest essentially
upon new combinations of old things. He next
proceeded to analyzo each of the claims for tho
new combinations rocited In the Pullman patent,
and claimed TO show from the record that before
the Pullman structure could be produced it was
necessary to make radical changes in the form and
dimensions of railway coaches In order to intro
duco q series of organic combinations. First,
hinged upper berth with devices for suspending 1t
from the roof, which arc moved out of the way
and concealed when the berth Is raised by day,
and with q counterbalance which relatively to the
weight of the hinged berth i5 in excess Of the
weight OF the berth when the latter Is turned up
ward and Is inferior to the weight of the berth
when down. second, an elevated closet the door
of which Is formed by the lower berth, and third
removable partitions between the berths the whole
series Of combinations resulting IN n sleepng.car
which Is tho best ventilated by day and the most
comfortable cur by night
Mr.. Thurston next reviewed the defense that the
Pullman combinations did not require invention
for their production, and claimcdthat the assertion
was answered by the fact that the Pullman car had
superseded Nl tae old constructions and was now
In use OH 10000 miles of railway. Tho various old
sleeping cars said to have been In use more than
thlTty years ego were next discussed and 10 was
claimed that no hint or suggestion of any one of
tho Pullman combinations can be found In any or
all of them. a large number of judicial decisions
were cited to illustrate tho manner in which
similar defcnses have been considered BY the
courts, The argument concluded with aconsidera
ton efthe equitable dcfenses set up and the proof
as was claimed, of the deliberate infringement BY
the defendant After the conclusion of Mr.. Thurs
TONS argument, Mr.. Philip of New York began
ompliiying OH the following points:
TINS is motion for provisional injunction and
not fnal hearing. The revised patent in suit has
never been sustained either by decree Of q court
ofequty ora verdict of q jury at law.
The grounds upon which the motion Is urged by
the complainants are that Pullman conceived OF q
sleeping-car system securing through connections
betwceu distant points, and devised q slccping-car
adequate to such system for which they claim the
reissued patent IN suit and that 1t was on account
OF this system and sleepingcar that contracts with
many lnirOnd companies were obtained, the use
| BY INC latter amounting toan acquiescencc.
The record shows that Pullman did not first
doYise such s.eepingcar system, nor car adequate
to that system, but TINT that done early as
1862 by the Central Transportation company, that
| been done by Paine aud his associates south of
| Mason and Dixom's line.
In 1870 the complainants purchased the twenty
five patents, contracts etc. OF the Central Trans.
portaton company, and in 1872, the contracts and
| cars of Paine.
Between 1862 and 1870 complUinants only had
contracts with three railroads In this country,
| Among the twenty-five patents so purchased were
| those covering the foundation principles of all
sleeping-cars convertible into day and night cars
| The acqulesceuce of the public was In those
patents, and not In the reissue here In suit, which
| never has been aCquiesced in. Tho court cannot,
| therefore, as no acquicscence has bccn shown in
| the relssuod patent and there has been adudi-
cation, grant the injunction. The failure OF the
cOmplRinGnts to prosecute fourteen railroad COM
panies. having some l2OOl miles of road, that have
| run their own sleepiug.cars, constructed substan-
tiny like the defendants, without paying the com
| plniuants anything, and without being sued is
another reason why the court cannot grant the III
junction.
| Mr.. Philip had not concluded his argument
| when the court at o'clock adjourned until to
| morrow,