Omaha daily bee., 1883-06-15


THE BARB WIRE MONOPOLY
The decision Of Judge Treat In the
United States circuit court ct st.
Louis, which was rendered last week,
Is q serious blow to the barbed wire
monopoly. Two years ago Judge
Blodgett, of the federal circuit court,
In Chicago, sfirmed the abroad
claim" Of the patents held by Wash.
burn & Moons, of Worcester, Mass,
for barbed fence wire. The decision
assured ROY allies to the amount OF
81, 900, 900 annually, some say g.
00O, 900. Judge Treats opinion
declares the claims under these
patents invalid. This mskes inevitable
the appeal TO the supreme court at
Washington which the monopoly has
been SO long and 30 skillfully fighting.
The practical result will probably be
the overthrow of the patents and q
reduction in the cost of barbed wire,
of which 10000 tons, or 500, OOO
miles, are used yearly, from ten cents
to FIVE or six cents q pound or less.
There 10 scarcely q farmer east or
west, the cost OF whose fencing will
not be decreased by the probable ro.
suit of Judge Treats decision, while
the expense Of improving western
ranches will DO cut down nearly one.
half.
Ordinarily, In q patent case involv-
Ing millions, or appeal from an ad-
verse decision follows % Q matter Of
course; but Washburn G. Moens, the
owners Of the vital Hunt e. Glidden
patents on which their monopoly rests,
have found 1t wiser, when q lower
court had once given them q legal title,
to open the doors and take In every
rival by Offering q share In profits
large enough to 60 around among the
dozen firms parties to the Chicago
suits. An agreement was then en-
tered into under which these contest
ants agreed to sell the barbed
wire at q special rate, dividing
the royalties upon the basis
of their manufacture, In which
the enormous establishment OF Wash
burn & Moons enjoyed superior ad'
vantages. Ono of these firms, at
later stage In the negotiations, de-
manded and obtained an Increased
share, q proceeding which led to an
intricate lawsuit for q new division
Of profits, brought by another firm In
the monopoly. By the skill Of their
counsel and their own enterprise and
tffis!ency, the great monopoly has
held Its own against farmers associa'
lions all over the west, which have
SUCCESSFULLY succumbed, the only two
surviving being n In Iowa and a
knot of manufacturers In st. Louis,
who have won the present case.
Judge Blodsett's decision, upon
which the monopoly rests, turned upon
two points; frat, that barking wire for
fsnclng was q patentablo invention
and not a mere ''device, and, neoond,
that the reissue Of the original patent
to Glidden was valid In Its enlarge.
ment of the claim made when the pat.
ent was first granted. II does not ap-
pear that Judge Treat has passed upon
the first point, nor that he he's dealt
! With the claim that barbed wire had
been in use prior to the alleged diacov-
cry. Judge Treat has refused to for
bid the St. Louis defendants from con.
tinuing to make and sell barbed wire
fencing, upon the ground that the re.
Issue invalidated tho original patent by
extending 1t outnide the limit OF the
first specifications. Since Judge Blod.
gett rendered his decision two years
ago, the supreme court has used de-
oided language on the subject Of re.
Issues, and greatly restricted the loose
doctrine accepted before. In recent
decision on turbine water wheels, and
handed down lkst winter ON . new
milling process, the Washington court
ruled that the reissue Of q patent
must be limited to the earlier specif-
cations. The application of this prin-
olple has probably guided Judge Trea'
In deciding against q monopoly whose
profits have been equalled BY thu
spoils Of few patents.