The Iowa plain dealer. [volume] (New Oregon, Howard County, Iowa) 1867-1895, 1884-03-06
HISTORY or THE LITIGATION.

Plain or nnbarbed wire had been In quite gen.
cral use for fencing throughout the West for
some years before barhed wire began to Le made
In small way under patents taken ont a. early
a. 1865 by Kelley aud 1874 by Glidden,and others
not 80 well known. Between 1860 and 1870 there
were fully thirty different patents granted 70
various parties on bRrbcd-Mirc fences. hut the
business was In its infancy. Few realized what
II was to become In half -a-dozen years. One Of
these few was Mr.. Washhurn, OF Worcester. Mass.
lic conceived the idea OF buying mp all the I'M
portant patents and making great monopoly.
IN February, 1876, Nashbnrn A. Moen obtained
their subsequently famous reissues" or the
Kelley and Gliddcn patents. The reissuing was
ingenious. In this new form the patents con-
tanned and claimed much more than the orig
mails. Under these reissues the Worcester firm
set up its so-callcd broad claim II held that
barbed-wiie fence. no matter by what device the
wire had been prepared. Having secured the
patents, having had them reissuca with these
new and sweeping claims, the next step was to
secure decision from the courts sustaining
them. This was not gained for several
years. Meanwhile the business had grown
grown mp everywhere In the Western
States, competing with the large Eastern
esstablishments The business was entirely free.
and were NOT interfered with. Hut Washburn
4 Moen were quietly at work. In November,
1880 they gained their famous case In the United
mond and Blodgett deciding that the re-issned
patents were valid and In full force.
The barb wire business was brought 10 short
halt by this decision. Every man in the coun-
try making, selling, or using barb-wire was
liable to suit for infringement, and manufacture
ers were halle to pay ruinons back royalties. In
this state OF affairs Mr.. Waahburn and his attOr-
news summoned the principal manufacturers OF
the country to meet them for q grand settle.
ment They came together in Chicago In Feb
rnary, ISL, three months after the decision.
Washburn Was in position TO dictate terms,
and each maker took the best he could get.
About forty firms were licensed to continue
the business, each being limited as to the annual
tonnage of its output and each being assessed
certain sum, larger or smaller, for back dam.
ages. Mr.. Nashburn and his licensees ut this
same meeting fixed upon certain price for
wire, no licensec being allowed TO underscll.
The price OF Wire to consumers was advanced by
the monopoly about $40 above tho recent cur-
rent price traising tho Wholesale price from
about q cents TO about cents per pound.
Washburn IL Moons royalty was SIS per ton.
Small makers were not licensed, and were all
crushed out Such. then, was the little monop.
oily which from February. 1881, to the present
time has added somewhat more than $4,000. 900
extra profit to the price Of wire sold farmers In
half-a- dozen Western and Northwestern 81 ates.
Iowa, being much the largest consumer, felt the
formed Protective association" They set mp
an establishment In Des MoineS for making
moonshine wire, and prepared themselves TO
fight the matter through the courts
Meanwhile the Supreme Court Of the United
states had indirectly struck a hlOw at the mo.
nOpoly by its decision on the subject OF reissued
patents IN the celebrated case OF Miller vs.. The
Brass Company. In this case new and valua-
BILE doctrine was laid down. There had arisen
among certain class OF Eastern capitalists u
very corrupt and pernicious practice in this
matter of patents. II this article or commodity
began to come into the markets. they had \
practice OF rummaging among old and aban-
doncd patents until they found something in
some wise relating to the now popular COM
modify. OF course this old patent could be
bought up for = song. They would then have 1t
reissued" and so broadened and strengthened
as to make il valuable and to give them mo-
nopolizing power over the commodity. 1t was
to check this dangerous practice that the SUI
premc Court laid down in the case Of Miller Vs.
The Brass Company" set Of new and stringent
rules governing the reissue OF patents.
The new doctrine threw cloud over the Gid
den and Kelley barhed-wire patents and the
Chicago Drummond- Blodgett decision. II gave
the Iowa farmers their basis for case
Under the countenance Of the Farmers
Association several other "mooHshining" facto-
lies arose and grew like mushrooms into large
business by their ability TO undersell the mo-
nopolists Washburn Il Moen entered suits
and petitions against all these moonshin rs
Instead OF carrying the suits against the farmers
through the courts the monOpallsts, IL was
charged, bought up the Des Moines manufae-
turer. who was the agent for the Farmers Asso-
citation. The brunt of the fight on the broad
claim was borne by the Grinnell Wire Com
pany. decision was made by United States
Judges McCrary, Love, and Treat in the Circuit
Court for the Southern District OF Iowa In Nav.
1881. that the Kelley aud Giidden reissncd at
ents W. re invalid This decision has now been
affirmed IN the Rhodes cases,l