The Middlebury register and Addison County journal. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1883-1885, 1884-02-22

the date in 1905; so that there was am
pie time TOR this method, which Profes-
sor Hall says Originated" in Middle
bury, TO have been Introduced into New
Milford. Conu., from this place before
! 1911, the first time we hear ANYTHING of
saving marble there by any method.
The TACT that there was marble
quarry opened there about 1900 does
not prove that marble was there sawed
by soft iron plates and sand and water
| in gangs and single frames at that
time, any more than at Pittsf1rd, VT,
where quarry was opened in 1873 in
which it is not claimed that the process
was then used, and which Professor
Seely says was the pioneer quarry in
"that remarkable calcareous Deposit
extending through Vermont, Massachu
sets and Connecticut; but in this the
learned professor is mistaken, as there
was marble quarry in full operation
on large scale, owned aud carried on
by Mr.. Elijah Phelps, in Lanesborough,
Massachusetts, before A. d. 1870, aud
where up to 1912, the old process of re-
ducing the marble to "thin plates" for
market was still employed. DR.. Judd
discovered marble in Middlebury in
1902, but did not go into the mauufac-
ture of il until 1906, and not on large
scale until 1908. The valuable intor-
nation furnished by Professor Dexter,
the courteous librarian of Yale college,
produced by Professor Seely, is untor-
tunate in one respect, it does not fur
nish any dates. Neither DR.. Dwight,
Professor Silliman or Mr.. circuit gives
dates, the very thing needed III this dis
cussion, and of course proves nothing,
especially as we find DIR. Judd, in u
letter addressed to the Hon. Henry l..
Ellsw orth, commissioner of patents,
bearing date at Middleburv, May Is,
1887, saying, among other things, that
the invention "was kept open to The
inspection of'all persons, and about one
hundred marble factories were put in
operation in different parts of the Uni
ted States, all under the principle of
the original invention" before 1922.
lie also states to the commissioner: "It
!, is well understood by many who have
worked marble for a number of years
l that this invention has caused revolu
ton in that business, and has reduced
the expense of saving slabs of marble
about IS per cent. especially on thin
slabs" He also states that the method
had been introduced into England and
: France since A. ID. 1925; SO that, as
I the courteous professor of Yale college
gives no dates before 1905, and as Pro.
; lessor Seely does not seem to have
found any, and as there were about one
hundred marble factories put in opera
ton in different parts OF the United
! nd Gnll
under the principle of the original in
vention," we may conclude that these
mills in New Milford were patterned
after the one put up by DR.. Judd in
2 Middlebury, they being maniiestly
erected later than his mill here. Ma
other conclusion can be arrived at by
the facts in the case; and that this mill
!. in Middlebury, in which marble was
sitled into thin plates by "machinery
! of peculiar construction, namely, by
"toothless plates of soft iron operated
with sand and water III gangs or single
= frames was invented here in Middle
bury, as it cannot be shown to have
: been invented anywhere else and was
i the first of the kind in the history OF
; the world, and that the boy Markham
1 was the inventor, as ii was known here
at the time aud long after.
The suggestion by Professor Seely,
; that DIR. Judd had been to New Milford
4 after he came to Middlebury and dis.
covered marble here, and learned the
process of saving marble there and
, communicated his knowledge TO the
boy Markham to have him work up a
model, is simply absurd, since it is a
+ well known fact that DR.. Judd never
l went beyond the limits of the village
, of Middlebury after he first came here
in 1893; and still more absurd is the
, suggestion when we consider that Dr.
: Judd, a man of decided ability, would
l apply to boy Of ten wears of age to
; develop what he had already seen in
: full operation in New Milford; and to
I go on to the height of absolute foolish,
ness of putting up "trial mlll' of one
saw, to test the feasibility of saving
marble in Vermont which he had seen
I fully tested in Connecticut.
i But Professor Seely in conclusion
i admits that the boy Mark ham may have
I been the inventor of the Middlebury
, method by saying that sit is well to re-
mind ourselves that new devices, in,
ventions and discoveries OF like charac
! ter appear in different countries at the
4 same time, and at different times, orig
: inal to the worker and for which he
) should have due credit"
TuonAS II Mol RON