Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1886-05-26

SOUTH CAROLINA VS.. GEORGIA.
The Action of the Mason Against the
L. y. Cotton Harvester Company.
From nc C1aries'on Ae'os ana co'vie


me ACtioh Oh the MASON against 'iio
L. ). Cotton Harvester Company.
From. ne Charleston Mans and Courier.
A commemorative of tho Navvs and Con.
-. -.,I,,,1 49,, ~, ~ .,,-+t,o n
l'eA N"''eu "po" 'ne Aiou' us"9'ino
omythe, the Solicitor oil the mason COTTON
Harvester Company, and requested him
to give a brief exclamation of the causes
which Lavelad tho comnanv m cool re.
-
"iess III Tue Vou'ls'
Mr.. Smythe, who was found at his resi-
dencein this city, said: For some time
past, as has been well known. Mr.. Charles
1. Mason, Jr., OF sumter, :. G., has been
engaged IN constructing cotton harvest
ing machine, made after inventions of his
own. These inventions are owned by the
Mason Harvester Company Of South Car
ollna, and 1t ~ the purpose OF this COM
pany TO demonstrate the practical and
successful working OF the Mason liar
vester, by tests in the cotton field, upon
the coming crop OF cotton. Although sew
eral valuable patents have been obtained
ny the company, delay in obtaining pat
ents on the general construction OF the
machine, as a whole, mas prevented any
greater puohelty being gwen 10 the IN
vention than mas appeared from time TO
time IN the newspapers, ana mas pre-
vented the placing OF the machine Itself
on the market.
Zone cause OF the delay in obtaining the
general construction patent was con-
lngappllcation filed bv owen I. Bugg'
An interference was declared between
this application and that OF Mr.. Mason by
the examiners IN the patent Office. This
interference. which is simply suit be-
tween opposing inventors IN the patent
once, was regularly set for trlal, ISSUES
made up and testimony taken on both
sides. The case came to trial, and was
fully argued by able counsel on both sides,
and was passed upon both by the exam
lners ana Commissioner OF Patents. The
result was judgment IN favor OF Mr.
Mason ana against Mr.. Bugg on every
point, ana the patent was accordingly
issued TO Mr.. Mason on March last.
"MeanW hlles however, IN November,
1888, Mr.. Bugg had obtained patent for
what is really but trivial cOntriNH nce TO
be used IN connection with cotton har-
Vestlng machines. Ihls alleged improve
ment can IN no event be used Independ-
entity, but only IN combination with other
patents, over which he has no control,
and which are owned by our company.
WIN TINS patent alone he has recently
organized company called the United
states Cotton Harvester Company and has
punt what ne calls cotton harvesting
machine unblushingiy embodying some
OF the leading and essential features
OF the Mason machine. some OF
which were the very subject matter of the
contention between MIR. Mason and him
self, and upon which the Judgment OF
the patent Office had been rendered in ia
Vor OF Mr.. Mason. rms machine Mr..
Bugg exhibited in the New York Cotton
Exchange, and subjected 1t there to what
he called a test, IN the presence of men,
bers OF that body. The result, so far as
tho expression OF opinion of leading men,
bers of the exchange can be taken as a
guide, was an utter failure TO demonstrate
anything like practical success.
IL was supposed that alter this failure
nothing more would be heard of Mr.,
Bugg. IL appears, however, from publi-
cations made in newspapers in New York
and New Orleans within the last few
weeks, and IN Frank Leslie's illustrated
Newspaper of last week, that Mr.. Bugg,
or bis company, the United States Cotton
Harvester Company, proposes to continue
to claim the right 10 use and manufacture
that which was refused them by the Pat
ent office, aud to infringe the patents is
SUED 10 Mr. Mason ana owned by the
Mason Cotton Harvester Company. This
TACT was brought TO the attention of the
stockholders OF the Mason Cotton Har-
vester Company at meeting held in
Charlesioh DAY or Two ago, and 1t was
determined 0f the directors at once to
take proper legal proceedings for an in
junction TO prevent the continuance OF
such infringement and for the damages
caused to the Mason Company thereby.
w ME the machine as built BY Mr..
Bugg IS, TO certain extent, only a
clumsy ana impractical imitation OF the
mason Harvester, IL nevertheless en-
Ood es some OF the leading principles OF
the Mason machine, and which are espe-
claliy protected by It's patents. 1t is,
therefore, not only direct infringement
OF our patents, nut IS an absolute cause OF
damage 10 US, because IL eXhiDlts our IN
YentOns IN sucn clumsy and inferior
form as 10 orlng our machine into dis
credit, ana create the Impression that the
Mason Cotton Harvester 10 as incom-
petent machine for the purpose desire
as. IN the opinion or the members OF the
Cotton Exchange and others who have
seen 1t, the Bugg Harvester has proved
itself to be.
"the legal REORGANIZATION
DH tUe VI dHfJl Alf3tldN harvester N50mnAnV
will iugfifufgd iHaf aa copu thu ,,,c