The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1888-01-19
MANY persons believe TIT Mr.. john

MANY persons believe tint Mr.. John
sons citation of patent rights as form
of protection whose justice and eYpedi-
ency no one viii question, is strong ar
gument in favor of a protective tariff.
There is not the slightest analogy be
tween the two.
When person secures patent on an
invention he gets government protection
for his individual property. Ii IS the pro-
duct of his labor, but as it is peculiar
species of property ordinary laws cannot
prevent or punish its theft. The author
who writes book has property in the
work beyond the editions published and
a copyright protects him In the right
What is generally termed the sgood will
OF business has an appreciate value
and those whose business methods have
given the firm name reputation which
is valuable, are protected in their rights
The patentee has created something OF
purchased something whose value is not
the less positive or intrinsic because the
thing purchased has in it no material
substance. He has the right to its en-.
ioyment. He wrongs no one by insisting
upon exclusive possession of what is his
He takes nothing from others. He simp.
ly asks that his property shall be protect.
ed from the thief. He asks only the pro
lection which the law extends to all. Il
this the case with the protected manu-
facturer?
To argue that our patent laws have
done much toward developing our manu-
featuring industries and that the invent
| or has availed himself OF them to his Owl
benefit and to that of consumers, is to ar
que in favor of intelligence and the exer
| else of inventive genius. Ii laws Will no
secure the inventor in the possession o
| the product of his brain, they should no
offer protection to the person who accu
mulates material wealth. The man wh'
labors with his hands would have httl
incentive to industry if the doctrine o
community of property prevailed. Th
same thing is true Of the inventor. Tn
protection given the man who has accu
mulated property by inheritance or HI
own industry, is identical with the pro
lection given the inventor. The TART
protection is wholly dissimilar. 1t add
nothing to the wealth of the communit
and makes the people pay for the specia
privilege extended to a class. Can an
one trace analogy between that protec
ton which prevents the felonious takin
Of property and that which subsidies a
industry and collects the amount froI
the people?
But the manufacturer increases til
wealth of the Countrywide protectionist ii
sists, and should be rewarded for so doing
The inventor increases the wealth of tn
country and is rewarded by having th
market given exclusively to him. But
the inventor asked that tax be 1evie
upon the people to reward him for hi
labors, he would be asking the protectio
which the manufacturer receives. II
does not. He makes cheaper the thing
which the people need,-cheaper tina
they could be produced anywhere in th
world without his invention. The redu'
ton in prices on all manufactured a
ticles is due to him, but the manufacture
claims it as result of the protectiv
tariff. He uses his property and doe
not increase the cost to the consume
wherewith to raise bounty-to rewar
him for investing his capital. If he 70
lowed the practice of the manufacture
he would say: Il have an invention her
which in time will materially reduce th
cost of manufactured goods; but it
yet but an infant and must have pal
Add a certain per cent. to the presen
cost OF those articles whose ultimate cos
will be reduced by reason of my inver
ton, and L shall at once set the thing t
working" II, after the infant had sucl
led for years and grown strong, the inver
tor would threaten to slaughter the nurs
ling If the pap was discontinued, h
would have the Simon-pure protectio
idea.