The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1892-07-23
ACCUSES CARNEGIE OF THEFT.
Inventor John NJ. Prioa Tells How He WI

AhSoutOE OOIn I-FtC0 1ekt6 HOW 116 WAS
Robbed.
NEW York. July 19-John M. Price,
of Kingsbridge, is we'll known in the
iron trade throughout the United
States and Europe. With Hoplein
Williams, his partner in one of his
most important patents. ho nns sought
in vain to secure recognition from tho
Carnegies rs the inventor of the ma
chinery they are using. Tho first Inn
portant patent granted in this country
upon improved machinery intended for
rolling mills was issued to Mr.. Price,
May 9, 1876 The work Of rolling iron
or steel rails was then nearly all per-
formed by manual labor Tho "bil-
let's, which seem to form the unit
of calculation in the iron and sta.l
schedule OF wages, were lifted by men
into the rollers, and from one machine
to another in the process of being
pressed into rails.
Mr. Price invented not only new
rolling machine, hut u transferring
arm. which did this work automatically
and dispensed with the labor of all
these men. This was in the invention
covered by his patent of May. 1876. In
the course of their negotiations with
Andrew Carnegie ho referred Mr.. Wit
liams to the late Captain Jones, fore
man OF the Carnegie works. Captain
Jones acted for Mr.. Carnegie in all tho
transactions Captain Jonos evinced
an interest in the new invention and
correspondent from Allegheny with the
inventor in New York. The inventor
sent on u full copy of his patent.
claims and specification, with draw
ings showing every detail.
Captain Jones shortly afterward
broke off the correspondence, saying
the mills were too busy to try any OK
perimcnts This was in 1884. Two
application with the patent Office for
expense and labor of rolling steel
rails, and according to which ono rail
may be under pressure from two sets
OF rollers ut the same time. The plans
were also sent to Captain Jones In
1886 Mr.. Price learned accidentally
that Captain Jones had taken out q
patent for mill similar to his own.
Hopkin Williams said there was no
doubt the whole thing was stolen
from the Price patent and applca-
tion. The plan when compared by
the reporter showed striking SINH
larity, even to small details in the
drawings. The transferring arm was
there, with somewhat different
shape, but involving the principle of
lifting the piece of steel. The fact
that the patent office should grant II
patent in conflict with one previously
issued and involving mechanism as to
which on application for patent was
then on file is not without precedent
Indeed, the value of a patent in this
country depends entirely upon the
amount of money the patcntee has
for protecting it by long and expensive
litigation.
1.-The application of Captain Jones'"
said Mr.. Williams, twas thrown
out four times because it was
in conflict with Mr., Prices ear
her patent or pending application
Each time it was returned to Washing
ton with obvious evasions designed to
pass the examiners. Mr. Price has
since seen the mill ia the Carnegie
works and says it not only employs the
transferring arm, but the essential
principle of his double mill, for which
a patent was issued in 1887 Other in
ventions of his have likcwise been
stolen. For the double mill now used
by the Carnegies they have not even a
patent, as it was not mentioned in the
patent granted to Jones The Carnc-
gies, desiring to use the patents with
out paying for them. simply defy the
inventor, knowing that they can fight
the thing in the courts and stave off d
decision for years while reaping the
benefit of the invention"