The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-09-01
A QUESTION OF CONSIDERABLE
IMPORTANCE RAISED.
The Buffalo House Has Not Yet
Shown Amy Inclination to Secure
the County From Loss in the Case
of Infrin gemeRt-No Action Taken

At the meeting of the board of county
commissioners called for yesterday morn
ing for the special purpose of considering
the election booth matter. Geddes and
Christopherson only were present The
latter had but a few minutes to spare be-
fore the departure of the train that was
to whirl him toward the Denver Eistedd-
fed, and nothing was accomplished.
Roberts announced last Saturday that
he would not be present. His absence
made no particular difference as the ex-
pected advice from the Buffalo Steel
House company relative to whether the
contract for the booths as awarded at
last Mondays meeting was acceptable or
not was not received. Until definite reply
from the Buffalo concern is had no action
in the way Of placing the order with other
firms will be taken.
E. B. Haskins who represents George
D. Barnard 81 Co., of st. Louis, was pres
ent with United States Attorney Judd to
convince the board that many of the I'M
patented models as well as some of the
patented were heterogeneous on his firm s
booth. Barnard & Co. have unquestion-
ably the most convenient and durable
booth submitted. 1t is constructed of
sheet iron upon strong steel frames and
made to fold up when not in use.
1t is claimed that the Buffalo Steel
House companys booth also is an in
fringement on the Barnard patent. Their
booth is built upon the same general plan
as the st. Louis firms patent. The only
difference is in the material, the Buffalo
company's booth being constructed Of
corrugated iron.
The st. Louis house, it seems, obtained
its patent in 1895, purchasing the Elsner
model which is conceded to be the first
folding booth patented. Barnard'S pres
all the ideas of the Elsner booth with
several new ideas added. The Buffalo
firm only recently secured it's patent. 1t
would seem that the contention of the
When the board awarded the bid to the
Buffalo company, one of the provisions
was that the firm should furnish a good
and sufficient bond indemnifying the
county against any trouble that might
arise if the booths contracted for were
infringenentS upon the patent rights Of
others. To this the firm replied by wire,
stating that they had competed with
Barnard at other places and he had not
raised any question on this point. This
reply, however, was not an answer to the
question of furnishing the indemnity bond
and now it looks as though the Buffalo
concern will not get the order.
Judge Judd has examined the papers
in the Elsner and Barnard patents and
came to the conclusion that the Buffalo
model is an infringement. Not only this
that it would be unsafe for the board 10
adopt any booth based in construction
upon the same principles. The same
danger lies in accepting an unDatented
BOOTH If an infringement should be the
result the injured might get out an in
junction at the critical time prohibiting
the county from using the booths and the
commissioners would find themselves in a
hole just before election time.
There is another question in connection
with the matter and that is the number OF
booths to be ordered. The board believed
at first that only $50 would be required
The law fixes the amount at one booth TO
every fifty voters. According to this 538
booths would be necessary. It is now
reasoned that with the addition of the
female voters one of the necessities at the
polls will be to have a sufficient number
OF booths so as not to keep ladies in wait
ing.
The board will meet again next Tuesday
by which time a final answer from the
Steel House company is expected.