The daily morning journal and courier., 1899-07-15

1850 that some 'cigar manufacturer!
 spray their wrapper leaves artificiall1
 with chemical mordants," in order tt
 counterfeit the natural spotting.
 1 The Tobacco Trade Review in 1SSI
 made the same disclosures, mentioning muriatic acid as the spotting agent.
 The Bulletin of the Ohio Agricultura
 Experiment station made 1t known il
 1890 that caustic solutions may be ap-
 piled to leaves of plants in the fielc 1 With the effect of spotting them.
 A Handbook for Pantres in all Parts
 of the World made it known in 1886 that
 potash is combustion promoting agent
 in tobacco, which in view of the forego-
 ing prior art, directly suggested potash
 as the chemical mordant' to be used
 for the spotting.
 For twenty years or more the corro-
 sive action of the acids and alkalis have | been known the effect of glycerlne in l giving softness and pliability has been
 known for that time at least; and it is
 agreed that the mixture of the alkali
 and glycerine is mechanical mixture,
 not chemical, so that when the alkali
 and the glycerine are applied together,
 each effects it's own well-known purpose
 unaffected by the other. The we'll known solubility of glycerlne in water l suggests it's use for the purpose in hand.
 Now, with all that knowledge of the
 prior art in view, let any person, if he can, discover any novelty in the entirety
 of the disclosure which Rickard x Long
 made in their original application for l the patent in suit.
 | When Rickard x Long made their original application for the patent in suit the object of the so-called process was set out at length and deliberately as the counterfeitng of naturally-spot- ted Sumatra tobacco. Incidentally, they mentioned the combuston-pro quality of potash, and only incidentally. Being rejected and most thoroughly sat upon, both by the principal examiner and by the board of examiners in chief
 they changed their tactics. They elimi- mated from their application all refer ence to the counterfeiting of spotted Su- matra tobacco and elaborated what was originally a mere incident into their en- tire platform.
 There are many different sorts of wrapper-leaf tobacco, some of which are mentioned in the record at differend places. Among them, Havana, Suma- tra, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. No two of them are alike in their specific characteristics. Virginia, Maryland and Kentucky raise and ex- port enormous quantities of tobacco far in excess of the wrapper-leaf pro- duction of the United States--none of xtr1,i bn 1Icpl fOr rN- per leaf. DuBon's tobacco was Con necticut tobacco and the spotting agent was soda. Compliments, in order to prevail on this question of infringement against DuBon, must show that DuBon's spotting of Connecticut tobacco with soda improved its burning qualities. Complaints have not the shadow of case in that regard It will be shown eXhaustively that not a living soul tes- tifies that spotting with soda .rproves the burning quality of the tobacco. Six teen old tobacco growers of Connecticut. practically lifelong growers, testify without qualification to the injurious effects of spotting Connecticut tobacco with soda; and eleven of the sixteen testify most positively that spotting Connecticut leaf with soda is detrmen- tai to it's burning quality. These elever are reinforced by the testimony of pr. F. H. Jenkins, the most competent man in the world to speak on this question. To this mass of testimony Rckard & Long can only oppose certain statements by the chemist Stephen P. Sharpless, that he thinks that spotting with soda may improve the burn. The combus- promoting feature is an essential feature of the second and third claims of Rickard & Longs patent; soda hurts instead of helps in that regard; Rickard X Long utterly fail as against the de- fendant DuBon on this question of in- fringement
 The patent in suit is void for lack of utility. The testimony of eighteen life long growers and dealers in Connecti- cut wrapper-leaf tobacco was intro duced at this point in the argument. one of whom. whose verdict is of interna tional weight The sampler, MT. Me Cormick, cannot state what spotting agent was used on the tobacco examined by him. Mitchelson gives his spotting agent as potash" The testimony of all but Mccormick and Mtchelson is specifically confined to spotting with soda. The testimony of the whole eigh- teen Is confined to Connecticut tobacco. The whole eighteen condemn the artifi- cial spotting as most positively injuri- ous to the quality and intrinsic value of the tobacco. No one of them can see that the spotting promotes the combus- ton of the leaf. Eleven of these wit nesses: Thomas K. Marcy, Eli $. Hough Allison H. Brown, Francis Granger, Julius F. Ransom Edward F. ThraIl Robert L. Clark, l.. E. Haas, Ariel Mitchelson, George c. Emo and John F. Buschmann testify that 1t hin- ders and hurts the combustion of the leaf The true value of cigar leaf to- bacco-both as regards price and all in- trinsic dualities-cannot be known until after the tobacco is sweated. There is no sweated, uuspotted 1898 Connections tobacco on the market and will not be ! till the fall of 1S99 There is plenty of | Gorce) sweated spotted Connecticut to- bacco of the crop of 1898 on the market. | Irrespective of all question of spotting 1 the crop of 1898 is of the highest possible | quality; there has been none like it l since 1892. The crops of 1896 and 1897 | were both poor, that of 1897 a failure. | fore 1897 The comparisons on which Rickard & Long attempt to argue are between the splendid crop of 1898, spotted, and the poor crops of | 1896 and 1897 (the latter failure) un