The evening times., 1900-03-23
IN AN INVENTORS FAVOR.
Designer of Spherical PrOjectilcs to
Have n Hearing.

Have Hearing.
The Committee on Patents of the Sem
ate has presented a favorable report on
the BILL referring to the Court of Claims
the claim Of William E. Woodbridge, of
Washington, for compensation by the
United States for the use of his invention
relating to projectiles. for which letters
patent were ordered issued to him March
%, 1852
The report of the committee says: The
records before the committee show that
the invention of DR.. Woodbridge, to which
this bill relates, was made known by him
to the Ordnance Department in the year
1850, and that in the fall of that year a
series of experiments with his projectiles
was conducted at Fort Monroe, certified
copy OF the record OF these experiments
being furnished by the War Department.
The new projectiles were shown to be su-
perior to spherical projectiles (the only
ones then in use), in accuracy and pene-
trative power and in capabiIity of explod-
ing upon impact by the employment Of
percussion fuses.
''Dr. Woodbridge also communicated to
the public a knowledge of his invention
by means Of descriptive pamphlet, fully
illustrated. published in 1852, giving an &C
count of the firing at Fort Monroe, with a
statement of the advantages to be derived
from the use of rife projectiies for can
non. now universally admitted, but then
rarely conceded or recognized as practi-
cable.
In the meantime ne had applied for
patent for his invention, and a patent was
ordered TO issue on March %, 1852. In ac
cordance with the practice then prevailing.
when it was desired by patentee to take
ont foreign patent the applicant requested
that the patent might be filed in the Sc
c-et archives of the office, designating cne
ear as the period for which it should be
so retained if designation of time was
necessary.
when, however, DR. Woodbridge subse-
quently called for the issue OF his patent
it was refused, upon the ground that his
delay had deprived him OF his right and
that his patent could not legally be is
sued, reference being made in support of
this view to- a rule made by Commission
er subsequent to Mr. Ewb3nk that no Gp-
plication upon which patent has been or
dered to issue shall be retained in the Sc
cret archives more than six months from
the day on which the patent was ordered
To issue
1T would seem that this rule should lie
considered as directed to the guidance of
the action Of the Office itself rather than
for the control of an applicant who c5uld
have 70 power in the premises.
Nothing seems 10 have been wantins Cp
the part Of the inventor to make the in
ventiCn available to the Government. He
early conveyed 10 the proper Department
q practical Knowledge of his invention and
made strenuous efforts 10 introduce it into
serviCe-seeking, also, Congressional aid
to extend its application to guns of tte
largest calibre. His subsequent publish
ed description and account CT the firing at
FCTt Monroe was widely circulated among
members Of Congress, officers of the Army
and Navy. ard others. and was placed IN
various Libraries. Though the invention
had appeared too early to be a once appre-
cisted he had made it available for all
subsequent time.
Notifications of WoodEridge's prcjectile
might be and doubtless were patented BY
others, but it is obvious that only the
Modification could be the subject Of valid
patert and that it could not restrict the
use of the invention in any other form.
In no other way could the Government
have been more fully protected against
false or invalid claims for its use than
by the recited acts Of the inventor.
The justice CT DR.. WoOdbridge's claim
is supported by the honorable Secretary of
War and by the Chief OF Ordnance. 1t
has also been recognized in fifteen pre-
vious unanimous reports made by commit
tees Of the Senate and House Of Repre-
sentatives in favor of bills substantially
the same as the one now before this COM
mittec. three of which bills passed the
Senate without a dissenting voice. Ii is
evident to the committee that DR.. Wood
bridges invention was largely used by tie
Government and they believe that both
justice and sound policy require that he
should be duly compensated for its use.
He has thus far received no remuneration
Such a reference to the Court of Claims
as he seeks seems emiEently just, and the
committee reports back said bill with rec
ommendation that II pass.