The Washington times., 1907-12-05
ASHFORD EXPLAINS
PATENT INCIDENT
Building Inspector Makes
Public Letters From
Rittenhouse.
Declares He Has Been I'm
justly Criticised for In
nocent Actions.

Building Inspector Ashford today is
sued statement in which he says that
ar attack has been made upon his
transaction in connection with a patent
fre-escape. Unfair and unjust COM
ments. he says. have resulted from the
publica ton Of a part of the CORE
spondence between him and the Ritten-
house Brothers, OF Baltimore, and ne,
therefore. submits a number OF letters.
which he says shew his position In the
matter.
The first letter received by Mr. Ash
ford, dated August 10 Is as follows:
we learn that YOU have a patent on
a disappearing step fire-escape II so.
please state on what terms you would
allow US 10 build some for the Baltimore
trade.
I'VE have made several fre-escapes
recently and possibly might do some
business for you IL there is good de-
mand and profit"
Second Letter Received.
Mr.. Ashford calls attention TO the
fact that this letter speaks only of the
Baltimore trade, and il was in reply to
this that he forwarded the famous "Rit-
tenhouse" letter. which he declares he
".
Replying 10 this, the Rittenhouse Broth
ers' in a letter dated August 26, say:
I'VE fully appreciate the Importance
OF avoiding the disnguring of a build
ing. but your royalty OF $40 per plat
form IS too much. especially for this
I'VE are in a position, we think. to
set the same cooperation of the build
ing Inspectors office OF this city which
you offer in Washington. but Il will. OF
course. cost nothing, which means less
Enclosed please find SIC, which we
offer as ten days option on the ex-
elusive right to make and sell your
disappearing step fre-escape in Wash
lngton and Baltimore; on the basis OF
IS royalty fee for each platform
erected in Baltimore. and $40 on each
one erected in Washington.
II you sell out your rights within the
next sixty days you can return our
$40 option money and take out jigs at
cost"
Mr.. Ashford's Reply.
Mr.. Ashford again invites attention TO
the statement that in this letter men
ton Is made for the first time of the
Ashford replied:
"Inclosed please find ten dollars $1,000
received in your letter today concerning
my disappearing ster fre-escape.
Il am not willing To offer you any ex-
elusive rights, as 1 Informed you that
another firm in your city had obtained
drawings under the same condi-iOns 1
bad offered you, and today a second firm
from your city received q set. Further
more, cannot afford you any assist
ance from the Building Inspectors Office.
and all local firms who are putting M
my escapes in this city do so without
paying me any royalty or compensation
of any kind.
Il suggested that a former employe OF
tits office might solicit work. hut he har
nothing but experience In this Office
and would have no connection with il
or with me.
Il am not anxious to exploit nv es-
cape, and only make such arrangements
When some one has request TO bid
on my device
Statement of Ashford.
The patent referred to-" said
Mr.. Ashford yesterday. "and the only
one which has been used in any way.
IS not for a fre-escape proper or any
device that IS mentioned or required by
tho fire-escape law 1t e simply an i'm
provement' which is entirely optional
with the owners of buildings to use or
not, as they see ft. The patent for the
disappearing steps was not issued until
the latter part Of last September, and. .
at that time I was not aware Of any
objection on the part OF the Commits
siCners and did not see any inpro-
priety in its use in the District. free of
all charge, especially as il IS not a re-
quirement of law that such an improve
ment' be used.
But, finding that the transaction did
not meet with the approval of. the Com
missiOners I disposed Of my patent
rights and I wish to say that / have
never given expression to any state
ment that could in any way be con-
strued as a criticism Of their action.
which accepted as the proper and ONLY
course 20 pursue"