The Morris County chronicle. [volume] (Morristown, N.J.) 1877-1915, 1908-02-18
COMMUNICATIONS.

To THE EDITOR OF THE CHRONICLE
Dear Sir II have closely followed
the progress of the litigation insti-
tuted by Donald Cameron and others
against the Village of Saratoga Springs,
New York, in order to establish the
validity of patent granted the said
Cameron, for A Process of and APP
paratus for Treating Sewage and
shared the surprise so generally ex-
perienced in the engineering profess
sion, when Flearned through the En-
gineering News" of January %, 1908,
that the claims for the process had
been sustained by the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals, on January
I, 1908.
/ have read, with much interest, the
article contributed by Clyde Potts, G.
E.. to THE JERSEYMAN on January 81,
1908. and while l am heartily in ac-
cord with his conclusion, that the peo-
pie of the town need lose no sleep on
account of the effect of decision upon
the town of MOrristown, with refer
ence to the towns liability to suits
for damages for infringements which
may occur or arise as a result of tile
installation of the sewage disposal
plant designed by MeSsrS. Williams,
Proctor & Potts, and for which, the
contract for construction has been let
still | am of the opinion that our
municipal authorities would be very
remisS in their duties did they not
take cOgnizance of the decision, and
take such action with the holders of
the patent right, as to place our town
in substantial and we'll defined rela-
tiOn herewith, in order to preclude
the necessity of expensive litigation
In the Court of Chancery to prevent
the levy of heavy tribute in the form
of royalties. With regard to the per-
manency and completeness of the vic
tory won by Mr.. Cameron, there seems
to be diversity of opinion.
Some engineers hold tile belief, that
should the case be carried to the Su-
preme Court of the United States, the
decision of the lower court might be
set aside; but the Engineering
News commenting upon the de-
cision, takes an opposite view and
says in part as follows, viz: But the
one judge in the lower court has now
been overruled by three judges of the
higher court; and since in patent lit
igation there is rarely an appeal to
the U. s. Supreme Court, the present
decision we understand is final"
Although the apparatus claims
are again denied, yet the process
claims, as conceived by Cameron and
the Trainer of the United States Cam
eron patent, are Substantiated in no
uncertain terms, not only as regards
the septic process alone, but also as to
the process in combination ~ with
aeration and ~ aeration and filtra-
tion."
From the foregoing, it would appear
to be a very difficult matter to operate
sewage publication plant designated
to liquefy the solid matter of the sew
age by means Of heterogeneous, or
anaerobic bacteria, and then subject
the liquid outflow to aeration or filtra-
tion, as proposed in the local plant,
without infringement of the Cameron
patent. y
Mr.. Potts has stated that we will
certainty be able to operate our plant
for at least taoo months, before infringe
ment of the Cameron patent could
possibly be proved, and possibly not
then. Let US pause and consider the
import of the privileges. We are con-
sidering the expenditure of from $780,
900 to 800, 900 for the construction of
sewage publication plant, which we
may be able to use for two months
without mOleStation, when, If it is
operating successfully, operate as it
was designed to operate, and as we
have been told it would operate, then
the town is liable to heavy royalties
as an infringer of the Cameron pat
ents, and must either pay what is de-
manded by the patentees or institute
expensive litigaHon in the court of
equity to determine its liability.
But suppose, on the other hand, as
Mr.. Potts has said, it might not be
proved to be an Infringement of the
patent, then what would it be?
Would it be septic tank and what
would be the condition of the result
ing effiuent, which we are to pour in
to our streams ?
Laying aside all hypothetical Ques-
tions, the facts of. the case are If we
construct plant in accordance with
the accepted design, we shall beyond
a doubt have septic action, for that is
what is sought; if we get such action,
we shall either be subjected to heavy
damages for infringing or become
party to suit at law.
1t is not litigation that we want,
but sewerage system and purifica-
tion plant, and when it shall have
been determined that the latter has
definite location, then it should be the
first duty of our City Fathers to make
such contract with the owners of the
patent right as will guarantee to us
the permanent and uninterrupted
operation of the plant.
Yours very truly,
FREDERICK S. SMITH,
Engineer.