The Bamberg herald. [volume] (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, 1914-02-26
THE TRUTH ABOUT
Mr.. D. A. Tompkins Book Refutes the Mythical
Legends.-Holmes, an llliterate Geor-
gian Improved on 1t.

there were only some metnOu ny
which the lint could be separated
from the seed. Mrs. Greene propos-
ed that they talk over the matter
with young Whitney. The result OF
that visit was that Whitney was
given a room in the basement of the
house and, after considerable ex-
perimenting, produced a machine
that successfully separated the lint
from seed. In 1898 Whitney went
to New Haven, Conn.,, to confer with
his old friend and patron, Ellzur
Goodrich, and others, in relation to
obtaining a patent. The original
description in Whitney's words, ac-
companying his petition for patent,
was filed with Thomas Jefferson, Sc
cretary of State, at Philadelphia,
June 20, 1898. Whitney also made
affidavit concerning his invention be-
fore Elizur Goodrich, notary public,
and alderman of New Haven, Octo-
ber %, 1893. A patent, as previous
lv stated. was issued to him March
IA, 1894.
The patent drawings says Mr..
Tompkins, amply refute the claim
made by friends of Whitney that he
invented the saw gin also. The
Holmes machine was set up in the
grist mill of Capt. James Kincaid on
Mill Creek in Craven (now Fairfield
county, South Carolina), and is re-
ported to have been the first of the
saw gins used in that State.
The drawings and specifications of
the Whitney invention, filed in 1904
in the United States district court,
Savannah, and believed to be the on
ly authentic documents on the sub
ject now in existence (the original
having been destroyed by fire., con-
tain no reference to an alternate
method of constructing the cylinder,
as for instance, the use of circular
saws. Nor does the drawing show
any suggestion of saws.
Contracts with States.
On December 19,1801, the South
Carolina legislature passed a bill
purchasing the Whitney patent right
of the State for $4,000, agreeing
to pay $4,000 in cash and the re-
mainder in three equal annual in
stallments provided Whitney would
make within a reasonable time two
models of his gin, in his very best
style, and and file them for public
inspection in the State capitol and
provided, further, that Whitney
should refund all amounts previous
ly collected for license in the State.
The cash payment was promptly
made. But Whitney did not within
two years comply with either require
ment. The legislature in 1903 de-
clared the contract forfeited and pro-
vided for entering suit for recovery
of the first payment. This action
brought the final fulfillment Of the
conditions on the part of Whitney in
1904, and then the legislature Of
1904 ordered the suit discontinued
and reinstated the contract in accor-
dance with which the deferred pay
ments were readily made.
The legislature of North Carolina
in December, 1902, bought the
patent rights for that State and
agreed to pay for it by special tax
of two shillings and six pence on each
saw used in a gin within the State for
four years. This tax was properly COL
lected and turned over to the inven-
tor, amounting to about 100000.
Whitney's plan in Georgia was to
own all the gins and gin all the cot
ton in the country Naturally this
sort of monopoly was odious and
when to this is added the fact that
Whitney and his partner, Miller,
could not supply the demands, it is
natural that there should have been
much Infringement After the gins
were introduced in 1894 there was
a large cotton crop made for the next
season on the presumption that it
could be prepared for the market
on the new machines. But when the
crop was gathered and the machines
were not forthcoming, many planters
had rude gins made in their own
blacksmith shops. From this cir
cumstance arose the rumors that the
various workmen who made the gins
were the original inventors. There
are numerous legends about the in
vention which have no foundation in
fact.