The Washington herald., 1914-11-08
Answers Charge that He Changed His Given
Name to Take the Credit Due Sir Hiram.
FOLLOW STATEsMANS EXAMPLE
Dropped Isaac for Hudson Many Years Ago
Because He Regarded Such Cog
nomen Hardship.

ssrting that Engineering and Sir Hiram
have been imposed upon, nave been made
the victims OF parties interested In dis
crediting muld-perforated powder, such
as le used in the army and navy OF the
SoS4 sates Etss5 this sS Or s II Ess ssE
agreed to run amuck IN the smokeless
powder territory of the United States
for the purpose OF seeing how much
alarm they could arouse and what de
gree OF sensation they could create.
An Old Controversy.
In, 1899. Sir Hiram made q particularly
vicious attack on me in the American
newspapers, and the Scientific American
and the Scientific Amerian Supplement
opened their pages to the controversy
The reader Is referred particularly to tht
Scientific American Supplement No. I22o
of May %. 1899. which may be obtained
from Mum & Co., 80 Broadway. Ne~
York City, for 10 cents, where It VIII b
found that Sir Hiram Maxim has. at off.
ferent times. as the occasion seemed tc
require. made absolutely diametrically
opposite and contradictory statements
concerning the part that he and / have
played In the development Of smokeIess
powder.
1t VIII be seen thai Sir Hiram. on tha,
occasion, wrote the Scientific American
as follows:
II have repeatedly seen letters in the
Scientific American. New York Herald.
and other journals, signed Hudson Max
i'm. In which he claims to have worked
with me in the early development OF
smokeless powder"
And he continues:
These statements are misleading in
the extreme, because as a matter of fact.
Hudson Maxim had nothing whatever 10
do with the early Development OF smoke-
less powder in England"
Sir Hiram. at that time, got one of
his assistants. Mr.. Edmund J. Ryves, to
write to the Scientific American the Iol-
lowing statement:
'Mr. Hiram &. Maxim first commenced
his experiments at the little laboratory
at his own house. With his coachman as
his assistant. Hudson Maxim took no
had nothine 10 dc with the Invention or
c-vc.-ning OF the powder"
Compare shese statements with one
made By Sir Hiram Maxim in o letter to
SIR Andrew Noela. dated NoRember Is,
1895. wherein he referred to the assistanee
which haa rendered aim In the eeflg
experiments. The following is his ssate-
ment:
''of course. took grest nany pat-
ents. The amount Of experimenlirg
ing these experiments my brother, Hud-
son Maxim, was IN England and $1,000
me. We found that by the addition Of
nitro-glycerin We could obtain higher
balllstic results. but We did not believe
It would be safe to employ more than 5
per cent"
When he wrote the above, he had, how
ever. doubtless forgotten the fact that
no experiments had been conducted with
nitro-giycerin and that the use of nitro
glycerin in smokeless powders had not
been thought Of by either Of Us until
after / had returned to America on De-
cember 9. 1855.
In proof Of this beg to quote the fol-
lowing paragraph from a letter received
from Mr.. Hiram s. Maxim. dated Sep
tember II, 1889:
Mr. Symon has received from Mr..
referring to your Inventions
his ear about IL, stating that they were
exactly the same thing as we had our
selves.
II told him that at the time you were
in England We had not used nitro-glycer-
in and that you,/as far as knew, had
found II out yourself in America, and
had offered II to US as a good thing"
His Brothers Admissions.
However, in spite Of the above ac-
knowledgement, on the part OF Hiram.
when he has since wished to have il ap-
pear that his compound OF nitro-glycerin
with guncotton dated back as far as pos
sible, he has told that / got my ideas OF