Imatges de pÓgina
PDF
EPUB

That said board, on the 23d day of March, 1848, ordered that the petitioner go into proof of priority of invention, as between him and Obed Hussey, esq., who, about the same time, had appeared before the Commissioner of Patents for the purpose of filing an application for the extension of a patent for a reaping machine, granted to him on the 31st day of December, 1833; and who, it appears, did not file his application for the same in time to give the sixty days' notice required by law, and who, therefore, was compelled to abandon such application, and thereupon appeared before the board in opposition to the extension of the patent of the said Cyrus H. McCormick.

That such order of the board was based upon the fact that the patent of the said Hussey bore date previous to the date of the petitioner's first patent, and thus, prima facie, said Hussey appeared to be the first inventor.

That testimony was thereupon taken, in compliance with the order of the board ; and by the proof submitted on the part of said McCormick, it appeared conclusively that he invented his machine, and first practically and publicly tested its operation, in the harvest of 1831. That no proof on the part of the said Hussey appears to have been submitted to the said board, as to the date of his said invention ; but from the exhibits referred to your committee, it appears that his machine was first constructed and operated in 1833. (See exhibit 17.)

That on the 29th day of March, 1848, the said board decided against the extension of the petitioner's patent; reasons for such action on the part of the said board being set forth in exhibit marked D, being a letter of the Hon. Edmund Burke, late Commissioner of Patents, to Senators Douglas and Shields, under date of March 4, 1850, viz:

“GENTLEMEN : Your letter of March 1st instant has been duly received; and in reply to the inquiries which it contains, I have the honor to state the grounds on which the board for the extension of patents under the 18th section of the act of July 4, 1836, reorganizing the Patent Office, declared to extend the patents of Obed Hussey and Cyrus H. McCormick, for reaping machines; they are as follows:

“1st. In relation to the patent of Hussey, if my memory serves me, his patent expired some time within the latter part of December, 1847. During that month, and within some ten or twelve days before the expiration of his patent, he applied to me, as Commissioner of Patents, for an extension. 'I informed him that inasmuch as the act of Congress prescribed the mode in which patents should be extended; required a reasonable notice to be given to the public in sundry newspapers, published in those parts of the country most interested against such extension; and as the board had decided that reasonable' notice should be a publication of the application for extension three weeks prior to the day appointed for the hearing, there was not time to give the required notice in his case; and I advised Mr. Hussey not to make his applica tion, and thus lose the fee of $40 required in such cases—as he inevita bly would, without the least prospect of succeeding in his application, but to petition Congress for an extension, which body had the power t grant it. This is all which I, as Commissioner of Patents, had to d with Mr. Hussey's application.

“2d. As to the case of Mr. McCormick, during the same winter, (of 1847–48,) and after Mr. Hussey had applied to me for the extension of his patent, Mr. McCormick made application in due form, and in season, for the extension of his patent, which was granted in June, 1834, and consequently expired in June, 1848. Due notice was given; and on the day appointed for a hearing, Mr. Hussey appeared, to contest the extension of McCormick's patent. And on examination of the records of the Patent Office, and a comparison of the two patents, it appeared they both covered one or more features substantially identical in principle, but not the same precise combinations. And inasmuch as Mr. Hussey's patent bore date before McCormick’s, the board decided that he was prima facie the inventor of the feature, or rather claim, which conflicted. But Mr. McCormick contended that he invented the part of the machine embraced in both patents, one or two years before Hussey obtained his patent, and was, in fact, the first and original inventor; and he prayed for a continuance of the hearing until he could take testimony upon that point to sustain his right.

“His request was granted, and he was ordered to take testimony, with due notice to Mr. Hussey.

“He complied with the orders of the board; but on an examination of the testimony on the next day of hearing, it was found to have been informally taken, and therefore ruled out.

“Mr. McCormick subsequently made efforts to supply the defects, but never did satisfactorily to the board, and they declined extending bis patent. Such is a brief history of the proceedings before the board of extension on McCormick's application.

"I will now give my views with regard to the merits of the invention itself. I do not hesitate to say that it is one of very great merit. In agriculture, it is in my view as important, as a labor-saving device, as the spinning-jenny and power-loom in manufactures. It is one of those great

and valuable inventions which commence a new era in the progress of improvement, and whose beneficial influence is felt in all coming time; and I do not hesitate to say, that the man whose genius produces a machine of so much value, should make a large fortune out of it. It is not possible for him to obtain, during the whole existence of the term of his patent, a tenth part of the value of the labor saved to the community by it in a single year. Therefore I was in favor of its extension.

“ There were, however, other reasons which induced me to favor its extension. One was the fact that the machine was one which could be used only a few weeks in each year. Therefore, for want of an opportunity to test it, its perfection must be a work of time and tediousness. It is not like the steam-engine and other machines in common use, upon which improvements may be at any time tested. Therefore the invention and perfection of a reaping-machine must be a work of slow progress. And such was the case with McCormick's machine. He was many years experimenting upon it before he succeeded in making a machine that would operate, as the testimony before the board (although informal) clearly proved. In the next place, it is a machine which was difficult to introduce into public use. It was imperfect in its operation at first. It had to encounter the prejudices and the doubts and fears of agriculturists. And it appeared, in proof, that Mr. McCormick was not able to sell but very few machines.until two or three years before the expiration of his first patent, which covered the leading original principles of his invention. Under that patent he never received anything like an adequate compensation for the really great invention which he had produced. And I now repeat, what I have always said, that his patent should be extended. With regard to the conflicts of rights and interest between him and Mr. Hussey, it is proper for me to remark, that when both of these patents were granted, the Patent Office made no examination upon the points of originality and prioriiy of invention, but granted all patents applied for, as a matter of course. Therefore, it is no certain evidence that, because an alleged inventor procured a patent before his rival, he was the first and original invenior. It, in fact, was a circumstance of very little weight in its bearing upon the question of priority between the parties. Besides, the testimony of Mr. McCormick, presented to the board of extension, clearly proved that he invenied and put in operation his machine in 1831, two years before the date of Hussey's patent.

“But my opinion is, that justice will be best subserved by extending the patents of both parties. Their claims are not in all respects identical, but both include features and combinations which would entitle either of them to a patent, if he were to strike out of his patent all that the other claimed. Besides, if these patents were extended, they could then setile their respective rights in a court of law if they should so elect.

“I again repeat that, in my judgment, McCormick’s patent should be extended. That was my opinion when the matter was before the board of extension, and it has never changed.

“McCorinick has two other patents for improvements upon his machine, the last of which expires in 1861. They all relate to the same machine, and there would be great propriety in extending his first and second patenis to the date of the expiration of his third and last one. This would, in fact, consolidate the invention, and secure his just rights. Mr. Hussey's patent could be extended to the same date, and thus the rights of both would be secured. They are both meritorious inventors, and have produced machines of great value, but for which they have not been able to secure an adequate remuneration because their machines are adapted to use only for a very small portion of the season. "I have the honor to be, respectfully, your oberlient servant,

"EDMUND BURKE. "Hon. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, "Hon. JAMES SHIELDS,

" United States Senate."

That upon the denial of the extension by the board, the petitioner made his application to Congress on the 10th day of April, 1848, being about two months previous to the erpiration of his patent.

Resides the patent granted June 21st, 1834, lo Mr. McCormick, and which expired June 21st, 1848, he procured, January 31st, 1945, a

at first. It had to encounter the prejudices and the doubts and fears of agriculturists. And it appeared, in proof, that Mr. McCormick was not able to sell but very few machines until two or three years before the expiration of his first patent, which covered the leading original principles of his invention. Under that patent he never received anything like an adequate compensation for the really great invention which he had produced. And I now repeat, what I have always said, ihat his patent should be extended. With regard to the conflicts of rights and interest between him and Mr. Hussey, it is proper for me to remark, that when both of these patents were granted, the Patent Office made no examination upon the points of originality and priority of invention, but granted all patents applied for, as a matter of course. Therefore, it is no certain evidence that, because an alleged inventor procured a patent before his rival, he was the first and original invenior. It, in fact, was a circumstance of very little weight in its bearing upon the question of priority between the parties. Besides, the testimony of Mr. McCormick, presented to the board of extension, clearly proved that he invented and put in operation his machine in 1831, two years before the date of Hussey's patent.

“But my opinion is, that justice will be best subserved by extending the patents of both parties. Their claims are not in all respects identical, but both include features and combinations which would entitle either of them to a patent, if he were to strike out of his patent all that the other claimed. Besides, if these patents were extended, they could then setile their respective rights in a court of law if they should so elect.

“I again repeat that, in my judgment, McCormick’s patent should be extended That was my opinion when the matter was before the board of extension, and it has never changed.

" McCorinick has two other patents for improvements upon his machine, the last of which expires in 1861. They all relate to the same machine, and there would be great propriety in extending his first and second patents to the date of the expiration of his third and last one. This would, in fact, consolidate the invention, and secure his just rights. Mr. Hussey's patent could be extended to the same date, and thus the rights of both would be secured. They are both meritorious inventors, and have produced machines of great value, but for which they have not been able to secure an adequate remuneration because their machines are adapted to use only for a very small portion of the “I have the honor to be, respectfully, your obedient servant,

"EDMUND BURKE. "Hon. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, "Hon. JAMES SHIELDY,

United States Senate."

season.

That upon the denial of the extension by the board, the petitioner made his application to Congress on the 10th day of April, 1848, being about two months previous to the erpiration of his patent.

Resides the patent granted June 21st, 1834, 1o Mr. McCormick, and which expired June 21st, 1848, he procured, January 31st, 1545, a

second patent for an improvement in his said machine, which patent will expire January 31st, 1859. On the 23d October, 1847, he obtained a third patent for further improvements in said machine, which last patent will expire on the 23d day of October, 1861. (Vide patents, documents A, B, and C.) Of the utility and value of his invention the proof submitted, it is presumed, will be regarded as ample, From a large mass of testimonials touching this point, it is deemed necessary only to refer to the following:

Award of the Michigan State Agricultural Society, for best reaper, a silver medal and ten dollars. December, 1851.

Award of the Mechanics' Institute, Chicago, Illinois, gold medal. October, 1851.

Award of the Franklin Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, first premium. 1851.

Award of the Pennsylvania State Agricultural Society, first premium and ten dollars. January, 1852.

Award of the State Agricultural Society of Wisconsin, first premium. 1851.

Award of the New York State Agricultural Society, gold medal January, 1852.

Award of the World's Fair, London, “Council Medal.” 1851.

Mr. Pusey, M. P., one of the committee on trial of this reaper for the council medal, at the great Industrial Exhibition, states, in the journal of the Royal Agricultural Society, that it is the most important addition to farming machinery that has ever been invented since the threshing machine took the place of the flail.” In the final report of Mr. Pusey, who was chairman of the committee on agricultural implemenis, to the royal commission, he also says:

“ As to the practical working of the reaper, two horses drew it at the trial very easily round the outside of the crop until they finished in the centre, showing that they could cut easily fifteen acres in ten hours. One man drives sitting, and another stands on the machine to rake. It is hard work for him, and the men ought sometimes to change places.

“ The straw lefi behind at the trial was cut very regularly, lower than by reaping, but higher than by bagging: The inventor stated that be had a machine which would cul it two inches lower. This is the point, I should say, to attend to, especially for autumn cleaning.

Though it seems superfluous to bring this machine to the test of economy, we may estimate the present cost of cutting fifteen acres of wheat, at an average of 9s. per acre, to be £6 15s. Deduct for horses and men 10s. 3d., and for binding 2s. 6d. per acre, and the account will stand thus : " Average cost of reaping 15 acres, at 98....

.£6 15 0 “Horses and men for reaper..

£0 10 0 “ Binding crops, 2s. 6d. per acre..

1 17 6

2 7 6

“Saving per acre, 6s. 100...

.£4 7 6

« AnteriorContinua »