ments with the invention before its ultimate completion. And it is a fact too well known to be commented upon, that mechanics, situated as Woodbury was, and inventors, as a class, rarely if ever keep accurate and separate accounts of such matters.

In this connexion we may be pardoned for quoting the eloquent decision of Mr. Holt, rendered when he was Commissioner of Patents, in his extension of the Goodyear India-rubber patent, June 18, 1858. Referring to the want of any accurate account of Goodyear's receipts and expenditures, and the generality and uncertainty of his statements on the subject, he says: "Inventors, and other men of high creative genius, have ever been distinguished for a total want of what is called 'business habits.' Completely engrossed by some favorite theory, and living in the dazzling dreams of their own imagination, they scorn the counsels and restraints of worldly thrift, and fling from them the petty cares of the mere man of commerce as a lion shakes a stinging insect from his mane.

"The law, in its wisdom, takes cognizance of human character. and deals with men and classes of men as it finds them. It seems in this instance to have assumed, and justly, that if we would have mag. nificent creations of genius, we must take them with all the infirmities which seem inseparable from them as spots are from the sun. Hence the statute does not require that the accounts of inventors shall have that formality and that severe exactitude which might well have been claimed of a merchant with his ledger open before him. All that is insisted on is, that the statement furnished shall be sufficiently in detail to exhibit a true and faithful account of loss and profit in any manner accruing to him from and by reason of said invention.' It is manifest that it is to the results, which indicate 'loss and profit,' rather than the minute elements of the transactions which form the subject of the account that the law looks."

Woodbury stated under oath, in the deposition he filed before the Commissioner, (see page 5.) "that he has kept no regular and continuous account of either his receipts or expenditures, profits or losses, and it is therefore impossible for him at this time to give anything like a correct statement in detail or in gross of the same. But this he can upon his oath say, and does say, that during said years he and his family have lived economically; that his and their maintenance is all he can now show for life which has been frugal, temperate, and industrious. That a part of said time his family have received assistance from the earnings of his children." He, however, from such data which he could depend upon, estimated the amount realized from his invention as $1,150 in all, but this included amounts represented by notes not yet collected.

To make this statement as explicit as it is in his power to do, he now adds another deposition (marked E) in which he sets forth, under oath, the names of all the manufacturers to whom he has sold or given the right to make "powers" under his patent, and the amount which he has received from each. He says:

From the persons to whom I have conveyed territory or shop rights I have received the sums set opposite their respective names: From Henry Olds, of Syracuse, N. Y.... From a firm in Constantine, Michigan From Titus, of Victor, Wayne Co., N. Y. From Joseph Hall, Rochester, N. Y... From C. M. Russell & Co., Massillon, Ohio.

....

$200 00

200 00

50 00

125 00

nothing.

From Whimple, Clime & Co., Chicago, Illinois
From A. P. Dickey, Racine, Wisconsin..

From C. P. Rogers, Philadelphia.....

nothing.

From Samuel Fitz, Martinsburg, Virginia.

From Haskell, Barker & Aldridge, Michigan City, Ind..
From Hiram Aldridge, Michigan City, Indiana.
From J. J. Case, Racine, Wisconsin.

nothing. 400 00 nothing.

50 00

1,025 00'

He also swears that his net profits during the four years he himself was engaged with his brother in the manufacture of his own machines did not exceed from their sale more than $500—making, all told, but $1,525 as the profits which he can certainly ascribe to his invention.

In order to understand this inventor's position, it must be borne in mind that, as he declares in his second deposition, he had not at the time of obtaining his patent a capital of more than $1,000, (a sum insufficient to commence a manufactory of the machines on his own account,) and that he had then already expended over five hundred dollars upon his invention. He therefore sought for two years, as far as it was in his power, to persuade others to manufacture the machines and purchase rights, until at last his brother consented to advance money sufficient to commence a manufactory in Rochester, N. Y. After continuing this manufactory four years, his brother found it so unprofitable that they were obliged to give it up, and from that day to the present Mr. Woodbury has worked as a mechanic, travelling about the country, and by his own unaided individual exertions has thus brought his machine into extensive public use and notoriety. But as is too often the case, while poor Woodbury has thus toiled on in the face of all sorts of discouragements, and earning the smallest wages, others have reaped the advantages of his labor by the sale of his invention. Haskell, Barker & Aldridge, for instance, the extensive agricultural implement manufacturers at Michigan City, Indiana, paid Mr. Woodbury, as is in evidence, $400 for a shop right; under this right, as they themselves testify, they have sold some 300 of his machines, and their profit upon each machine could not have been less than $50. The same may be said of Mr. Hall, the manufacturer in Rochester, and Mr. Case, in Racine; in fact, all who have had anything to do with the invention have realized large profits, except the inventor who has devoted the past seventeen years to its introduction into public use.

H. Rep. Com. 112-2

While thus travelling about, working as a mechanic, he could not receive the compensation which a man working steadily from day to day would earn, and as he himself deposes, "up to last year, owing to travelling expenses and the time expended in perfecting patterns, &c., I have not received over one-third of the amount of wages usually allowed to ordinary mechanics;" a deficiency which the amount received from the sale of his patent rights upon the moderate terms which he consented to take would by no means make up.

It appears, then, that since the date of his patent, in consequence of his poverty and his peculiar circumstances, this invention has earned barely a livelihood for the support of himself and family, although he has worked and labored more constantly and severely than by far the majority of working men, and that his whole labor during this period has been expended upon his invention and in an endeavor to bring it into public notice. He himself testifies under oath (page 25 of evidence from Patent Office) "that since the date of his said patent, (August 26, 1846,) with the exception of a few months, he has devoted his whole time, means, and talent in improvements on said horse-power and in the invention and perfecting other machinery for threshing grain, intimately connected with said power, and in introducing said power to the public notice and getting it into use. That in so doing this deponent has, with nearly his whole time. expended a large amount of money, and has been obliged, with his family, to live at the cheapest rate, foregoing many of the necessaries and all the luxuries of life for the sole purpose of getting his inventions so perfected and into use as to bring him a competence in his old age."

In addition to his own sworn statement of these facts, Mr. James Howes, of Rochester, New York, swears (page 19 of evidence from Patent Office) "that he has been acquainted with Daniel Woodbury for the last ten years, and is well acquainted with the trouble and expense incurred by said Woodbury in perfecting his said horse-power, patented August 26, 1846, and introducing the same, and that said Woodbury has not been adequately rewarded for his time and expense devoted to said horse-power, and that said Woodbury has expended all the money he could obtain in perfecting and introducing said power to the great discomfort of himself and family.

Colonel James Patten, of Troy, New York, who, since 1850, has been engaged in the sale of agricultural implements, says, (page 21 :) "And further deponent says that he is acquainted with the said Daniel Woodbury, inventor and patentee of said power, and that he has good cause for believing, and does believe, that said Woodbury is a poor man, and has but recently perfected his invention and gotten it fairly before the public and ready to gather in the proceeds of the industry, labor, and skill of the past fifteen years; and that to deprive him at this time of the protection of letters patent would, in the opinion of this deponent, and of others competent to judge in the premises, be an act of great injustice, and would leave him in his old age destitute of the means of sustenance, and wholly withhold from him a well-earned remuneration for an invention of immense value to

the agriculturist and mechanic, who can well afford to pay for its use for a further time of seven years."

William Brown, of Battle Creek, in Michigan, says (page 23) "that he is personally and well acquainted with Daniel Woodbury; that he considers his power the best of its kind; that said Woodbury, by expending his time, skill, and money, has brought said power to such perfection that he can now realize something like a fair return for his invention; that said Woodbury is an old man and poor; and this deponent believes that in strict justice said patent ought to be extended seven years so that Woodbury may get some benefit from his skill, labor, and expense before the rich manufacturer shall be made richer and the inventor poorer and poorer; and deponent further says that said Woodbury is industrious and honest and well worthy of remuneration from the public for said horse-power."

John Barker says (p. 27) "that he is knowing to the expense of time and money incurred by said Woodbury in perfecting said power; and although it would give him and his firm the free use of said power if said Woodbury should get no extension of his patent, yet deponent is convinced that said Woodbury in justice ought to have such an extension; that, in the opinion of this deponent, it would be unjust and ruinous to Mr. Woodbury to deprive him at this time of life of said. invention, and give it to manufacturers and agriculturists without cost to them."

Joel A. H. Ellis, of Springfield, Windsor county, Vermont, testifies (p. 31) that he has been acquainted with Daniel Woodbury for the last fourteen years, and is well acquainted with the trouble and expense incurred by said Woodbury in perfecting his said horse-power, patented August 26, 1846, and that he has not been compensated therefor, although he has fully devoted his time and all the moneys he could obtain to the perfection of said horse-power to the neglect of all other business, and regardless of the comfort of himself and family."

Edmund F. Woodbury also swears that Daniel Woodbury "has paid out all the money he could get in perfecting and introducing said power to use, regardless of the comfort of himself and family.

Peter Lockie, who has known Woodbury for eleven years, testifies to the same fact, and adds that, "had it not been for the exertions of said Woodbury's wife and children his family must have suffered. for the necessaries of life."

This evidence, which establishes beyond all controversy the fact that Woodbury has not received a reasonable compensation for the benefit which he has by his labor bestowed upon the public, just as clearly proves the devotion of this worthy inventor to the one idea of his life.

Thus not only have the powers of his mind and body been ardently devoted to his invention and its introduction into use, but every dollar he possessed or could command has been appropriated to the same end, while even his wife and children were often deprived of the necessaries of life, and had to rely upon their own exertions in a measure for support.

And now he alleges, and we have no reason to doubt its truth, that after struggling in the face of the most discouraging obstacles, against poverty and obscurity, in competition with wealthy and influential proprietors of machines of inferior merit, who, moved by every motive of self-interest, exerted themselves to prevent the introduc tion of his improvement to the public, and to drive him to desperation by suits at law which, in his poverty, he could not defend-at times crushed by the fraud and dishonesty of men in whom he had confided with implicit trust, he has at last succeeded in obtaining a public recognition of the value of his invention, which is strengthening day by day, and widening over the whole country. But, just as it has thus come fairly into public notice, and after sustaining the test of actual use by the agricultural portion of the community, it has reached that popularity to which, by its intrinsic worth, it is fairly entitled, he finds the fruit of his hard and persevering labors snatched from him as it ripens, and himself left, in the declining years of life, poor and in want.

We are therefore of the opinion that he ought not to be deprived of the benefits of an extension merely because the evidence offered by him was not entirely satisfactory on all the points required to be sustained by evidence, when now he shows evidence abundant to establish every necessary fact to have them entitle him to the extension.

There was no opposition to the extension. The examiner in his report to the Commissioner says: "His application is unembarrassed by opposition, although the legal notice has been given," &c.

Though we have no disposition to review the decision of, or take issue with the Commissioner in his conclusions, yet we believe the evidence offered by the applicant was so nearly sufficient that he might very reasonably have relied upon it. When there was no opposition to his application, and having done so and failed, that he ought at least to be granted another hearing, with the privilege of offering additional testimony before the Commissioner.

We therefore recommend the passage of the bill herewith reported.