these cases go to the length of extending by act of Congress patents which had already been extended by the Commissioner to the full extent of his power.

It may be well to refer on this point more particularly, not only to the case of Woodworth's patent already alluded to, but also to the extension of the two patents of Isaac Adams for an improved power printing press by an act of Congress approved August 16, 1856.-(See Statutes at Large, vol. xi, p. 462.) Both of these patents had already been extended by the Commissioner to the full extent of the law, but upon proper representations the term of the patents was prolonged fourteen years.

The petitioner in this case claims additional consideration in view of the fact that his patent has never yet been extended at all. On the other hand, in asking Congress to grant an extension after it has been refused by the Commissioner of Patents, he is sustained by marked precedents.

The extension by Congress of the patent of Oliver C. Harris for an improvement in paint mills" is a case in point; and the more strictly so, from the fact that in that case the rejection did not rest upon the judgment of the Commissioner alone, but was made upon an adverse report by the examiner, as well as by the board who at that time acted upon the subject of extensions. This board in that case made the following report: "Having examined the evidence adduced by the petitioner, said board decide that the patent ought not to be extended." This board consisted of the Secretary of State, the Commissioner of Patents, and the Solicitor of the Treasury. Their decision was rendered in February, 1846; but in 1847 Harris petitioned Congress in the matter, and obtained an extension by act of August 11, 1848.-(See Statutes at Large, vol. ix, p. 734.)

In this case the report of the examiner was entirely favorable, and we have only the decision of the late Commissioner against the application.

As affording additional precedents in this matter strictly applicable to the case, we may mention the extension by act of Congress of the patent of Samuel Browning for a "magnetic separating machine," for fourteen years, by act of March 3, 1831.-(See Statutes at Large, vol. vi, p. 467.)

The patent of Eastman & Jaquith, for "circular saw clapboard machine," extended by act of March 3, 1835.-(See United States Statutes at Large, vol. vi, p. 613.)

66

The patents of James Barron, machine for making bottle corks, and an improvement in air and water pumps," extended for fourteen years by act July 2, 1836.-(Statutes at Large, vol. vi, p. 678.)

The patent of Thomas Blanchard, "machine for turning irregular forms, &c," extended for fourteen years from January 20, 1834, by act of February 6, 1839.-(See Statutes at Large, vol. vi, p. 678.) Patents of John Arnold and Arnold & Bishop, extended fourteen years by act of March 28, 1854.-(See Statutes at Large, vol. x, p. 776.)

In addition to these cases cited, there are very many others on

record in the journals of Congress, but these have been selected as more in point, and as being amongst the most prominent.

Proceeding now to set forth the merits of the case, we are satisfied that Daniel Woodbury's invention is not only novel, but that it is of great public value, and that he has, without fault on his part, failed as yet to obtain a fair reward for the benefits which he has conferred upon the public.

First. As to the novelty of Woodbury's invention. Upon this point the report of the examiner, made after a careful examination, taken in connexion with the patent itself, is the best possible evidence which can be produced. The examiner reports thus: "The horsepower machine of the petitioner was novel when he applied for his patent, and the patent was properly awarded him."

Second. Is it true that Mr. Woodbury has not received a reward commensurate with the benefit conferred upon the public by his invention? To ascertain this fact we must first ascertain what is the value of the invention to the public, and then how much Woodbury received therefrom, and from these data the conclusion must be drawn which shall decide the question of the justice and equity of an extension.

The Commissioner founds his adverse report upon the alleged want of sufficient evidence upon these points, and says: "No proof whatever is furnished to show the value to the public of the invention, unless the opinion of several witnesses who merely say that they think the invention the best of its kind known to them could be considered as proof of its value. In the absence of proof of the value and importance to the public of an invention, this office has no data from which to form a judgment as to the sufficiency of the renumeration received, as the decision of that question depends altogether upon its estimated public value."

Though somewhat indefinite, yet some proof was furnished of the value of the invention to the public. We refer to the following evidence filed before the Commissioner, (of which a certified copy from the Patent Office is before us :)

Ira Brownell, of Cass county, Michigan, testifies (on page 11 of the office copy) that he is well acquainted with the operation of horsepowers, and that after three years' observation of Woodbury's horse power he considers it "far superior to any other now in use," and says it is "the most popular amongst the people" on account of its superior qualities.

Philo D. Beckworth, the proprietor of a machine shop at Dowagiac, in Michigan, testifies (see page 13, office copy) that "he is acquainted with horse-powers in general use," and that he considers Woodbury's horse-power decidedly better than any that he has ever seen," and that it has the reputation of being much better generally.'

66

Daniel Dunnakin (page 15) and E. T. Chase, (page 16,) of Calhoun county, Michigan, both swear that, having had Woodbury's horsepower in use, they can say "that it is the best horse-power for threshing grain they have ever seen," and that such is the general belief in their part of the country" so far as they can learn.

Colonel James Patton, of Troy, New York, testifies (page 21) "that he has been engaged in the introduction and sale of agricultural implements since the year 1850, and in such pursuits has travelled largely in the northern and western grain-growing States of the Union," and that, to his knowledge, Woodbury's horse-power is "now beginning to be extensively used in three, four, or more of said States, and wherever it has been introduced it takes precedence of all other machines for like purposes.' "And deponent further says that said horse-power is now perfected, and is without dispute the very best power extant, and where it can be had machinists and agriculturists will use no other."

Wm. Brown, of the city of Battle Creek, Michigan, a manufacturer of agricultural implements, in his deposition (page 23) says that Woodbury's horse-power is among the best of its kind.

John Barker, of Michigan City, State of Indiana, who is one of the proprietors of the car and agricultural works in that place, testifies (page 27) that they have made and sold in the western States since 1856 more than two hundred of Woodbury's horse-powers, and that "he is of the opinion that said horse-power is the best in use." That his observation of the many machines now in use has been very general, and yet he has found nothing superior to said power or equal to it.

Edmund F. Woodbury, of Rochester, New York, swears that he knows the power patented by Daniel Woodbury "is far superior to any other power in use."

Peter Lockie, of the same place, also testifies (on page 35) that "he knows the horse-power patented by Woodbury, and that the same is a novel and useful improvement, and possesses superior qualities over any other horse-power."

If Woodbury's machine is superior to any other in use, and this verdict has been rendered thereon by the public and those especially interested in the subject, does this not at once determine its value? The estimate is comparative, it is true; but can an estimate of the public value of an invention be aught else?

But the Commissioner considered a more precise estimate necessary to make the fact of the value of the invention more clear, and though we find that he did have evidence of this character before him in the testimony of one witness, Mr. Chauncey R. Markham, of Eckford, Michigan, who swears, in his deposition, (page 9 of certified copy,) that after much experience with horse-power, he finds Woodbury's horse-power superior for the purpose of threshing and general use to any 'power' known to him; that this power,' with a team of EIGHT HORSES, will accomplish MORE than can be accomplished with any other 'power' known to him with a team ONE-FOURTH GREATER.' And also points out the following as additional advantages possessed by the Woodbury horse-power, viz: "superior durability and ease of train and general convenience as a PORTABLE HORSE-POWER." Yet this was not considered sufficient by the Commisioner-as we think it well might have been-and hence Mr. Woodbury is left without remedy, save by act of Congress.

But, upon all these points, additional evidence still more satisfac

tory has since been taken. Some of which, in substance, is briefly as follows:

W. L. Austin, of Roxbury, Lane county, Wisconsin, testifies on oath, (see affidavit marked A,) that he has been engaged in threshing, &c., seven seasons and has used different powers, and gives, as the result of his experience, that Woodbury's horse-power is superior to any other, and enumerates its advantages as follows: 1st. The horses walk a natural gait, and you get a strong motion on your cylinder. 2d. There is but little friction in running the power, and consequently it does not wear as much as other powers. 3d. It is up out of the dust and mud. 4th. It is a strong power." He says "he tried it with eight heavy horses and threshed over 600 bushels of wheat in one day, and averaged 500 bushels per day all through one neighborhood. That, in the same neighborhood, there were four new machines of other kinds, but that this machine threshed on an average one hundred bushels of wheat more per day than either of the others. That farmers say that it is easier work for their horses in this machine than ploughing, and that it has the further advantages of being quickly set and easily moved.'"

Messrs. Frederick Haskell and John Barker, of the firm of Haskell, Barker & Aldridge, who have extensive works in Michigan City, Indiana, for the manufacture of railroad cars and of agricultural implements, concur in a statement under oath, (see affidavit marked B,) as follows: "That they are acquainted with Daniel Woodbury the patentee of letters patent granted to Daniel Woodbury, of Rochester, Monroe county, and State of New York, bearing date August 26, 1846. That they have manufactured and sold about three hundred (300) of said Woodbury's patent horse-powers which have been used for various purposes, and that they consider them the best horse-power in use: that eight horses will perform as much work on the Woodbury power as will ten horses on the ordinary sweep powers in use. Their sales have been made to farmers in the States of Michigan, Indiana, Illinois. Iowa. Wisconsin, and Missouri, and they think it is the general opinion of said farmers, as well as of all others who have used the said power, that the said Woodbury power excels all others in portability, durability, and light draught. It being elevated from the ground. the gearing is less exposed to dust and sand, and, consequently, is more durable than in other powers. Standing on its own wheels when in use or moving, it saves the time of loading and unloading, which is a great advantage over all other powers. They believe the invention is of great value to the public, for which, in their opinion, the patentee ought to receive at least twenty thousand dollars."

E. K. Collins, esq., of Chili, New York, states, in his deposition. (marked C,) that he is acquainted with the horse-power patented by Daniel Woodbury, August 26, 1846, and has owned and used one of these machines for over six years, using it in all kinds of work to which it is adapted on an average 160 days or more in a year; that he also owned and used a horse-power generally called the Fitt's power, and has used and seen in use several other kinds of horsepowers, and considers himself well acquainted with all the different

kinds in use in this section of the country; that, after long experience with the various descriptions of machines, he is fully satisfied that the Woodbury horse-power machine "will perform as much work with eight horses as any other kind with ten horses; and those who have used the machines in this locality generally express the same opinion." In enumerating the advantages which the Woodbury power possesses over all others, he states that, being mounted on wheels, it is thus ready at all times either for work or travel, thus saving much time and labor in loading and unloading required in other machines, and also saving the expense of a wagon and hoisting apparatus;"' again, "the main gearing is less exposed to sand and dust than any other running a cylinder with one change (of gearing) less," and professing great advantages in the arrangement of the main pinions. And in conclusion, Mr. Collins says, "that, in view of the value of the invention of Daniel Woodbury aforesaid to the public, he, the said patentee, ought to receive ten thousand dollars."

Messrs. Hubbard, Brown, Vine, Root, Hawley, Olmstead, and McKinney, each declare on oath that, having used and also seen Woodbury's horse-power in use, they fully concur in the statements of E. K. Collins, made in his affidavit, to which they have attached their

own.

Thus, not only farmers and grain-threshers who have used the Woodbury horse-power, and have compared it with others by the severest practical tests, but also extensive manufacturers and venders of agricultural implements, who are, perhaps, yet more directly and deeply interested in the relative merits of the various improvements, unite in establishing the superiority of this horse-power over all others; and this, we apprehend, is sufficient evidence of its great value to the public. To sum up briefly the data upon which an estimate of this value can be founded: they are, first, the time and labor which it is testified is saved in the use of this power over and above all others; second, the fact that, being mounted permanently on wheels it is always and instantly ready for work when required—a feature which obviates the necessity of loading or unloading the machinery for its conveyance from one place to another, and saves the expense of extra wagons, &c.; and third, the fact that, owing to the simplicity of the parts of this machine and its ease of traction, eight horses can accomplish more work with this machine than ten horses with any other, and that, too, with less fatigue to the animals-a superiority which, if estimated by the amount of grain threshed, with the use of equal power, is stated to be a gain, on an average, of one hundred bushels of wheat per day.

In proceeding, in the next place, to show that Mr. Woodbury has not received a reward at all commensurate with the value of the invention to the public, we are met with the difficulty which invariably arises in applications of this sort in seeking to give an exact account of the expenditures of the inventor, as also of his receipts.

The calculations in all these cases can be at the best but approximate in their character, for a material item thereof would be the time devoted to the perfection of the invention and its introduction into public use, as well as the cost of the materials used up in experi