FARMERS' INSTITUTES. 221 



the original inventor by an application of wiiat is known as an interference. 

 Tiie first decision, made by tlie commissioner of patents, was favorable to 

 Green and Saggett, but unfavorable to Madge. The case was appealed to the 

 supreme court of the District of Columbia, which, after hearing much testi- 

 mony, sustained the decision of the commissioner. This decision sustained the 

 patent of Suggett, repealed the patent granted to Madge, bat gave a patent 

 covering the same subject to Greene. Nearly two years were used in this inves- 

 tigation, and it was not until Jan., 18T8, that the patent was issued to Greene. 

 This patent is described as follows: 



"73425. Nelson "VV. Greene, Courtland, N. Y. Constructing Artesian Wells. Jan, 

 14,1868. Claim. Tlie herein described process of sinking wells, wliere no rock is to 

 be penetrated, viz.: by driving or forcing down a rod to and into the water under- 

 ground, ifnd withdrawing it, and inserting a tube in its place to draw the water 

 through, substantially as herein describecl." 



A number of bitterly contested suits have been brought into the United States 

 court to test the validity of Green's patent. In every case the decision has 

 been favorable to the patentees. 



The first suit was commenced in the eastern district of New York in 1872, 

 and continued four years, during which time 3,000 pages of testimony were 

 taken. 



Another suit was carried to completion in Minnesota in the years 1877-8, 

 with the same resalt. 



It has also been before the courts of the western district of New York and of 

 New Jersey. The last suit was finished in a court iu Indiana in 1879. In all 

 of these cases the patent has been sustained. 



It is to he noticed that a license from Greene alone, to use the drive well, still 

 leaves the user liable for a royalty to Sugyett. This should be borne in mind, 

 for Greene's agents will soon appear in every locality, and will not only demand 

 royalty for old wells bat will solicit orders for new drive-wells. So far as 1 can 

 learn, Saggett has no agents collecting royalty, but it is well to be cautious. 

 Now after these patents have been allowed to lie dormant for eleven years or 

 more, and the wells have become to be used extensively, under the supposition 

 that they were covered by no patents, it certainly is somewhat of a hardship to 

 find ourselves liable for royalty to two inventors, and perhaps to three or four. 



XO LAWFUL REMEDY. 



The question at once arises : What remedy is there for this ? And it is a dif- 

 ficult question to answer; for, in the '"eyes" of the present patent law, the 

 demand for license for use of the drive well is a just one, and it is doubtful if 

 we can avoid paying it. It will do no good to pull up our wells, even if it 

 would pay. The fact is, we have been swindled; that is, we have had those 

 wells put down supposing them to be different from what they are. For this 

 our patent law provides no remedy. The only possible protection from such 

 unjust demands is to be found in so changing our patent law as to make man- 

 ufacturers alone liable. We should demand of our congressmen, or our sena- 

 tors, that this change be made. It is of vital importance to our interests, and 

 to the interests of the public generally. There is no valid reason why a limited 

 class, known as inventors, should be given privileges of this character, with- 

 out any compensation whatever for the public. In the case of the Lee and 

 Teel patents on the slide gate, tiie law provided for the people a remedy 

 against unjust demands. These patents were really given for old things, 

 and when this was proved the patents were declared void. Even in such 

 cases, when the demand is unjust even in the eyes of tiie law, the appli- 



