222 STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. 



cation of the remedy is frequently attended with more expense than to submit 

 to the unjust royalty demanded. Tlius in the case of the Lee patent, the 

 license fee demanded of each farmer Avas but §5 or $15. Although tlie farmer 

 might believe and even know that the collection of that fee was not lawful, 

 yet if he resisted the payment it was certain to cost him many times the 

 amount demanded — that is, the law provided a means of escaping an unjust 

 payment of a few dollars by expending as many hundred dollars. This is the 

 practical remedy for injustice offered by the law. It is a remedy to be tried 

 by men who are plucky rather than discreet. It is a remedy that individuals 

 can hardly apply without financial ruin. By combination of interested parties 

 the payment of the unjust license fee was, in the gate case, successfully re- 

 sisted. Mr. H. U. Piatt, of Ypsilanti, and several others, spent much time 

 and money in perfecting this organization. The cost to these men was largely 

 iu excess of the license fee ; but their pluck, backed by aid here and there, 

 saved the farmers of Michigan many thousands of dollars. A law-suit is the 

 only remedy provided by the law. Legally it may be all right, but practically 

 it is inoperative. It is no remedy at all, in cases where the license fee is small. 

 Again, the law does not permit the party who pays the license to convict the 

 agent of criminal action so long as he serves papers which show the patent as 

 actually granted. This, again, subjects the public to danger of extortion; 

 for, although the drawing and patent specifications may be exactly copied, in 

 many cases its exact nature could be determined only by an expert. Thus take 

 the case of the Lee gate. The only figure of this gate given in the patent 

 office reports is given in Fig. 1, and the patent is described as follows : 



No. 50,605. — John C. Lee, Seville, Ohio. Field Fence and Gate combined. October 

 24, 18C5. This invention consists in the combination of the gate with the posts and 

 fence, one of the said posts being slotted to receive the ends of the panels of the gate 

 when closed. Claim. The arrangement of the panel or gate F, in combination with 

 the morticed post B, post A, strips D, slats D, as and for the purpose set forth. 



Now suppose a farmer served with such a printed notice, containing cut and 

 all, and explained by a wily agent. Do you suppose he would be able to dis- 

 cover that that patent was given only for a peculiar combination of slats and 

 strips, together with a gate sliding over supports fastened to a single post? 

 Kather he would be inclined to take the word of the agent, that the patent 

 covered all cases of sliding and turning gates. The fact is, the law leaves to 

 the public the practical decision of what is and what is not an infringement. 

 It says, in effect: ''You were shown in black and white the exact truth and 

 the whole truth in regard to the patent, yet you allowed yourself to be deceived 

 by the spoken words of an irresponsible party. You alone are to blame for 

 this foolishness, and must reap the consequences." Now I would like to ask 

 how much protection to the public is afforded by such a practice? Consider- 

 ing the state that the patent drawings and specifications are in, no one but an 

 expert can judge, with any degree of correctness, on the exact province of 

 a patent. Y'et here is a case where a man with no experience is called on to 

 decide. The result is that the shrewd agent can often convince him that his 

 patent covers the exact tool or device in use. Swindling is a name which ex- 

 presses but feebly the nature of such an offense, and for this our admirable 

 patent law provides no practicable remedy. It is true it allows the citizen to 

 ward oS the agent, by the payment of the heavy costs of a law-suit; but it still 

 leaves the agent free to practice his profession ou some one else. The extent 

 to which this practice may be carried is frightful to contemplate. We are 

 liable to be called to pay unjust tribute for using rail fences, swing gates, ox 

 carts, bob-sleighs, plows, mowing machines, and every device or machine in 



