January 1, 1912.] 



THE INDIA RUBBER WORLD 



157 



tion has been worn out by use, and even in the event 

 of a certain portion of the importation being of that 

 class, the claim of the importers could not be enter- 

 tained for the reason that they did not segregate the 

 two grades of the merchandise or show by competent 

 testimony the relative proportion of each grade." 



Under this decision it would appear that if an im- 

 porter wishes to enter rubber waste free, he must 

 separate the waste which has been "worn out by use" 

 from waste that cannot be so described. He can then 

 secure free entry for the former class, and for that 

 only. 



PATENTS AND THE RESTRAINT OF TRADE. 



■"THE decision of the United States Circuit Court at 

 '■ Baltimore in the suit brought against the corpo- 

 ration usually known as the "bath tub trust," is ex- 

 ceedingly interesting in that it brings to the front the 

 use of the patent law as employed to control the sale 

 of certain commodities. 



It appears that the bath tub combination sought to 

 control the market on certain bath tubs b}' reason of 

 the fact that it had entered into an agreement with the 

 patentee of a device called an "enamel dredger," which 

 was used in the making of these tubs. The court in 

 deciding that this was an illegal combination in re- 

 straint of trade, took this ground: "A patent is a 

 grant of a right to exclude all others from making, 

 selling, or using the invention covered by it. It does 

 not give the right to the patentee to sell indulgencies 

 to violate the law of the land, be it the Sherman Act 

 or any other." It took the ground that while the law 

 gave to the inventor the right to monopolize that in- 

 vention for a certain length of time, it did not give to 

 the patentee "the right to monopolize anything else," 

 saying that the patentee may not restrain trade or at- 

 tempt to monopolize it in anything except that which 

 is covered by his patent. 



Whatever the ultimate legal decision may be on this 

 matter, to the ordinary layman the question would 

 not appear one difficult of solution. If the device or 

 tool covered by the patent is one that is absolutely 

 essential to the manufacture of certain goods and with- 

 out the use of which they could not be made, it would 

 certainly appear that the law giving to the inventor 

 or his assigns, a monopoly on that particular device 

 must necessarily include the monopoly of the goods 

 which cannot be manufactured except through the use 



of that device; but if these goods can be manufactured 

 in some other way, even though the use of this pat- 

 ented device would make it easier and cheaper to pro- 

 duce them, then it would appear to be good reasoning 

 that the manufacture and sale of these goods could not 

 be legally controlled by a concern simply because of 

 its ownership of a certain valuable but non-essential 

 patent. 



THE EMPLOYER'S RESPONSIBILITY. 



A N estimable technical contemporary, published in 

 ■** London, deeply deplores the great mass of legis- 

 lation which has lately been passed by the English 

 Parliament tending to lighten the burdens of the work- 

 man, with the attendant result in many cases of increas- 

 ing, to some extent, at least, the burden of the em- 

 ployer. It refers particularly to the Workmen's Com- 

 pensation Act and the National Insurance Bill. In 

 comparing the old system, under which the amount of 

 liability assumed by the employer in the case of a 

 workman's disability was almost entirely voluntary, 

 with the present system of legal enforcement of the 

 employer's liability it remarks : 



"Take the Workmen's Compensation Act. Compare 

 the position of the workman employed by a humane 

 employer fifteen years ago and the position of a simi- 

 lar workman today. Suppose him injured and placed 

 on the sick list. On pay day the employer would most 

 likely say, 'We had better send Tom his wages. Poor 

 chap, he has a wife and family to keep !' And the re- 

 sult? Realizing that he was being kindly treated, Tom 

 would try to get back to work as soon as possible. If 

 unable to do his regular job, he would clean out the 

 yard or assist as best he could. But now, if Tom goes 

 under, it is the hard-hearted insurance company that 

 he has to deal with. He gets half his wages; is en- 

 couraged to believe that he will continue to get half 

 wages so long as he is ill, and, getting to like an idle 

 life, he hangs about and becomes a worthless malin- 

 gerer." 



This is an interesting picture, and its deductions 

 would undoubtedly be fairlv sound provided all em- 

 ployers were humane and inclined to regard their 

 workmen with benevolent sympathy. Probably the 

 great majority of employers may be so described, but 

 if there are some who are otherwise and would yield 

 to the workman only that which he could legally exact, 

 it is obvious that the passing of laws making it obliga- 

 tory for such employers to recognize their responsi- 



