July i, 190S. 



THE INDIA RUBBER WORLD 



339 



in what had been shown them, and their hope that the new 

 business relations into which they had entered with the rubber 

 company would long continue. One of the speeches was made 

 by Mr. J. R. Vail, who presented to Mr. Apsley, in the name of 

 his firm, Merritt, Elliott & Co., a handsome silver loving cup, 

 suitably inscribed, and which the recipient acknowledged in a 

 happy little speech. 



The visitors left Hudson at 5:46 p. M., in charge of Treasurer 

 Laighton — with the exception of the heads of the firms, who re- 

 mained over Sunday at Mr. Apsley's — and went into Boston, 

 where they were assigned to rooms at the United States Hotel. 

 After supper the party went to Keith's Theater. Sunday's pro- 

 gram embraced a sight-seeing tour of Boston, a visit to Revere 

 Beach, and return to New York by a night boat. 



Whenever Mr. Apsley plans to entertain or celebrate it is on 

 a lavish scale, and the town of Hudson loyally and joyfully takes 

 hold and helps. And this is as it should be, for not only is 

 Mr. Apsley by far its most distinguished citizen, but as the 

 founder of its largest and most profitable industry, and one 

 who takes a keen interest in the welfare of the whole com- 

 munity, he deserves the devotion of his fellow townsmen. Then, 

 too, he really lives there, is not an absentee as so many of 

 big men of our manufacturing towns are, and in his beautiful 

 home is always hospitable, democratic, interested, and whom he 

 invites, his charming wife as hostess, with rare tact and genu- 

 ine hospitality, entertains. And this is why the late visitors 

 at Hudson had such a superlatively pleasant time. 



It may be added that the character of the two houses named 

 in this report as having lately become customers of Mr. Apsley's 

 company is such as to make of the new connection a testimonial 

 of the higher order to the products of the factory at Hudson. 

 They are among the oldest firms in the trade, and accustomed 

 always to carrying the lines of the best makers. 



The two New York stores represented by Mr. Apsley's guests 

 were closed on the day of the banquet, signs having been posted 

 in advance reading — 



THIS STORE WILL BE CLOSED 



ALL DAY SATURDAY 



TO ENABLE OUR SALESMEN TO 



VISIT THE 



APSLEY RUBBER FACTORY. 



AT HUDSON. MASS. 



The Hudson Enterprise says in an editorial : "The example 

 set by Hon. L. D. Apsley in giving a practical demonstration to 

 the salesmen of his New York customers, of the making of a 

 shoe, is one that might be followed with profit by manufactur- 

 ers in many lines of goods. It is a fact known to many observant 

 business men that the average salesman, while being almost in- 

 variably an agreeable man to meet, and, perforce, a persuasive 

 talker if he is successful, is also woefully lacking in knowledge of 

 the processes required to produce the finished article whose su- 

 periorities he sings. 



"- - - While life is too short for men to become practical in 

 producing the goods they sell, there are certain points connected 

 with their production which, given as basis upon which to build, 

 equip him as no other instruction could. - - - Certain it is, the 

 New York guests returned home with a better idea of rubber 

 shoes than when they came, and if they hadn't had an enjoyable 

 time it wasn't the Apsley Rubber Co.'s fault." 



SOME WANTS OF THE TRADE. 



[455] ^tXV/HAT can you tell me about a substitute called 

 '' Terra Alba and who make it?" 



[456] "I would like any information which you can give me 

 regarding a substitute by the name of Atmido." 



[457] "What do the boot manufacturers in the United States 

 use for dull finishing rubber boots?" 



[458] "Where can I get wringer rolls as used in clothes 

 wringers?" 



ANOTHER DECISION FOR THE GRANT TIRE. 



POR the second time the Grant tire patent has been the 

 * subject of a decision by the United States circuit court of 

 appeals for the second circuit. The decision in each case was 

 written by Judge Alfred C. Coxe, and the purport of both is 

 the same — holding the Grant patent (No. 554,675, issued Feb- 

 ruary 18, 1896) to be valid. 



The Diamond Rubber Co. of New York was sued for alleged 

 infringement of the Grant patent on solid tires, by The Con- 

 solidated Rubber Tire Co. and The Rubber Tire Wheel Co., the 

 owners of the patent, in the United States circuit court in New 

 York city. A final decree sustaining the patent claims was en- 

 tered March 2, igo8, from which the defendants appealed. The 

 decision on appeal, in which the decision by circuit court judge 

 is upheld, is dated June 4, 1908. This appellate district, by the 

 way, embraces the states of New York, Vermont, and Con- 

 necticut. 



Judge Coxe says that the appeal in question is in the nature 

 of a reargument of the questions decided in the case wherein 

 the Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. was sued for infringement 

 of the Grant patent. [See The Indi.v Rubber World September 

 I, 1906 — page 403 ; March i, 1907 — page 189.] No new evidence 

 was offered. The counsel were the same, the issues the same. 

 Judge Coxe quotes with approval from the decision of the 

 court below : "That question having once been tried out and a 

 decision made, I do not see what right any other defendant had 

 to go over the same evidence and call upon the court to go 

 over it again, particularly when the decision of the court of 

 appeals is controlling." The decision in the Firestone case on 

 appeal, as already stated, was written by Judge Coxe, and he 

 finds nothing in the record of the Diamond Rubber Co. case to 

 warrant any change in his former decision. 



Having disposed of the questions involved in the trial. Judge 

 Coxe proceeds to remark: 



"Another volume of 500 pages has been added to the library 

 which has accumulated during the last ten years through the 

 efforts of many defendants who seem determined to use what 

 they, in effect, assert to be a useless device. The indomitable 

 persistency with which these people have fought for the right 

 to use the Grant tire is more persuasive evidence of its merits 

 than the opinion of experts. If the W'illoughby, Latta, and 

 other tires [named in the defenses] are as good as Grant's why 

 do not these defendants use them? The almost frantic efforts 

 which have been made to use the Grant tires are inconsistent 

 with the argument that they show no inventive genius, and we 

 are more and more convinced that we were right when we 

 said that 'no successful rubber tire can be made without em- 

 bodying the distinguishing features of the Grant patent.' " 



It will be remembered that a court of the same rank as that 

 named in the preceding paragraphs has reached a different 

 conclusion, declaring the Grant patent to be invalid. In 

 the decree handed down by Judge Coxe, restraining the Dia- 

 mond Rubber Co., of New York, from any further 

 infringement of the Grant patent and ordering a refer- 

 ence to compute the profits and damages by reason of such in- 

 fringement, it is stated that nothing therein is intended to en- 

 join the defendant from handling rubber tires covered by the 

 Grant patent, when manufactured by certain parties having a 

 right to make and sell such tires under a judicial decree in a 

 litigation in federal courts heretofore pending between the pres- 

 ent complaint and such parties, wherein it has been judicially de- 

 termined that said Grant patent is invalid and void. This re- 

 lates to the case wherein the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. were 

 sued by the owners of the Grant patent, and won on appeal. 



The Canfield Rubber Co. (Bridgeport, Connecticut) have been 

 adding a number of specialties to their line of products, in- 

 cluding some patented packings, and various articles in the line 

 of mold work. 



