Baldwin had instructed him to commence an action 

 by injunction to prevent the running of our locomo- 

 tive then being placed on the railroad, on the ground 

 of infringement of two of his patent claims; that 

 he, Mr. Chauncey, had declined taking the case, 

 and that he had assured Mr. Baldwin that if we were 

 infringing, it was without knowledge, and he had 

 no doubt as to our making it right without recourse 

 to law; that he had induced Mr. Baldwin to allow 

 him to act as umpire between us; he therefore re- 

 quested an immediate interview. 



Our position with Mr. Chauncey was one of long- 

 standing family intimacy and friendship. At the 

 time of our father's death, which occurred in May, 

 1834, we received a letter of condolence from him, in 

 which he said it was his wish to extend his friendship 

 for our father to his sons, and although he was re- 

 tiring from active practice at the bar, occasions might 

 occur in our business transactions requiring legal 

 counsel and advice; in that case he hoped we would 

 freely call on him as a friend. From that time our 

 intercourse was of the most friendly character, and 

 more than once we were indebted to him for valuable 

 counsel and advice. 



When I considered our previous friendly relations 

 with Mr. Baldwin, I was completely taken aback. 

 His shop in Minor street was but half a block from 

 our office, and after his removal to Lodge Alley but 

 two blocks away; a single week had never passed 

 without our meeting either at his shop, or at the 

 Franklin Institute, or in our own office, where he 

 frequently came in company with his friend, our 

 uncle, Franklin Peale, whose position as manager of 

 the Philadelphia museum required frequent consulta- 

 tions with me as chairman of the executive committee 

 of that institution. These meetings apparently- 

 friendly, the locomotive we were building was fre- 

 quently a subject of conversation. Mr. Baldwin ex- 

 pressed great interest in what he called the experi- 

 ment of iron frames and outside connections; I do not 

 remember his ever expressing a decided opinion of 

 them, but as to carrying the weight on the center of 

 the truck, he was very decided, predicting failure and 

 a necessity of side supports. The nearest he ever came 

 to expressing an opinion as to outside connections 

 was that he should watch with great interest the oscilla- 

 tive or vibrative effect on the engine, and incidentally 

 asking if I had ever considered the difficulty in keeping 

 the inside bearing-journals of the driving-axles lubri- 

 cated. From this I inferred that he was somewhat 

 skeptical. I felt greatly aggrieved at Mr. Baldwin's 



course, for he had never made any allusion to his 

 patent claims. 



I hastened to Mr. Chauncey's office, no doubt show- 

 ing some nervous excitement, for on entering, Mr. 

 Chauncey opened the business in his mild way by as- 

 suring me that his note was dictated by friendship; 

 that he had fully impressed Mr. Baldwin with the 

 danger of commencing action by injunction requiring 

 security, and in case of defeat subjecting him to dam- 

 ages; that on his declining to take the case against us, 

 Mr. Baldwin had asked if he was to understand that 

 he would act as counsel for us against him? He replied 

 that he would act for both parties as far as lay in his 

 power to prevent needless litigation, but if it was 

 forced on us he should certainly give us the advantage 

 of his advice, but he would not take an active part on 

 either side. Mr. Baldwin had finally left with him his 

 patent specification and claims, pointing out wherein 

 he considered us infringing, and had consented to his 

 writing to us. 



He then handed me the specification, 231 requesting 

 me to read it and the claims with care; after I had 

 done so he stated that Baldwin in the first place 

 claimed that we were infringing his combined wood 

 and cast-iron wheel; I made a sketch and explained 

 our continuous box rim filled with wood, with suffi- 

 cient bearing on the cast-iron for the tire in case the 

 wood should be destroyed by heat in shrinking on the 

 tire. To his question as to how we had prevented the 

 unequal contraction of the cast wheel that Baldwin 

 claimed to have done by the separate or non-con- 

 nected flanges on the ends of his cast-iron spokes, I 

 replied, only proportioning the thickness of the parts, 

 casting under considerable head with gates of ample 

 size to feed metal as long as the casting in cooling 

 would take it, and by leaving the casting in the sand 

 for twenty-four or more hours with a charcoal fire on 

 it for some twelve hours, slow cooling or annealing as 

 far as practicable without an annealing furnace. 



Mr. Chauncey's practice in patent cases and the 

 attention he had paid to mechanics made him very 

 prompt in expressing his opinion that there was no 

 infringement, saying wooden felloes are not patent- 

 able; they having been in use from the time of the 

 Egyptians, the only sustainable claim could be for a 

 peculiar combination. He then added: "Mr. Baldwin 

 did not seem very confident as to his claim being in- 

 fringed, but he laid great stress on his claim for ground 

 metallic joints for steam and water pipes." 232 



231 U.S. patent of June 29, 1833. 



232 U.S. patent of September 10, 1834. 



176 



