na . ae < ad 
i . x R ; 
= ey eT we ah ee at a de od Oe ae, a i? i” eee ee la oe tee Le 
er ee ee ee ES, : ar area. > 
3 ; Di tik rhe. Op 20 7 ie 
- REPORT OF THE CHEMIST. - APS Mines QABAAS 
xt 
Sab : ; art of #hanufactire of sugar for years, and allusions are to be met with to its use in 
works describing this art, and patents have been issued for this same means for 
neutralizing acidity in saccharine solutions in England. A brief reference to some_ 
of these will be made. - 
In a work entitled ‘‘ Sugar Growing and Refining,” by Wigner and Harland, 
published in London in 1882, the following allusions are made pertinent to this part 
of the art. 
On page 185, in describing the diffusion process, it says : 
~ “Jn order to insure the solidification in the tissues of the soluble substance in- 
jurious to the sugar, especially of pectine, which is not coagulated by hot water 
alone, lime or some other suitable agent may be added to the water or liquor.” 
On page 504 of the same work, in speaking of the alum process, it says: 
**After the separation of the alum it is possible to neutralize the acid liquor with 
chalk (carbonate of lime) only, and this has been done on a large scale for a con- 
siderable time. The use of chalk has an advantage over lime in that should an ex- 
cess be added it does no harm to the sirup beyond simply increasing the insoluble 
deposit in the filters.” 
A description of the identical advantage claimed by Mr, Swenson in his patent, 
lines 52 to 58: ‘*S * * *. it is possible to neutralize the acid liquor with some 
other alkaline body instead of lime ; among other substances which have been tried 
for this purpose are ammonia, carbonate of ammonia, baryta, carbonate of baryta, 
strontia, carbonate of strontia, magnesia, carbonate of magnesia.” These are the 
carbonates of alkaijine earths mentioned in the patent, lines 58 to 63. 
In a pamphlet published in Cincinnati in 1876, entitled ‘‘ Extraction du JusSucré | 
des Plantes sacchariféres, par Diffusion,” the author of which is G. Bouscaren, is 
found, on ‘page 2, a description of the alleged improvement patented by Swenson, 
and it speaks of the addition of chalk (carbonate of lime) to either the water of the © 
diffusion battery or to the pulp of the cane itself before it goes into the battery. 
_ The following is a translation of the paragraph referred to: i 
“The solidification of the albumen, pectine, and other elements injurious to the 
sugar being made in the tissue of the pulp itself by the addition of a proper quantity 
of chalk, either to the water of alimentation or to the pulp itself before its introduction 
into the macerators.” 
Of the English patents that have been issued may be noted the following: 
In 18138, No. 3754, to one Howard, the use of alum, lime, and chalk. 
In 1874, No. 1736, to Johnson, the use of alkaline carbonates prior to treatment of 
_ the sugar with alcohol. 
In 1874, No. 1989, to James Duncan, the neutralization of the free acids arising in 
saccharine solutions by means of carbonate of lime. 
III. 
From the foregoing statements the following conclusions may be drawn: - 
(1) That the above patent is held by Mr. Swenson in trust for the use and benefit 
of the Government and its citizens, the discovery patented having been made by him 
while specially employed in experimentation, and under an implied contract granting 
to the Government all property in the results of such experimentation. . 
(2) That the thing patented was a suggestion made by an employé specially em- 
ployed for the purpose, and which only amounted to the curing of a defect in a part 
of a process already planned in its entirety by another, and which of itself was nota 
complete invention, and which suggestion would belong to the inventor of the process 
under whom he was working. . 
(8) The patent is invalid in that the thing patented is not new. : 
Under the first head it is sufficient to say that Congress having authorized the 
making of these sugar experiments at public expense, they are made for the benefit 
of the public at large, and the results that spring from them become the property of 
the Government, to the free use of which all citizens are equally entitled. Persons 
employed in the carrying on of such experiments, so authorized, by the acceptance of 
the employment waive all personal right to any discoveries they may make-in the 
course of their employment, and by implication contract that such discoveries shall 
become the property of theGovernment. It would be incompatible with the object of 
the act of Congress authorizing the making of experiments, that any personal prop- 
erty to discoveries made by persons employed under the law should be retained by 
‘them, for, if so, then the end had in view, the general benefit of the public, would be 
destroyed, and public moneys would be expended merely to enable private persons to 
make discoveries for their own personal use ard advantage, and not for the general 
welfare of the people. Congress would be granting public moneys for private use, 
and this it can not constitutionally do. 
