5 



I have thus addressed you on this subject, because I am inter- 

 ested in it, and because my name has been introduced into your 

 Work, in such a manner as to create the impression, that I was 

 but a borrower from others of a machine, of which I was, in fact, 

 the first and original inventor. 



I am sure, gentlemen, that you will excuse the trouble which 

 1 give you in this communication. You are artists yourselves, 

 and know, therefore, with what a jealous pride professional rep- 

 utation ought to be guarded. I should be the last man to deprive 

 another of any portion of his just desert, and I am equally unwil- 

 ling that others should treat me with the like injustice. 



Your 



Asa Spencer. 



Philadelphia, July 26, 1842. 



Sir — We have to acknowledge the receipt of your communi- 

 cation of the 21st inst, in which you object to the account we 

 have given, in our " Manual of Coins and Bullion," of the origin 

 and progress of the art of medal ruling, and complain that we 

 " have introduced your name into our work, in such a manner as 

 to create the impression that you were but the borrower from oth- 

 ers of a machine, of which you were, in fact, the first and original 



inventor." 



We can assure you that we feel great anxiety to do exact jus- 

 tice, as to the claims for an ingenious invention to which we owe 

 so much, and that we would gladly take the earliest opportunity 

 of correcting any error into which we might have fallen. 



We cannot think, however, that you have ground for complaint, 

 when we have before us the following original certificates; the 

 first under your own signature, the second under that of a gentle- 

 man now an officer in one of the branch mints, and a man of un- 

 impeached veracity. The first was published in the U. S. Ga- 

 zette, and is as follows : 



" I did not see the article in the U. S. Gazette of July 17th, 

 signed Justice, concerning the invention of a ruling machine, be- 

 fore it appeared in print, consequently could not prevent the error 

 contained in that article, which has since been pointed out to me. 

 I take this opportunity to correct it, by saying, that it was never 

 intended to deny, but always to admit, that Mr. Gobrecht was the 



