﻿572 
  ANNUAL 
  EEPORT 
  SMITHSONIAN 
  INSTITUTION, 
  1929 
  

  

  tribute, 
  but 
  neither 
  was 
  Singer 
  disposed 
  to 
  give 
  up 
  his 
  hard-won 
  

   advantage 
  without 
  a 
  fight. 
  He 
  soon 
  found 
  himself 
  burdened 
  with 
  

   litigation 
  which 
  threatened 
  to 
  ruin 
  him. 
  About 
  this 
  time 
  Singer 
  

   secured 
  the 
  help 
  of 
  an 
  acute 
  legal 
  mind 
  in 
  the 
  person 
  of 
  Edward 
  

   Clark, 
  of 
  New 
  York, 
  whose 
  ability 
  as 
  a 
  financier 
  was 
  hardly 
  less 
  marked. 
  

   Although 
  he 
  contributed 
  no 
  money, 
  Clark 
  became 
  an 
  equal 
  partner 
  

   in 
  the 
  firm 
  of 
  I. 
  M. 
  Singer 
  & 
  Co., 
  Phelps 
  having 
  been 
  bought 
  out 
  

   some 
  time 
  before. 
  Later 
  Singer 
  and 
  Clark 
  bought 
  out 
  Zieber. 
  

  

  Singer's 
  success 
  in 
  developing 
  a 
  practical 
  machine 
  had 
  encouraged 
  

   other 
  inventors 
  and 
  a 
  number 
  of 
  other 
  machines 
  were 
  brought 
  out, 
  

   some 
  of 
  them 
  only 
  obvious 
  attempts 
  at 
  slight 
  improvements 
  on 
  the 
  

   Howe 
  machine, 
  but 
  a 
  number 
  were 
  fundamental 
  inventions 
  of 
  a 
  new 
  

   type. 
  Howe's 
  patent 
  of 
  1846, 
  for 
  the 
  time 
  being, 
  made 
  him 
  a 
  complete 
  

   master 
  of 
  the 
  situation 
  and 
  for 
  several 
  years 
  he 
  sued 
  infringers 
  right 
  

   and 
  left. 
  The 
  sewing-machine 
  manufacturers, 
  with 
  the 
  exception 
  of 
  

   the 
  Singer 
  Company, 
  yielded 
  to 
  Howe 
  and 
  were 
  carrjdng 
  on 
  their 
  

   business 
  under 
  his 
  Hcenses 
  without 
  interruption. 
  I. 
  M. 
  Singer 
  & 
  

   Co. 
  had 
  resisted 
  him 
  single-handed 
  from 
  the 
  very 
  beginning, 
  setting 
  

   up 
  in 
  justification 
  of 
  their 
  right 
  to 
  manufacture 
  sewing 
  machines, 
  the 
  

   claims 
  of 
  Walter 
  Hunt, 
  the 
  New 
  York 
  inventor, 
  that 
  he 
  had 
  made 
  a 
  

   sewing 
  machine, 
  using 
  an 
  eye-pointed 
  needle 
  and 
  a 
  shuttle 
  to 
  form 
  the 
  

   lock 
  stitch, 
  previous 
  to 
  the 
  year 
  1834. 
  As 
  Walter 
  Hunt 
  was 
  unable 
  to 
  

   produce 
  a 
  complete 
  machine 
  made 
  at 
  that 
  time 
  and 
  admitted 
  that 
  he 
  

   had 
  failed 
  to 
  apply 
  for 
  a 
  patent 
  on 
  his 
  invention, 
  the 
  courts 
  decided 
  

   that 
  it 
  was 
  never 
  completed 
  in 
  the 
  sense 
  of 
  the 
  patent 
  law 
  and 
  there- 
  

   fore 
  did 
  not 
  anticipate 
  the 
  patent 
  granted 
  to 
  Howe. 
  I. 
  M. 
  Singer 
  & 
  

   Co. 
  submitted 
  to 
  the 
  order 
  of 
  the 
  court, 
  for 
  much 
  damage 
  was 
  being 
  

   done 
  to 
  their 
  business 
  by 
  the 
  competition 
  of 
  manufacturers 
  who 
  were 
  

   working 
  uninterruptedly 
  under 
  licenses 
  from 
  Howe, 
  and 
  in 
  July, 
  1854, 
  

   took 
  out 
  a 
  license 
  under 
  the 
  Howe 
  patent, 
  paying 
  him 
  $15,000 
  in 
  

   settlement 
  for 
  royalties 
  on 
  machines 
  made 
  and 
  sold 
  prior 
  to 
  that 
  time. 
  

  

  The 
  decision 
  of 
  the 
  court 
  sustaining 
  Howe's 
  claims 
  was 
  made 
  nine 
  

   years 
  after 
  the 
  completion 
  of 
  his 
  first 
  machine, 
  and 
  after 
  eight 
  years 
  

   of 
  the 
  first 
  term 
  of 
  his 
  patent 
  had 
  expired. 
  The 
  patent, 
  however, 
  had 
  

   been 
  so 
  Httle 
  productive 
  of 
  revenue 
  that 
  Howe 
  was 
  able, 
  in 
  spite 
  of 
  the 
  

   cost 
  of 
  the 
  numerous 
  suits 
  for 
  infringement 
  he 
  had 
  started, 
  upon 
  the 
  

   the 
  death 
  of 
  his 
  partner, 
  George 
  Bliss, 
  to 
  buy 
  his 
  half 
  interest, 
  and 
  thus 
  

   became, 
  for 
  the 
  first 
  time, 
  the 
  sole 
  owner 
  of 
  his 
  patent. 
  This 
  occurred 
  

   just 
  when 
  it 
  was 
  about 
  to 
  yield 
  an 
  enormous 
  revenue. 
  His 
  success 
  in 
  

   his 
  suit 
  against 
  the 
  Singer 
  Co. 
  made 
  it 
  easy 
  to 
  enforce 
  his 
  legal 
  rights 
  

   against 
  others. 
  In 
  1860 
  he 
  obtained 
  an 
  extension 
  of 
  his 
  patent 
  for 
  

   seven 
  years, 
  and 
  though 
  he 
  again 
  applied 
  for 
  another 
  extension 
  in 
  

   1867, 
  claiming 
  that 
  he 
  had 
  received 
  only 
  $1,185,000, 
  and 
  that 
  because 
  

   of 
  its 
  value 
  to 
  the 
  public 
  he 
  should 
  receive 
  at 
  least 
  $150,000,000, 
  his 
  

   second 
  extension 
  of 
  the 
  patent 
  was 
  denied. 
  

  

  