194 



THE BEE KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



you asked me for it and you have it. As you 

 know, I am a very plain and outspoken man, 

 but I mean well. I like to be talked to in 

 the same way. And when I am wrong that 

 kind of talk does me much good. ( )ue thing 

 that we are suffering most from, is fear of 

 telling the truth, and calling things by their 

 right name. I know of no trade o profess- 

 ion whose literature is so replete with hypoc- 

 racy and nonsense. Honey producers can- 

 not hope for the best success until we change 

 this condition of affairs. 



Before closing, please allow me a word in 

 answer to B. Taylor's persistent claims re- 

 garding my invention. Heretofore, one 

 class have claimed ownership of my loroper- 

 ty, while entirely another set of individuals 

 have declared its worthlessness. It was left 

 for Bro. Taylor to occupy a position in both 

 classes. Well, I thank him very much for 

 placing himself upon record as at no time 

 discovering the merits of a divisible brood 

 chamber. Whether he adopted it before or 

 since I published it to the world, we have 

 iiis statement on page Ifil that he has aban- 

 doned it, and this settles the controversy 

 f(n-ever. "Abandonment and subsequent 

 adoption of tilings claimed to be alike, is 

 evidence sufficient to negative that claim." — 

 Walker. 



I agree with Bro. Taylor regarding mo- 

 nopolies, but that kind of monopoly which 

 IS granted as pay for intellectual labor per- 

 formed, and is limited in its duration, is 

 certainly the most harmless and is the most 

 endurable of all. I am that much of a re- 

 former that when other monopolies are 

 ousted, as they should be, the patent may go 

 with the rest, for all I care. But as long as 

 vicious monopolies are allowed to remain, 

 and I am compelled to pay tribute to them, 

 compelled by law — should I not be allowed 

 to take advantage of a patent system that al- 

 lows me, for a limited time, to monopolize 

 the products of my own brain V I have 

 never tried to prevent any one from making, 

 using or selling anything and everything 

 that was made, used or sold, previous to the 

 issuance of my patent ; nor that was not a 

 part and parcel of my invention, described 

 as new in the specifications of my patent 

 There has been no controversy about that. 

 I am cited to old usages as an excuse for 

 using the different and new combinations 

 squarely covered by my patent. 



Mr. Taylor says that "inventors should be 

 rewarded." In this we agree. Now the 



question comes, how should they be reward- 

 ed ? I will tell you how I want to be re- 

 warded ; as others are, under the govern- 

 ment in which we live. Relative justice says 

 that I should have all the rights and privi- 

 leges that others have, and which I am com- 

 pelled to respect under similar circum- 

 stances. It is'nt for Mr. Taylor to tell how I 

 am to be rewarded ; the government told 

 that. It says I may have the exclusive right 

 of the use, manufacture and sale of what- 

 ever I have invented, provided I patented 

 my invention and paid the government for 

 my patent. I have paid the bill, and got the 

 goods, and do not propose to have my prop- 

 erty confiscated because Mr. Taylor thinks 

 the bargain between the government and 

 myself was more favorable to nie than it 

 should have been. My Bro. Bee-Keeper 

 should seek to change the government, 

 rather than to change bee-keepers from the 

 channel of honesty and law abiding, to that 

 of confiscation. Now I trust we understand 

 each other, and as we agree so nicely on 

 nearly all other subjects, we will have no 

 further disagreement upon this one. Years 

 ago Mr. Taylor, like thousands of others, 

 used two brood chambers in unity. He used 

 them in such a way that he discovered no 

 special benefit or improvement upon old 

 methods by such use, and since abandoned 

 it. Scores of us did the same thing. What 

 I claim, is a divisible brood chamber as 

 specified, constructed and arranged in a cer- 

 tain manner for certain purposes. Now let 

 it be understood that the patent law allows 

 me to hold all equivalents that operate on 

 the same principle, performing the same 

 functions by analogous means or equivalent 

 combinations. The claim that I am con- 

 fined to a particular combination, leaving 

 out others which perform the new functions 

 of my discovery by analogous means or 

 equivalent combinations, is the same old 

 hue and cry that was raised against Father 

 Langstroth, and is not true and never was. 

 The great authority Walker says " Novelty 

 of any thing is not negatived by another 

 thing which was not designed or used to per- 

 form the functions of the first. Everything 

 favors the patentee on account of perjury." 

 Also that " Any claim will hold its equiva- 

 lent, for few combinations now exist, or can 

 hereafter be made, which do not contain at 

 least one element, an efficient substitute for 

 which could readily be suggested by any per- 

 son skilled in the particular art." And that 



