130 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



myself to be the flrst inventor, I claimed the de- 

 vice abpolutely for bars, frames, and all Idnds of 

 hives and surplus honey receptacles, the guides 

 beino- either lartje or small bevel, (see note B). 

 Had^I then known of Hunter's device, I should 

 have confined my claim to bars and frames. 

 Mi-, Clark, in his original application, made 

 some six months after mine, did not claim the 

 sharp edges absolutely, but the beveled bars ni 

 combination with a saw kerf running parallel 

 with the bars, to which the bees could chng 

 when hived, and which he thought rendered 

 them more disposed to follow his guides. 



That the Patent Office did me a great wrong 

 in declaring an interference between my claun 

 and ]VIi-. Clark's, will be admitted by all familiar 

 with Patent matters. They ought to have 

 o-ranted mv claims, and also those of Mr. Clark, 

 whose Patents then \\ould have been subordi- 

 nate to mine, and could not have been used 

 without license from me. It would then have 

 become necessarv for me, after discovering what 

 Hunter had done, to have had a re-issue of my 

 Patent, limiting my claim to the use of the tri- 

 ano-ular edge On bars or movable frames. If Mr. 

 Clark had felt that his invention was prior to 

 mine and covered the same thing, he could have 

 applied for a re-issue of his Patent ; and it he 

 could have proved priority, the Office would 

 have been obliged to grant him a re-issue cover- 

 ino- the claim of my Patent ; and it would have 

 remained for the courts to decide, when asked, 

 whose Patent was valid. 



The state of my health has delayed me m 

 making such statements as the case seems to de- 

 mand, so as to show why, after Clark has ob- 

 tained a Patent, wliich his friends claim covers 

 the use of the sharp edge in frames, (see note j 

 C.) I still persist in using such an edge in my 

 hives, without procuring a license under his 

 Patent. From the article of Dr. Hunter it is 

 very evident that neither Clark nor myselt were 

 the first inventors of this sharp edge comb guide, 

 although we ot the time supposed we were. All 

 that Ave can claim is the combination of the edge 

 with bars or movable frames. Mr. Clark's testi- 

 mony is that he invented liis device some years 

 before I claim to liave invented mine ; but that 

 he kept the matter secret from all except his 

 near relations. He made liis invention, as he 

 admitted to myself and others, accidentally, 

 from obserbing the bees building a small piece 

 of comb in the line of such an edge. In niy 

 Journal for February 12, 1853, is the following 

 record: — "Let triangular pieces be fastened to 

 frames, to serve instead of guide combs. These 

 may be an inch on the top or smaller, according 

 as experience shall determine. * * * I feel 

 a «trono- perstiasion that these will dispense with 

 all gufde combs, and yet not interfere witli 

 fastening on combs." Those wiio learn that I 

 ' had been experimenting for a long time to get 

 straiglit combs without using pieces of worker 

 combs as guides, can easily conceive w^th what 

 impatience I waited for bees to swarm, and with 

 what delight I found my triangular guides trans- 

 lated out of the airy regions of theory and con- 

 jecture into the solid domain of demonstrated 

 facts. 



I give anotlier extract from my Journal, -Tune 



4, 1853:— "Examined frames in two new 

 swamis, in each comb quite regular without any 



guides— in one, wax eaten oft' the edge— think 



that the new frames " (that is, the frames with 



; triangular edge) "wiU answer, without any wax 



' or comb as guides." These observations were 



^ made in Greenfield, Massachusetts, and that 



i same season a large number of liives were sold, 



the frames having the triangular guides. Having 



i used this device publicly nearly two y^ars, and 



] demonstrated its success, I applied for a Patent, 



as above narrated. . 



Now, neither Mr. Clark nor any of his friends 



will say that it was possible for me to have bor- 



I rowed from liis device, used secretly and never 



' communicated to any one outside of his family, 



i until more than two years after I had used and 



sold the same ; nor will I even intimate that his 



apphcation was an after thought, when he saw 



the success and importance of the invention, tor 



1 I have no reason to doubt that he was truthtul 



i in asserting his prior use of the same. But I do 



\ assert most undoubtedly that his Patent on this 



' guide has no validity, and will give the reasons 



which led to the publication, in the circular of 



I L. L. Langstroth & Son for 1867, of the foUow- 



"As parties are frequently asldng information 



1 about the right of G. H. Clark to the absolute 



1 control of the triangular comb guide, we would 



I caution the public against pacing any fees tor 



I the use of this device in our frames, as we be- 



' lieve that L. L. Langstroth is clearly entitled 



I to, and will soon obtain, an independent Patent 



I on its use in movable bars and comb frames. 



I We are so confident that the Clark Patent caii- 



' not be sustained, so as to control the comb 



oaiides used in the Langstroth frames, tliat we 



hereby expressly guarantee aU parties purclias- 



ino- of us under" our Patent, against any costs or 



damages that may be awarded by tlie comts, it 



suits are brought against them for using this 



guide." 



It is important to state that Mr. Clark was 



re^idino- in East Washington, New Hampshire, 



not over one hundred miles from Greenfield, 



Massachusetts, my place of residence, where my 



frames with guides had been made, used, ana 



sold, more than two years before he applied for 



i Ms Patent. Kepeated decisions of the Supreme 



I Court of the United States show that by his de- 



i lav he had forfeited all right to obtain a Patent ; 



i aiul that, had the Office known the facts, tliey 



' would never have issued it. I do not question 



i that he was entirely ignorant of this fatal defect, 



and that had he knovvai it, he would have made 



no appication. Justice to myselt and to the bee- 



kppmna- public, who are constantly asked Dy 



parties^who have pmchased Clark's Patent to 



nay for the guide in my hive, and on other 



hive's compels me to make these facts known. 



I shall close this article by a few extracts from 

 the decisions of the United States Comts, which 

 make it perfectly plain that Clark's Patent has 

 no validitv. These extracts are all taken from 

 Law's well known " Digest of American Cases 

 relating to Patents for Inventions,'' &c., puDlisn- 

 ed by Baker, Voorhees, & Co., New York, 

 1866. 



