16 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



[July, 



We are all more or less interested in this mat- 

 ter. I have yet to see a hive that I tldnk is any 

 better than a hive on the Langstroth principle. 

 We can, any of us, vary the form to suit our own 

 whims. As the old Indian said, if you all 

 thought exactly as I do, you would all be after 

 my squaw ; and then there would be an awful 

 muss for sure. 



Elisha Gallup. 



Report of the Patint Office Examiner in Charge. 



United States Patent OffiCb, 



September 20th, 1866. 



In the matter of the application of L. L. Lang- 

 stroth for the extension of Letter-'^ Patent 

 granted October 5th, 1852, and re-issued May 

 2^th, 1863, Improvement in Bee Hives. 



The examiner in charge of the class to which 

 this case belongs has had occasion at various 

 times, as at the present, to investigate the claims 

 embraced in the patent upon which the applica- 

 '^ion is based, and has been unable to find any- 

 thing in the archives of this office, of prior date 

 to the grant of the original patent to this appli- 

 cant, wliich could in any way interfere there- 

 with. 



These investigations developed the fact that 

 Huber, Munn, and others, prior to such giant, 

 had used comb frames, but in the re-issue above 

 referred to, these were cited and described by 

 this applicant, and the difference was so clearly 

 defined in the sijecifications and claim that it 

 was not deemed possible that any misapprehen- 

 sions as to the scope of the claim or of tiie inven- 

 tion could arise, nor does any explanation tliereof 

 appear to be necessary now. There can be no 

 doubt that the action of the Office in allowing 

 such claim was correct, in view of the informa- 

 tion then in its possession, and it only remnins, 

 therefore, in determining the question of novel- 

 ty, to consider the evidence developed by the 

 opposition ; and before doing this, it may be re- 

 marked that in all other points, this application 

 appears to be one of those peculiar cases espe- 

 cially contemplated by the statute in its provi- 

 sions for the extension of monopoly. 



This much is premised, and further, that in 

 view of this fact, the evidence upon the 

 question of novelty which should lend this 

 Office to refuse the grant prayed for should be 

 such as that not a shadow of doubt could re- 

 main that this applicant was not the original 

 and first inventor of the improvements in con- 

 troversy ; it should be clear and unmistakable. 



Any attempt to analyze or do justice to the 

 testimony of the opposition, or to do more than 

 briefiy state conclusions in the brief time allotted 

 for presenting this report, would be utterly im- 

 practicable. It might perhaps be sufficient to 

 state that the mass and weight of evidence offered 

 by the opposition comes from interested parties ; 

 parties to, or interested in, conflicting patents, 

 who have laid themselves liable to suits for in- 

 fringements, and it is yet an open question, un- 

 decided by the courts, whether or not they can 

 use the inventions in which they are iutensied 

 ■without license from this applicant ; this, in con- 

 nection with the fact developed by the rebutting 



testimony, and by the exhibits, such as letters, 

 publications, &c., showing that at one time or 

 another, since the invention began to be appre- 

 ciated, they have directly, or by implication, 

 conceded priority to Langstroth, and in some in- 

 stances, as in case of the Harbisons, have ap- 

 plied for rights under the Langstroth patent, 

 deprives their subsequent depositions, now pre- 

 sented in opposition to this application, of any 

 claim to consideration. There is one principal 

 witness, not embraced perhajis in this class above 

 referred to, whose deposition would seem to re- 

 quire at least some notice ; that of E. Townley, 

 and of those brought forward to corroborate the 

 same, were it not for the fact that when con- 

 fronted with the facts developed by tlie cross- 

 examination, and by the rebutting testimony 

 and exhibits, its bears its own contradiction on 

 its face. A few instances are cited, as serving 

 to show the correctness of this conclusion. He 

 says that in 1848, and for several years after- 

 wards, in New York city, and subsequently, at 

 Mount Auburn, near Cincinuati, he made a hive 

 called " Townley's Patent Premium Hive," 

 which contained the identical features covered 

 by the Langstroth Patent so far as relates to the 

 movable comb frames and spaces ; that the hive 

 so called and so marked was the ' ' same hive ' ' ; 

 in answer to this, this " same hive, " is produced 

 on behalf of this applicant, and it is perfectly 

 evident upon examination, that this hive never 

 did contain the features which he swears it did, 

 and never could have contained them. This is 

 further established by testimony showing the 

 purchase from Townley himself, and continuous 

 use since, of this and other hives of the same 

 construction as this. 



If this statement of Townley be true, it is a 

 little remarkable, that of all the many hives 

 which he swears he so made, not one is produced 

 to substantiate him, when such rebutting ex- 

 hibits are so easily produced. Townley's work 

 on bees published in New York in 1848, where 

 he swears he still continued to make and sell 

 movable comb frame hives, described tw^o con- 

 structions of hives, neither of which embraces 

 anything like the features in controversy, but 

 one of which is the '• Townley's Patent Premium 

 Hive," which he swears is the "same hive." 

 There appears no excuse whatever for this wit- 

 ness, unless it be found in a desire to appear 

 consistent with himself. He made a hive marked 

 Patent, &c., as above, but admits upon re-ex- 

 amination that it was not patented. He has 

 published "Townley on Bees," which purports 

 to be "copyrighted," which he admits never 

 was ; he advertised in that book to sell individual 

 rights for "five dollars cash," when he had no 

 right himself, that he could dispose of; and 

 now, to be consistent, he sets himself up as prior 

 inventor of a thing which his own admis- 

 sions, made at the Chicago Fair in 18^9, in the 

 presence of gentlemen whose testimony is unim- 

 peachable, show conclusively that he never saw, 

 until long after the original patent to this ap- 

 plicant. The conclusion is irresistible. Such 

 testimony on the part of the opposition, and 

 this representative of the whole, becomes an 

 argument, and a strong one, in favor of this ap- 

 plicant. 



