41 



although he kept his application pending eight years ; and this also the 

 Protest forgot to mention. McCormick applied to Congress for an 

 extension of his patent of 1834, but was not successful. The two 

 inventors thus stand, in regard to the extension of their first patents, 

 in identically the same position. 



Hussey asked the Patent Office for an extension of his patent in 

 the fall of 1847, an d was refused on a technicality. His patent then 

 expired on the 3ist day of December, 1847. McCormick, on the iQth 

 day of January, 1848, asked the Committee on Patents for an extension 

 of his patent, which would expire on the 2ist day of June, 1848. The 

 extension was refused on technical grounds. The following letter of 

 Edmund Burke, Commissioner of Patents, says: 



" \\ithin ten or twelve days of the expiration of his patent, Hussey 

 applied to me, as Commissioner of Patents, for an extension. I in- 

 formed him that, inasmuch as the Act of Congress, prescribing the 

 mode in which patents should be extended, required a reasonable 

 notice to be given to the public, . . . and as there was not time to 

 give the required notice in his case I advised Mr- Hussey ... to 

 petition Congress for an extension, which body had the power to 

 grant it. 



" During the same winter, and after Mr. Hussey had applied to 

 me for an extension of his patent, Mr. McCormick made application 

 in due form and in season for the extension of his patent. Due notice 

 was given, and on the day appointed for a hearing, Mr. Hussey ap- 

 peared and contested the extension of Mr. McCormick's patent. And 

 on examination of the records of the Patent Office and a comparison 

 of the two patents, it appeared they both covered one or more fea- 

 tures substantially identical in principle, but not the same precise com- 

 binations; and inasmuch as Mr. Hussey's patent bore date before Mr. 

 McCormick's, the Board decided that he was prima facie the in- 

 ventor of the feature, or rather claim, which conflicted. But Mr- Mc- 

 Cormick contended that he invented the part of the machine embraced 

 in both patents one or two years before Hussey obtained his patent, 

 and was, in fact, the first and original inventor; and he prayed for a 

 continuance of the hearing until he could take testimony with due no- 

 tice to Mr. Hussey. He complied with the orders of the Board; but on 

 an examination of the testimony on the next day of hearing, it was 

 found to have been informally taken, and therefore ruled out." 



The minutes of the McCormick case before the Board of Exten- 

 sion are given: 



" March 23, 1848, the Board met pursuant to adjournment, and 

 " Ordered, That the further hearing of this application be post- 

 poned to Wednesday, the 29th of March, and that the said McCormick 



