A KI.VIKW. 79 



This at least presents " an ap[^carancc of sincerity ; " and at once cuts 

 down the " six/y d^fj's' ru\e" to a. " t/iir/y days' rule." But \.\\q. Reaper 

 can cut better than to leave half the grain standing. It usually cuts 

 every head! Hussey acted on this official advice; and did '* postpone 

 an application until near the time the patent would run out " — literally 

 so, for he was not advised of even the "thirty days' rule." 



When he again applied, and not " until near the time the patent 

 would run out," Edmund Burke was Commissioner of Patents. He 

 states in a letter to Senators Douglas and Shields, under date March 

 4th, 1850, as follows: 



" In relation to the patent of Hussey, if my memory serves me, his 

 patent expired some time within the latter part of December, 1847. 

 During that month, and within some ten or twelve days before the 

 expiration of his patent, he ap[)licd to me as Commissioner of Patents, 

 for an extension. I informecl him, that inasmuch as the act of Con- 

 gress prescribed the mode in which patents should be extended; re- 

 quired a reasonable notice to be gi\en to the public in sundry news- 

 papers, published in those parts of the country most interested against 

 such extension; and as the board had decided that 'reasonable' 

 notice should be a publication of the application for extension three 

 weeks prior to the day appointed for the hearing, there was not time 

 to give the required notice in his case; and I advised Mr. Hussey not 

 to make his application, and thus lose the fee of S40 required in such 

 cases, as he inevitabU- would, without the least prospect of succeeding 

 in his ai:)plication — but to petition Congress for an extension, which 

 body had the power to grant it." 



Well, the '' sixty days rule," so relied on and harped upon, is here 

 clearly shorn of tivo thirds of its fair proportions. 



It is shown by the foregoing letters, that one commissioner advised 

 a delay in the application, — and for apparently very sound reasons. 

 On the second application to Edmund 13urke, on the twentieth day of 

 December, 1847, c/eve?i daj's before the expiration, and when the 

 patent //c?cjf nearly run out, he was informed that the "rule " or notice 

 required, is " three weeks prior to the day appointed for the hearing." 



He was again officially advised ?iot to make the application to the 

 Patent office, and lose the fee of forty dollars, but to " make the 

 application to Congress, which body had the power to grant it." It 

 thus appears that one Commissioner had established a "rule" of 

 " thirty days," and the other a " rule " of " 21 days." 



The counsel asserts positively, that Hussey did not actually apply 

 at all: only called on the Commissioner and talks with him ten da}-s 

 before the expiration, and was told of the " sixty days' rule." Now 

 the Commissioner asserts just as positi\ely that Hussey ^//^/^//'/'/i/yi?^ 

 an extension, and was informed of the three 7>.'eeks notice being requisite. 

 Is it probable that Commissioner Burke was also so "ignorant " as not 

 to know when an application icas made to him, and of the notice re- 

 quired by his ozvn rule? — The thing is too absurd for comment ; and 

 we leave the counsel seated on both horns of his dilemma. 



It further appears, that both commissioners viewed the claim as a 



