80 A REVIEW. 



most meritorious one, and fully entitled to an extension, Commis- 

 sioner Burke so expressed himself in another part of the letter referred 

 to — advising Congress to grant it. We presume the sole and only 

 reason why he did not grant it, was the lack of time to give " three 

 weeks notice," according to his rule; the time was too short. Com- 

 missioner Ellsworth did not grant the extension because the notice 

 would be too long; and thus "between the sJun't and the lo7ig of it," and 

 by the new code of ?noral law established by this " counsel and parties 

 in the State of New York," the poor patentee is to be deprived and 

 defrauded of his just rights! We say deprived of his just rights ; — for 

 both by the law of 1S36, and the usage of the Patent Office, inventors 

 as a matter of course, had extensions granted for sei'oi years, if the 

 claim was meritorious, and the reward inadequate, during the fourteen 

 years, in the judgment of the Board of Extensions. As before 

 remarked, these facts were established to the full and entire satisfac- 

 tion of two committees of the Senate; and acting on these reports, the 

 Senate passed a bill for his relief. 



Now we would ask any and all right minded men, both in and out 

 of Congress, who are willing " to do unto others as they would wish to 

 be done by," if it would be right or just — would it be in accordance 

 with the true spirit and intentions of the law — to deny an extension on 

 these grounds? 



How was the uninitiated and unskilled patentee to act under such 

 circumstances, when even this " counsel learned in the law," and 

 " familiar with the rules and regulations of the Patent Ofifice," as he 

 professes to be, is so completely at fault? He it appears only knew 

 of the ''sixty days' rule;" which even Congress and the Commissioners 

 were ignorant of. Perhaps there will have to be a "wretched excuse 

 about ignorance," in another quarter, before the "sixty days" are over 

 and gone. 



\\'e pass by the insinuations and gross charges of "pretended 

 ignorance," — ''sham notice'' — "never intended to act in good faith," — 

 "wretched excuse about ignorance of the sixty days rule" — "skulked 

 the tribunal provided by law" — "creeps quietly and unobserved into 

 the committee room," &c, &c,with the single remark, that they are 

 just as undeserved as they are unbecoming and uncalled for. — '^o good 

 cause needs such epithets to sustain it; and it is perhaps the very best 

 evidence of a bad cause, thus needlessly and wantonly to assail the 

 reputation of another, for lack of manly argument and sound reasons, 

 to support it. Surely this "counsel" could not expect us to believe 

 that there was no one in the Congress of the United States so well 

 qualified as himself, to judge of morals and propriety;— to say nothing 

 about law, and "the rules and regulations of the Patent Office? " Has 

 he not common sense enough to perceive, that these denunciations 

 reflect in no measured terms on the Intelligence and //<3;;^r of Senators, 

 who thoroughly investigated the claim and passed the Bill? 



We have shown by the testimony of both Commissioners, that they 

 at least had no such "sixty days' rule." The Act of July 4, 1836, does 

 not contain it, in section, clause or line; but the "rules" that did exist, 



