A i<i:vii:\v. 81 



originated in the Board ot Kxtensions; — were subject to change — were 

 changed. A pamphlet of "Information " published November, 1842, 

 and forwarded by Commissioner KUsvvorth, "and without a penny of 

 expense " to an applicant but a short time before he went out of office, 

 does not ccfritain any notice of even his "30 days' rule;" so that this so 

 oft repeated "si.v/y di/ys rule," had not t/icn an existence, even in the 

 fertile brain of this "counsel. ' To meet the pnsi/it views and wishes 

 of these vay disintinstcd "parties," there oiii^/it to have been a ''si.vtv days 

 rule;" and it should have been like the laws of the Mcdes and Persians, 

 "which alter not, neither do the}' cliange; " — and also like the ''higher 

 law'' of this modern "tyrant who published his edicts by writing them 

 in small letters, and placing them so high in the air that people could 

 not read them, and still requiring comj)liance,or the consequences." 



We have it from very high authority — both sacred and profane, 

 that "where no law is, there is no transgression." Now how is the 

 "law and the testimony?" It was not until late in May, 184S, that 

 applicants were required by " law," or by " rule," to give 60 days' 

 notice; and mouths after X\\q: petition, — by the advice of Hon. Edmund 

 Burke, — was presented to Congress; — and even <7/?r;' the Report was 

 made in its favor by the Committee on Patents and the Patent Ofifice, 

 of the Senate! 



The patent expired December 31, 1847. The petition was presented 

 to the Senate February 7, 1848. The bill for his relief was reported 

 May 15, 1848 and was both printed and "published;" noticed as a part 

 of the proceedings of Congress, by the press throughout the United 

 States, and e\ery body thus notified of the application. 



The lazv requiring the 60 days' notice, was not approved and oper- 

 ative, until May 27, 1848. And not to " leave a single head standing," 

 in farmer phrase, the pamphlets of the Patent Office previous to this 

 date, published //^ such notice, if two honorable and able Commission- 

 ers are worthy of credence. 



We hope the learned " CouuseF' who was so "familiar with the rules 

 and regulations of the Patent Ofifice," will pardon us for showing ////;/ 

 by the annexed notice of the Commissioner of Patents that so late as 

 12 o'clock Meridian on the Third Monday in P"ebruary, 1848, there 

 never nad been a "Sixty days rule:" and he " may know by making the 

 proper enquiries at the proper places," where the original may be 

 found, of which the following is a copy; and he may perchance also 

 find on the files of the Patent Office pretty decided ''traces'' and in 

 writing too, not "talks" only — for they are certainly there — of the 

 reasons and arguments in favor of Hussey's right of extension. 



P.ATENT Offick, Jan'y. 21, 184S. 



On the petition of C. H McCormick of Steel's Tavern. Virginia, 

 praying for the extension of a patent, granted to C. H. M'Cormick 

 for an improvement in Reaping Machines, for seven years from the 

 expiration of said patent, which takes place on 21st day of June. I848. 



It is ordered that the said petition be heard at the Patent Ofifice, on 

 the Third Monday in February at 12 o'clock M., and all persons are 



