92 A REVIEW. 



the court, by his arbitrary and changeable " rules " refused to docket 

 the case, not having had either " sixfj> (^ays," " thirty days," or "twenty- 

 one days notice" before court, and of which notice the plaintiff was 

 entirelv ignorant? We all /://o':c> a n'r/i man does not thus lose his 

 " inchoate right;" but with ?^ poor man, the case may possibly be dif- 

 ferent. 



If the Patent, and claim for extension have no merit, no originality, 

 as you plainly intimate, and indeed assert, why oppose it, and make 

 such strenuous efforts to defeat it? As counsel well versed in the law. 

 and " familiar with the subject of patents " as you allege, you ought 

 to know that the parcJmicut even with the signature of the Commis- 

 sioner of Patents, and the "broad seal " attached, does not make it 

 valid. Would not " the courts " promptly set aside all such spurions 

 claims? 



You say, " It is found by careful observation, that all the strofig 

 friends of McCormick's extension [meaning of course in both Houses of 

 Congress] have transferred their zeal to the extension of Hussey " 

 Now admitting this to be true, a single isolated fact surrounded by a 

 mass of fiction, what is the most obvious inference. Is it not strong 

 presumptive evidence, that there is jncrit'wx the claim, and that all who 

 will, Cd^n see it? unless we admit, but which the court cannot, that 

 the members of Congress are all a set of turn-coats, and devoid of 

 principle. 



Again, you say, " with this extension it would be perfectly easy, 

 without the investment of a dollar of capital, except the pittance to 

 be paid to Hussey, for McCormick to extort from subsequent in- 

 .ventors and mdin\x{d.c\.\\Y&vs Jiftjf thonsa?id dollars annually." Do not the 

 words siibseqiieid inventors, twice repeated in the same paragraph, im- 

 ply an antecedent, and that even you consider " Hussey " a previous 

 inventor, and having a prior claim? True, you also state, " not that 

 the invention is worth any such sum, but it would be better for the 

 manufacturers to pay it, than to entirely remodel their machines." 

 Now will you please explain to the court why, and how it is, when you 

 say " no man's rights are infringed," that it is better to pay ''fifty thoii- 

 sand dollars ' z.Vin\id\\y , \\i-3iX\ \.o make a 5%/^/ alteration — to change a 

 " single feature " in their machines, and use tlieir o%vn inventions only? 

 Why, if "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," ^mist 

 be told, "The cutters used at the present day, are improvements upon 

 Hussey's, not what Hussey invented and patented, but they 'embody 

 some of the general features' — 'embrace some of the elements' — em- 

 brace a single feature of Jiis, and would therefore be controlled by his 

 patent." !! 



Ah! this looks like coming to the point — no evasion, no subter- 

 fuge here; "one more question, and you may come down Sir." As 

 you appear to be quite " familiar" with such subjects, will you have 

 the goodness to explain to the Court, of how many " elements," 

 " general features," or single features," these said " cutters," ''original 

 and improved^' consist of? No answer! — Well sir, as a witness is not 

 bound by law to criminate himself, we will waive this question; you 



