LETTERS PATENT GRANTED TO M. SWENSON. 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 



COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, 

 Washington, D. (7., December 10, 1887. 



SIR: In response to the resolution of the Senate of the 7th instant, 

 directing me to inform the Senate whether any person in the employ of 

 this Department has applied for or obtained a patent on any process 

 connected with certain experiments in the manufacture of sugar from 

 sorghum, conducted under the auspices of the Government, I have the 

 honor to make the following statement of facts : 



For the fiscal year 1886-'87 Congress made an appropriation of $94,000 

 for " continuing and concluding experiments in the manufacture of sugar 

 by the diffusion and saturation process, from sorghum and sugar-cane." 

 By virtue of this appropriation the Commissioner appointed, under date 

 of July 10, 1886, Mr. Magnus Swenson "an agent of this Department 

 to superintend, under the direction of the chemist, the experiments in 

 the manufacture of sugar from sorghum at Fort Scott, Kans." 



In his report to me, under date of December 21, 1886, Professor Wi- 

 ley, the chief chemist of this Department, in detailing the experiments 

 above alluded to, stated that an acidity existed in the diffusion bath, 

 causing a conversion of a portion of sucrose (sugar) into glucose, and that 

 several experiments had been made to correct this acidity. Among 

 those experiments was one in which he added " freshly precipitated car- 

 bonate of lime to the extraction bottle," a method which he states was 

 suggested by Professor Swenson. At the close of these experiments, 

 November 15, 1886, Mr. Swenson's service ceased. On April 27, 1887, 

 he was again appointed " superintendent of sugar experiments at Fort 

 Scott. Kans.," which position he now holds. On October 21, 1887, I 

 was informed that Professor Swenson was seeking a patent for the 

 process which he had suggested as above stated, and while in the 

 line of his duty and which had been tried in a public experiment with 

 the people's money and for the benefit of the country. On that date I 

 filed with the Commissioner of Patents my protest against any action 

 on the part of his office by which Professor Sweuson, as an individ- 

 ual, should reap the benefit of this experiment. In answer to that 

 letter I received a communication from the Commissioner of Patents, 



61 



