No. 199.] 389 



mined as soon as maae, with the otaer accommodations suggested, 

 pay still more than they now do, and sufficient to meet all additional 

 expense. 



And finally, if the expense of proper provision for the patent bu- 

 reau could not be had from any other source, it is a matter of sufficient 

 public importance and general benefit to warrant its payment out of 

 the general funds of the government. But this is not at all necessary, 

 as proper attention to the subject would enable Congress to see wherein 

 justice as well as expediency requires, that the fees for certain services 

 in the patent office should be raised. 



For instance, every re-issue of a patent, to induce the applicant to 

 get his claim right in the first instance, if nothing more, should be 

 charged, inslead of less, more than an original applicationj and every 

 improvement applied for on an invention already patented, as it re- 

 quires the same labor, should be charged the same fee as an original 

 application. 



Another evil requiring the immediate attention of Congress, is the 

 present system of re-issuing letters patent. 



The act of 1836, provides that in case of mistakes in the specifica- 

 tion of letters patent, such patent at any time during the term of four- 

 teen years, may be surrendered and a new patent issued ybr the same 

 vwention^ called a re-issue. The object, intended to be attained by 

 this provision, is undoubtedly a laudable one, but, from its loose and 

 indefinite wording, its practical operation is most unjust and oppres- 

 sive, tending to absolute legalized robbery, both upon individuals and 

 the public. Under the construction given to this provision, the prac- 

 tice of the patent office in granting re-issues, has been, not to limit the 

 extent of the claim of the new patent to the invention appearing in 

 the original patent, or to be inferred from the specification annexed 

 thereto, but to enlarge it on ex-parte evidence to any additional extent. 



Superadd to this practice, the fact that the new patent so issued, is 

 to take effect, as to causes of action subsequently accruing, from the 

 date of the original patent, and is to be deemed evidence of the exis- 



