Aueust 13, 1897.] 
waged over the disputed originality of in- 
vention of the high explosive ‘ cordite,’ Mr. 
Hiram Maxim, one of the contestants, and 
one in whom his fellow-countrymen in the 
United States feel much interest, is, for the 
time at least, defeated. Referring to this 
important case, one of the English technical 
journals, Industries and Iron, makes the fol- 
lowing remarks: “The appeal of the 
Maxim-Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition 
Company against the judgment delivered by 
Mr. Justice Wright in the Cordite case has 
been, as was generally anticipated would 
prove to be the case, against the appellants. 
The judgment of the Court was couched in 
somewhat uncompromising language, and 
it is doubtful whether the Maxim-Norden- 
felt Company will consider it advantageous 
to carry the matter any further. Although 
the Court is no doubt perfectly right in its 
definition of the nature of the invention 
comprised in Mr. Maxim’s patent, as against 
that of Sir Frederick Abel and Professor 
Dewar, none can deny the fact that Mr. 
Maxim was the undoubted pioneer in 
smokeless powders as we now know them, 
and it will be conceded by most that the 
recent decision involves a certain degree of 
hardship. Mr. Maxim’s invention of a 
smokeless powder was not an accidental 
discovery ; he was forced into the course of 
the investigation he took up by the necessity 
of procuring a powder which would be 
suitable for the rapid-firing gun which he 
had invented. He found that the use of 
the ordinary powder practically destroyed 
the utility of his gun, by surrounding it 
with such clouds of smoke that it was im- 
possible to take aim. Mr. Maxim then de- 
liberately set himself to the purpose of pro- 
ducing a powder which should be almost, 
if not altogether, smokeless. In this he 
was absolutely successful, and he has only 
shared the fate of many other inventors in 
seeing the fruits of his invention taken away 
from him through legal technicalities.’ 
SCIENCE. 
251 
A FOREIGN exchange makes the following 
very unequivocal statement relative to our 
later systems of procedure in the Patent 
Office. A recent change in the law pre- 
vents any such delay, whether intended or 
otherwise on the part either of the holders 
of the patent or of the officer of the Patent 
Office: ‘‘ The amazing circumstances which 
characterized the issue of the Berliner 
patent, to which is due the controlling inter- 
est in the United States of the Bell Tele- 
phone Company, have been paralleled by 
the well-known Bradley patents, which are 
now creating a good deal of stir among the 
manufacturers of aluminium and carbide of 
calcium. In the former case, the patent 
lay in the Patent Office for a period of no 
less than thirteen years before it was form- 
ally issued to the public. The Bradley 
patents were similarly interred for nine 
years before they were resurrected for the 
purpose of being used against the Pittsburg 
Reduction Company. It must be a gratify- 
ing reflection to those interested in patents 
and inventions in the United States that 
the singular course of procedure suggested 
by the foregoing instances will not be 
allowed to characterize the American Patent 
Office much longer. On January next the 
new regulations come into force, by which 
it is enacted that the issue of a patent shall 
be compulsory within a certain definite 
period from the date of application ; and, 
under these circumstances, it seems likely 
that the familiar legend ‘Patent applied 
for’ on American manufactures will shortly 
become effete.”’ 
TR, JEL, IU 
SCIENTIFIC NOTES AND NEWS. 
In view of the International Congresses of 
Geology and Medicine, meeting in Moscow dur- 
ing the present month, the tenth meeting of 
Russian men of science and physicians, which 
was to have been held at Kief during the same 
month, has been postponed until 1898. 
THE President of the local executive commit- 
