146 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. 



Mve patents have been issued for different combinations with Paris 

 green. In 1868 Mr. J. P. Wilson, of Illinois, took out a patent (No. 

 82468) for one part of Paris green and two of mineral paint to be used 

 to kill potato-bugs. In 1871 Mr. Lemuel Pagin, of Niles, Mich., claimed 

 a mixture (patent No. 112732: Paris green, 2 pounds; rosin, 2^ pounds; 

 gum arabic or slippery-elm, J pound; wheat-flour, 5 pounds; middlings, 

 1 bushel) for the same purpose. In 1873 Mr. G. F. Whisenant, of Chapel 

 Hill, Texas, obtained a patent (No. 134959: Paris green, J pound ; arsenic, 

 1 pound; lime, 26 pounds, and flour 5 pounds) for destroying caterpillars 

 on cotton. In the same year Mr. William B. Royall, of Brenham, Tex., 

 •obtained patent for the same purpose (No. 140079, June 17, 1873), the 

 ingredients being Paris green, 1 pound; cobalt, 2 ounces; flour, 17 

 pounds; powdered gum tragacanth, 3 ounces ; powdered licorice root, 6 

 ounces; and subsequently still another (No. 151439, May 26, 1874: Paris 

 gre^n, 1 pound ; flour, 4 pounds ; cotton-seed meal, 16 pounds) for the 

 substitution in part of cotton-seed meal for ordinary flour. 



Eegarding these patent mixtures it must be borne in mind that the 

 value of Paris green with some diluent as an insecticide had been widely 

 made public before any of them were issued, and we can but repeat our 

 previously expressed opinion* that ^4t is to be regretted that patents 

 ■can be obtained at all for remedies of this nature after they have become 

 generally known and rightfully belong to the public. When the dis- 

 coverer of such a remedy does not see fit to patent it, no one subse- 

 sequently has a moral right to, whatever speculative right he may pos- 

 isess. Fortunately, in this case the patentees cannot interfere with the 

 public rights, and it is be to hoped that no planter, either of potatoes 

 or cotton, will be induced by flaming circulars and threats to pay even 

 one cent per thousand acres, much less the demanded $20 per 100 acres, 

 for the privilege of using these patented mixtures. The very fact that 

 «o many patents have been granted for the same purpose, all of them 

 having Paris green as a base, shows clearly that the patent covers only 

 the particular combination. By ringing the changes i)n the difierent 

 proportions of the several ingredients, a thousand of these patent rem- 

 edies may be obtained; and any one who diverges but a fraction from 

 the particular patented combination ceases to infringe upon it. It will 

 therefore be utterly impossible for the patentees to enforce the penalty 

 for infringement without proof that precisely the same ingredients and 

 combination as patented were used; and to get such proof will, I take 

 it, be no easy matter; for were it, we should hear of hundreds of thou- 

 sands, of prosecutions where now we hear not of a single one." 



Experience has justified this advice; for, while immense sums ha^ e 

 been paid by planters to some parties for the right to use Paris green 

 mixtures, the patentees have been unable to get protection from the 

 courts whenever they have sued for infringement in the independent 



* Sixth Kep. Ins. Mo., 1873, p. 21. 



