Patents* 
witnesses into every petty court of the United States ; still the case 
requires a remedy, or patents will become a public evil of no slight 
magnitude. 
Some north-eastern speculator, I heard of lately, procured or 
pretended to have procured, a patent right for using stone coal in a 
blacksmith^s forge : on being taxed with the strangeness and use- 
lessness of such a patent, he replied “ no matter: it will be worth 
while for every blacksmith to give me a couple of dollars for a 
“ right rather than contest it with me.” It has proved a good spe- 
culation. I wish it were the only successful case of contributions 
levied on the public, by the bold speculations of patentees. 
I do not know of any other than two cases decided on patents 
in our American courts. 
The first case is the contested right of Messrs. Livington and 
Fulton, against Van Ingen and others to an exclusive privilege in 
New York state for the use of their steam boat, decided in 1812. 
By several acts of the assembly of New York state, an exclu- 
sive right was granted to Livingston and Fulton, to navigate the 
waters of that state by means of vessels propelled by steam. It 
appears that the appellants, Livingston and Fulton, did not arrogate 
to themselves the invention of the steam engine employed, or the 
means and method of applying k, so as to prqpel the vessels ; they 
claimed merely to be the p.ossessors of a method of applying the 
steam engine to propel a boat on new and advantageous principles. 
Fitch’s grant to navigate by steam, stood in the way ; but as Fitch 
had never made any attempt during ten years to put in execution 
his method of navigating by steam, it was (in my opinion rightly) 
considered as renounced and abandoned. This case is reported in 
9 Johnson’s Rep. 507, and Halls law Journal, V. 4. p. 169. 
Livingston and Fulton applied to the court of chancery for an 
injunction, against Van Ingen, which was denied by Chancellor 
Lansing, whose opinion was revised on error and overruled. I 
think rightly. 
The objections were principally, 1st. That the monopoly grant- 
ed by the state legislature of New York, was an infringement on 
the exclusive right of congress to grant patents. 2ly. That they 
infringed on the exclusive right of congress to regulate commerce. 
3iy. That the injunction ought not to be granted, inasmuch as the 
legislative acts had provided a remedy which the patentees were 
limited to pursue. 
The reply to the first ground was, that the powers of congress 
were to be construed strictly : they had power to grant patents to 
