624 
The Pirates Sheet-Anchor, [September, 
Munich, on the other hand, obtains the same dye by the re- 
action of dimethyl-aniline, chloride of zinc, and the oil of 
bitter almonds. Thus when rightly considered the inven- 
tions of these two chemists, though relating to the same 
substance, were distinct. 
We may take another signal instance, which though be- 
longing to the sphere of scientific discovery rather than 
technical industrial invention, still illustrates the same 
principle. 
Not very long ago two eminent physicists, M. Cailletet 
and M. Pictet, succeeded almost simultaneously in condens- 
ing into a liquid state the permanent gases formerly so con- 
sidered. But here, again, though the end gained was 
identical, the means employed were distinct. In this manner 
close and intelligent scrutiny will be found to dispose of a 
very large proportion of the alleged cases of simultaneous 
invention. 
In another very numerous class of cases the simultaneity, 
or rather the invention altogether, is doubtful or spurious. 
There are a certain class of persons addicted to vague and 
aimless experimentation, whether chemical, physical, or me- 
chanical, on any subject that engages public attention. 
Twenty years ago they were “ messing about ” with aniline, 
napthaline, and phenol, and obtaining products which they 
had not the skill and the perseverance to purify. Five years 
ago they were deep in the mystery of roller-skates, and now 
the electric light has dazzled their minds with its brilliance 
and its future. When a real improvement is originated in 
the matter with which such muddlers are engaged, it is very 
easy for them to say, and perhaps to think, that they too 
had tried the very reaction or combination in question, and 
in a few more weeks’ or months’ time they could have 
brought their ideas to perfection. It is hard to disprove 
such assertions. Oftentimes a claimant of this stamp can 
even prove that at the time in question he was working with 
such or such substances. But all this generally falls far 
short of a demonstration that an invention identical with 
one just claimed in a patent has been independently and dis- 
tinctly originated by some other experimentator. It is very 
significant that these multiple or reiterated inventions arise 
only after some man of merit has paved the way. When 
Mr. Perkin brought out his original aniline violet no rival 
inventor complained of having been beaten by a neck. A few 
years later every fresh aniline dye became a bone of conten- 
tion between candidates for priorhy. 
Summing up the above considerations we find, therefore 
