i879-] 
The Pirate's Sheet-Anchor. 
625 
that one class of inventions is confessedly single in its origin; 
that in another the simultaneity of origination is only appa- 
rent ; and that in a third it is spurious or doubtful. Thus, 
contrary to the view stated by Professor Rogers, a mere ex- 
ceptional minority remains, where, save in point of time, a 
second person has an equal claim to the authorship of the 
invention. But even as regards this minority, the argument 
under examination proves nothing. Let us suppose that two 
chemists had independently and simultaneously effected the 
combination of atmospheric nitrogen with hydrogen so as to 
produce ammonia and ammoniacal salts at a greatly reduced 
cost. Let us further assume that each had arrived at this 
result by exadtly the same process. In such a case the 
honour would fall equally to both. The beneficial interest 
in the invention, in default of omniscient patent-commis- 
sioners, falls to the one who first took date by petitioning 
for letters patent. This arrangement may not agree with 
the dictates of ideal equity, but is probably as near an 
approximation as is possible in human institutions. That 
A has completed an invention in January, and that B has 
independently originated the same invention in February, 
can certainly never justify C — the pirate, or idea stealer — in 
saying that it is therefore the property of neither. The 
“ accident of priority,” if accident it can be legitimately 
termed, is in many cases the very point upon which admitted 
property hinges. The mere fadb that E is the eldest of the 
sons of D ensures his succession on the death of D to the 
real estate of the latter. Nor is the existence of primo- 
geniture ever advanced as a reason why land should not be 
regarded as property. 
In the case of islands or regions previously unknown, 
priority of discovery, registered by hoisting the national 
flag, has always been considered as giving the title to 
possession. Suppose that two ships, commissioned by dif- 
ferent powers, were each in turn to discover one and the 
same guano island, no one would contend that the second 
discoverer was in any way “ prejudiced ” or entitled to call 
in question the right of his anticipator. Still less would it 
be argued that, because the island had been independently 
discovered by the vessels of two powers, it could become 
the property of neither. 
A case still more closely analogous is afforded by the 
mining laws and customs of certain districts. Two or more 
persons may independently and almost simultaneously have 
become aware of the existence of an unclaimed and un- 
wrought vein of tin or copper ore. But it becomes the pro- 
2 R 2 
