Am.  Jour.  Pharm. 
July,  191S. 
Product  Patents. 
519 
products  of  mechanical  or  physical  methods ;  but  it  makes  the  fourth 
class,  the  composition  of  matter,  look  like  the  remnants  of  the  shell- 
shot  cathedral  at  Rheims,  with  patentability  hanging  on  by  an  eye- 
lash. It  is  not  abolished — not  all  of  it;  just  most  of  it.  Some  com- 
positions will  be  patentable  and  some  not — those  whose  pedigree 
is  in  any  way  tainted  with  the  "  chemical."  A  little  chemistry  will 
damn  a  thing  quite  as  effectually  as  a  great  deal  since  courts  will  not 
draw  distinctions  between  much  and  little,  that  being  purely  a 
"question  of  degree."  The  alibi  of  the  guiltless  inventor  would 
have  to  be  absolute,  and  there  might  be  some  difficulty  of  proving 
it  in  the  absence  of  any  universally  accepted  definition  of  "  chemi- 
cal." At  present  neither  I  nor  anybody  else  can  write  an  impeccable 
definition  of  the  word,  one  which  would  stand  fire  in  court.  I  do 
not  even  know,  for  example,  whether  dissolving  sugar  in  water  is  a 
"  chemical "  process. 
Shifting  the  anathema  to  "  chemical  compound  "  does  not  help 
any,  since  if  a  chemical  compound  is  something  resulting  from  chem- 
ical action  (which  is  as  good  a  definition  as  any)  we  come  out  the 
same  hole  we  went  in,  with  the  additional  burden  of  defining  a 
"  compound."  In  a  general  way  I  know  what  a  compound  is ;  we 
all  do.  It  is  a  body  composed  of  two  or  more  elements  united  in 
definite  proportions,  which,  however,  is  just  as  true  of  type  metal 
as  of  aniline;  or,  for  that  matter,  of  any  good  uniform  grade  of 
cast  iron. 
I  fear  me  that  any  attempt  to  sort  out  the  chemical  goats  from 
the  physical  sheep  in  the  composition  of  matter  class  would  prove 
like  the  task  of  hunting  polar  bears  in  purgatory — "  apt  to  be  ardu- 
ous in  detail  and  disappointing  in  result."  There  are  too  many 
hybrids,  goatish  sheep  and  sheepish  goats.  It  would  be  simpler  to 
abolish  the  whole  class  at  one  fell  whack.  But  I  do  not  understand 
anybody  wants  to  do  this.  So  far  as  I  understand,  the  chemist  is 
the  only  chap  it  is  meant  to  ostracize ;  and  even  he  may  escape  if  he 
does  not  have  intelligence  to  know  what  is  happening  when  he  stews 
two  things  together. 
Despite  the  present  popularity  of  class  legislation,  being  a  hide- 
bound Republican  I  do  not  like  it;  and  as  a  chemist  I  object  to  being 
the  class  if  the  legislation  is  discriminatory  against  me.  To  deprive 
the  chemist  of  his  reward  for  his  labor  by  taking  away  his  "product  " 
claim  (whatever  that  "product"  claim  may  be)  is  the  same  to  him 
as  depriving  the  machinist  of  his  claim  to  his  machine  or  the  weaver 
