Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

say that, notwithstanding the objections of the chairman of the Finance Committee, I will vote on this occasion or any other occasion to increase Mr. Hunter's salary; and I hope the honorable chairman will not object to it on this bill.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I will very thoroughly throughout, because it is irregular. There is no occasion for putting on here what belongs to the other bill. There is no reason why it should be put in here. He will get his money just as soon if we increase his salary on the other bill as on this.

Mr. SUMNER. The Senate seems not disposed to accept the proposition in the form in which I have presented it. I had thought that the form which is now on your table would on the whole be the most acceptable, and I thought also it was in harmony with what had been done with reference to the Treasury Department. I am to a certain extent corrected by the Senator from Maine in that respect, though the Senate will observe that the statement in the petition which has been read at the desk is to the effect that the clerks of the Treasury Department have had an increase of twenty per cent. on their compensation. That is the statement there. I confess I made no inquiry on that subject. I took the statement as it appeared in that petition, and I thought it advisable that what we did should be applicable to all the clerks in the Department of State; but Senators around me seem to think otherwise; I do not wish to have a division upon it; and therefore I will withdraw that proposition.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amend ment is withdrawn.

Mr. SUMNER. At the same time I thank my friend from California for the earnest support which he promises in advance to the amendment which I propose to substitute in its place;

and I thank the Senator from Maine for the good words which he has said in favor of the proposition practically; and I think I shall show in one minute that the objection of form which he makes does not apply. I will send, therefore, to the Chair this proposition, which, as it is in my own handwriting, I will read:

That the compensation of William Hunter, Esq.. chief clerk of the Department of State, be at the rate of $3,500 a year; and a sufficient sum is hereby appropriated for this purpose out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.

Mr. GRIMES. What is the salary now? Mr. FESSENDEN. Two thousand dollars. Mr. SPRAGUE. That is right.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Oh, no; it is too high. Mr. SUMNER. And now for the question of form; this amendment is to come in after section two, which is in these words:

That the President be, and he is hereby, authorized to appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, an officer in the Department of State, to be called Solicitor to the Department of State," at an annual salary of $3,000.

I

Mr. FESSENDEN. That is here now. Mr. SUMNER. I say that is here now; and say, because that is here now I put immediately after it the proposition with reference to Mr. Hunter. If this proposition with reference to the Solicitor is proper in form, on this bill, all the Senate will see that the proposition with reference to the chief clerk of the Department of State must be equally in form. There can be no objection to one, in point of form, which does not hold to the other.

Now, I am in favor of both propositions; and even if either proposition should seem to be a little out of the way, a little of a deflection from that straight line which the Senator from Maine likes to run with in all his appropriation bills, yet I think the goodness of the cause which he himself has so ably commended must induce him to forget for a moment the sternness of duty and to allow his bill to depart for a moment from that straight line which he likes so much to pursue. I think, therefore, the objection of form fails simply because in this very bill we have another proposition which has already passed the House of Representatives, which has passed the committee that the Sen

ator from Maine represents on this floor, which in point of form is identical with that which I now offer.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be read.

The Secretary read the amendment, which was at the end of section two to insert:

And that the compensation of William Hunter, Esq., chief clerk of the Department of State, be at the rate of $3,500, and a sufficient sum is hereby appropriated for this purpose out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.

Mr. GRIMES. Everybody agrees that Mr. Hunter is a very valuable public servant, and has been for a long time, and I suppose that everybody would be willing to recognize his services in making him proper compensation; but it seems to me the form of this is exceedingly objectionable. If we adopt this and specify to-day that such a sum shall be paid to William Hunter, as chief clerk of the Department of State, to-morrow some other Senator will get up and pronounce a eulogy on some other clerk of the Department, and propose to give him a higher salary.

Mr. SUMNER. When that is done we shall consider that case.

Mr. GRIMES. But we shall have our appropriation bills loaded down; that is exactly the way it will be done. It will be done whenever an appropriation bill comes up, and we shall be placed here in a very delicate situation. We shall be called upon to pass on the merits of men that we know, that we meet every day in social life, and whether we decide for them or against them will be considered according as we may vote.

Mr. CONNESS. There is not another case like this in the public service.

Mr. GRIMES. I am not certain of that. There are men who have been in the public employment here for forty years, and who have done labor just as assiduously, probably, as Mr. Hunter. They and their friends think so, at any rate. I move that the Senate adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

WEDNESDAY, May 16, 1866.

The House met at twelve o'clock m. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

RICHARD CHENERY.

Mr. McRUER, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill for the relief of Richard Chenery; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

SAFETY OF STEAMBOAT PASSENGERS.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, there is a bill which has been ordered to be reported by the Committee on Commerce in regard to the safety of passengers on steamboats. It contains very many important provisions which the public interests demand should be passed without delay. As I am compelled to be away after to-day, the committee have instructed me to ask that the bill shall be considered this morning.

It contains a provision in reference to nitroglycerine, a new and dangerous substance.

It also contains a provision in reference to crude petroleum. A construction has been given to the law which prevents the shipment of that article. The committee, after full examination, think there should be a modification of that ruling as it interferes with commerce in this most valuable product.

It is House bill No. 477, further to provide for the safety of the lives of passengers on board of vessels propelled in whole or in part by steam, to regulate the salaries of steamboat inspectors, and for other purposes.

The bill was read.

Mr. ANCONA. I ask whether the bill contains a provision regulating the compensation of pilots on the Ohio river.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Nothing whatever regulating the compensation of pilots.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. DAWES presented additional papers in the case of Fuller vs. Dawson; which were referred to the Committee of Elections.

CORRECTION OF THE JOURNAL.

Mr. DARLING. I rise to a question of privilege. I am recorded as not voting yesterday on the proposition to strike out the ninth section of the bill to amend the organic acts of the Territories. I never dodge. I voted in the negative on striking out that section.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk did not hear the gentleman's response. The Journal will be corrected.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. SCHENCK. Iam recorded as not voting on the proposition to strike out the ninth section of the territorial bill. The reason was that I happened to be absent. I was called out by a constituent. Had I been here I would have voted against striking out that section.

Mr. COBB. I, too, was absent when that vote was taken. I would have voted against striking out the ninth section. I was attending to my duties as chairman of the Committee on Enrolled Bills.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

The SPEAKER. The first business in order in the morning hour is the calling of the committees for reports, commencing with the Committee on Patents.

DELIA A. JACOBS.

Mr. MYERS, from the Committee on Patents, reported a bill for the relief of Delia A. Jacobs; which was read a first and second time.

The bill was read in full. It authorizes the Commissioner of Patents to extend the patent for an improved method of dressing tree-nails for seven years to Delia A. Jacobs, late Delia A. Fitzgerald, the original term having expired August 28, 1863.

Mr. TAYLOR. I call for the reading of the report.

Mr. MYERS. I will explain this in a few words. The bill is simply to correct an error that occurred in the Patent Office. An extension was refused on the supposition that certain testimony, showing that the extension was to inure to the benefit of the applicant, was not submitted. The Commissioner appeared before the committee and stated that the evidence was in his office at the time, but was not brought to his notice. We desire to correct that error and allow the extension.

Mr. TAYLOR. I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania when the patent expired.

Mr. MYERS. It expired August 28, 1863. The application, however, was made in due time. Further than that, there is a provision in the bill to prevent any injury accruing to others by the delay.

Mr. TAYLOR. I would ask whether other persons have not engaged in the business.

Mr. MYERS. It appeared fully that no other persons have been using this patent since its expiration. There is a general desire that this administratrix, who was the widow of the patentee, shall have the benefit of the extension.

Mr. TAYLOR. It seems that it is some time since the patent expired, and other parties may have engaged in the business.

Mr. MYERS. No other parties have engaged in this business, so far as the committee have been able to ascertain. There is, as I have stated, a general desire that the error occurring in the Patent Office should be corrected, and that this party should not suffer by it, the requisite testimony having been on file at the proper time.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I wish to say that from hearing the bill read I do not understand that any person who may have machines for doing this work, which were made during the period of time since the expiration of the patent, is authorized to continue the use of them.

Mr. MYERS. There is a provision incorporated in the bill that no parties shall be held to account for damages by such reason.

Mr. BOUTWELL. That is in the bill, undoubtedly; but there is no provision that people who have built machines while there was no patent shall be authorized to continue the use of the same without being liable. That is a well-recognized principle in such cases, and ought to be incorporated in this bill.

Mr. MYERS. I have no objection whatever to accepting an amendment of that kind, but I think it is already covered.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I then move to amend by inserting the words "or build or use machines."

Mr. MYERS. I now demand the previous question.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the amendment was agreed to, and the bill ordered to be engrossed and read a third time.

Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. I call for the reading of the report.

Mr. MYERS. There is a report, but it is lengthy, and to save time I will state the particulars.

Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. If the gentleman will yield a moment I will state my objections.

Mr. MYERS. I will yield.

Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. I understand that this case presents these facts: a patent was issued for an invention, which has expired, and the period allowed for an application for an extension of the patent has expired some years since.

Mr. MYERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. How long since?
Mr. MYERS. Two or three years.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I will ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MYERS] if this is the same bill that was rejected last year.

Mr. MYERS. Precisely the same bill which was before the House last year, and which failed because at that time the question asked by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. WASHBURNE] could not be answered for want of the necessary testimony before the committee. We now have that testimony.

Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. I wish to call the attention of the House to a practice which || I think is a fraud upon the people of this country. After these inventions have been brought before the public, and have probably become of great public utility, and have been enjoyed by the inventor for the period of time provided by the patent laws, the period of the patent expires. After that time, no notice of an extension having been given, the citizens of the country enter into the business of manufacturing the machines thus patented.

Mr. MYERS. If the gentleman will allow me a word, I think he need not pursue that line of argument any further. We have placed in the bill a provision for the protection of all persons such as those to whom he refers.

Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. For all persons who have machines?

Mr. MYERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. I go beyond that. I call attention to the fact that in many instances where patents have expired establishments have been put up for the manufac ture of the machines, involving the expenditure

of a large sum of money. They make a few
machines, and the use of those machines is
protected by this exception. But what is to
be done for the large establishments? Why
simply this: the renewal of the patent gives the
patentee an opportunity to go and levy black
mail upon every man making these machines,
or he must shut up shop and sacrifice a large
amount of money.

Mr. MYERS. If the gentleman will allow
me a word I think I can satisfy him on that
point. There was evidence before the com-
mittee that there was no party whatever who
had entered into this business.

Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. How search-
ing and general was your investigation?
Mr. MYERS. Enough to prove a negative-
pregnant, at all events.

Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. I have refer-
ence in my own mind to an invention in rela-
tion to plows, which expired some years ago.
The people of the West and of the country
generally entered into the manufacture of that
article. There were large shops erected for
that purpose.
Then comes up an application

for a renewal of the patent, and if the inventor
obtains the renewal he can go and levy black
mail upon all who are now engaged in the
business.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Does my
colleague refer to the Dundas patent for a
cultivator?

Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. Yes, sir.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The reissue is to go back to 1851, covering all improvements since then, and subordinating all agricultural interests to a few patent sharps.

Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. There is this case then a man invests money in this manufacture, and as soon as he gets a good start in it the inventor comes here and gets authority from the Commissioner of Patents to go back and levy black mail, and I am opposed to it.

Mr. MYERS. The gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. HARDING] could not have heard the state-
ment I made in regard to this matter. This is
the case where the administratrix, lately the
widow of the inventor, is applying to have a
mistake corrected which occurred in the Pat-

ent Office. The application was made in time,
but was rejected because certain requisite evi-
dence was supposed not to be there. But the
Commissioner of Patents reports to the com-
mittee that he made a mistake, that the evi-
dence was in his office. Even if all the ideas
of the gentleman in this case were correct this
lady would have the right to a rehearing.

But it was further shown that this lady now
is almost entirely supported by the little pit-
tance that has been given her during this in-
terim, as it was given her during the original
term of the patent, by William H. Webb and
James Udall, distinguished citizens of New
York, who obtained rights under the patent.

Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. I withdraw my remarks as far as they apply to the widow, but I stand by the general principle.

Mr. MYERS. The gentleman may have a weakness for widows; but I have a weakness for justice, and this is a just application.

Mr. TAYLOR. I desire to ask the gentleman one question, and that is this, whether or not this lady has not sold to other parties the interest which this legislation proposes to confer upon her.

Mr. MYERS. That was the very point upon which the application was rejected in the Patent Office; and the Commissioner of Patents now certifies that there was testimony in his office at the time, that the extension would inure to her benefit.

Mr. TAYLOR. I would like the gentleman to answer that question directly, whether or not this lady has any direct interest in this patent.

Mr. MYERS. Yes, sir; it is upon proof of that fact that the bill has been reported.

Mr. JENCKES. The concluding sentence of the bill answers the gentleman's question. Will the Clerk please read that?

The Clerk read as follows:

And provided, also, That the Commissioner shall be satisfied before granting the extension that it will inure to the benefit of said Delia A. Jacobs.

Mr. MYERS. I think that entirely meets the objection suggested by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. TAYLOR.] I now demand the previous question.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered, which was upon the passage of the bill.

On the question there were-ayes 62, noes 31. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, called for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 88, nays 31, not voting C4; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Ancona, Anderson, James M. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Barker, Benjamin, Bergen, Blow, Boutwell, Boyer, Bromwell, Bundy, Render W. Clarke, Conkling, Darling, Davis, Dawes, Delano, Denison, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eggleston, Eliot, Ferry, Finck, Garfield, Goodyear, Grider, Hart, Higby, Hogan, Holmes, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, James R. Hubbell, Jenckes. Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Kelso, Kerr, Ketcham, Kuykendall, Laflin, George V. Lawrence, Le Blond, Loan, Longyear, Lynch, Marston, McCullough, McKee, McRuer. Mercur, Miller, Moorhead, Morris, Myers, Niblack, Nicholson, O'Neill, Perham, Samuel J. Randall, Rogers, Scofield, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Strouse, Taber, Thayer, Trimbie, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Ward, Warner, William B. Washburn, Welker, Williams, Stephen F. Wilson, Winfield, and Woodbridge-88.

NAYS-Messrs. Alley. Allison, Ames, Bidwell, Brandegee. Broomall, Cobb, Cook, Cullom, Dawson, Deming, Eckley, Aaron Harding, Abner C. Harding, William Lawrence, Morrill, Paine, Pike, Plants, Price, Ritter, Rollins, Ross, Sawyer, Sloan, Spalding, Taylor, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, James F. Wilson, and Windom-31.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Delos R. Ashley, Baxter, Beaman, Bingham, Blaine, Buckland, Chanler, Sidney Clarke, Coffroth, Culver, Defrees, Dixon, Eldridge, Farnsworth, Farquhar, Glossbrenner, Grinnell, Griswold, Hale, Harris, Hayes, Henderson, Hill, Hooper, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, James Humphrey, James M. Humphrey, Ingersoll, Johnson, Jones, Latham, Marshall, Marvin, McClurg, McIndoe, Moulton, Newell, Noell, Orth, Patterson, Phelps, Pomeroy, Radford, William H. Randall, Raymond, AlexanderH. Rice, John H. Rice, Rousseau, Schenck, Shellabarger, Smith, Starr, Stevens, Stilwell, Franeis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Thornton, Trowbridge, Upson. Robert T. Van Horn, Wentworth, Whaley, and Wright-64.

So the bill was passed.

Mr. MYERS moved to reconsider the vote just taken; and also moved that the motion to

reconsider be laid on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to.

WILLIAM MANN AND JACOB SENNEFF.

Mr. MYERS, from the Committee on Patents, reported a bill for the relief of William Mann and Jacob Senneff; which was read a first and second time.

The bill, which was read at length, authorizes the Commissioner of Patents to hear and determine upon the application of William Mann for an extension of his letters patent dated July 11, 1852, which will expire July 11, 1866, and upon the application of Jacob Senneff for an extension of his letters patent dated January 13, 1852, which expired January 13, 1866, and to decide upon said applications with like effect as though the said applications had been duly filed ninety days before the expiration of said letters patent; and the Commissioner of Pat ents is directed to publish forthwith notice of said applications for the extension of said letters patent, with like effect as though said publication had been made sixty days before the expiration of said letters patent.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I hope the report will be read. Mr. MYERS. There is no report in these I will state very briefly the reasons for the applications.

cases.

In the case of Mr. Mann, he was in Europe, and was not aware that ninety days' notice must be given of the application for an extension. Sixty days yet remain before the expi ration of that patent. In the case of Jacob Senneff, he was in the Army, and therefore could not attend to the renewal of his patent. It is simply to allow the Commissioner to hear as though full notice had been given. One lacked thirty days of the time. the party being

abroad, while the other was in the service of the United States.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. It is the fault of the party if he went "swelling" through Europe.

Mr. MYERS. I never talk of the gentleman's swelling about when he takes his trips, but I think he is harsh in reference to these parties.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. What are these patents for?

Mr. MYERS. Mr. Mann's patent is for an improvement in copying paper, and Mr. Senneff's for an improved heddle.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. What is a heddle?

Mr. MYERS. A heddle is a part of a loom used in weaving, part of the harness.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I object to this practice of reporting bills without reports and asking them to be put at once on their passage.

Mr. MYERS. I think the objection of the gentleman from Illinois is captious. It does not matter what the patent is for, as we do not decide in reference to the extension of these patents. That is a question for the decision of the Commissioner of Patents. We have satisfied ourselves the statement is true that the parties did not know their patents were so near their expiration.

I will say that I was prepared this morning to report a bill for the relief of William Mann. The case of Senneff was added to the bill, and very properly, because it had been recommended by the Committee on Patents, but was absent when it was passed upon. Both are good cases and stand upon the same ground, and it is right they should be embraced in the same bill. I will yield to the chairman of the Committee on-Patents for a moment.

Mr. JENCKES. I wish to say a word about the patent of Senneff. It is a case addressed simply to the discretion of Congress. He was one of the persons who originated the Volunteer Refreshment Saloons in Philadelphia, to provide for soldiers passing to and fro through that city during the war, and afterward he entered the United States hospital service and was detained there during the time his application should have been made. He lost his chance of obtaining an extension of his patent because of his benevolence and patriotism. All that we propose is to give him a chance to make his application. His invention is an improvement in heddles, an ingenious arrangement for dividing threads in the loom.

Mr. DAWES. The gentleman from Pennsylvania did not say whether the patent had expired.

Mr. JENCKES. It expired in January,

1866.

Mr. DAWES. What is the condition of the parties who have invested their capital in looms since January?

Mr. JENCKES. All who have purchased since then are entitled to use them. It will refer to those only after the extension, if any extension be granted. There is also a limitation in the bill.

Mr. DAWES. If a reissue be granted does it not date back?

Mr. JENCKES. No, sir. The reissue of the patent will not give the patentee the authority to recover a dollar from those who have purchased since January. The committee were satisfied of that before they agreed to report the bill.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I understand this is to cover a case outside of the law which requires application to be made within ninety days. The application has not been made here, and these parties are only in the same condition with a hundred others. The parties have neglected to make application. Mr. JENCKES. They did not neglect to do so, and that is the reason why we have recommended the passage of the bill. These are exceptional cases.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. That is not a sufficient excuse.

Mr. MYERS. My friend from Illinois hav39TH CONG. 1ST SESS.-No. 165.

ing made his speech, I shall in a few moments call the previous question..

What I desire to say to the House, and I hope it will be listened to, is this: this bill authorizes the Commissioner to proceed to grant a hearing, not a rehearing, of the applications in the cases of these two patents just as though a notice of ninety days had been given. The error in the one case was that the party was in Europe, and there are still sixty days of the time remaining. In the other case the party was in the service of his country, and we report that he was not aware of the time when the letters patent expired,

Now, if this House votes against these two propositions it will be equivalent to saying that this soldier who has forfeited a few months' time shall not have the benefit of even applying for an extension; and in the other case that a worthy citizen who has been abroad, and who mistook the date of his letters patent by a month, shall not have a right even to be heard before the Commissioner of Patents. This bill only proposes to give that right. It trenches upon no rights of other parties. It simply allows a hearing, and does not decide the question of granting the extensions at all.

Mr. DAWES. I would ask the gentleman if he is quite certain that if we authorize by act of Congress a renewal to-day, as of January, of the other two patents which did expire in January, we shall not trespass upon the rights of other people. I suggest to him whether, as a safeguard, he had not better put a protective clause in the bill, unless the patent law is clear on that point.

Mr. MYERS. I have no objection to it. It so happens that I was not present at the meeting of the Committee on Patents when the application of Mr. Senneff was before them.

Mr. JENCKES. There is no objection to it. Mr. MYERS. To render assurance doubly sure we will put that in.

Mr. JENCKES. In accordance with the

suggestion, I move to amend by inserting the following:

But no person shall be held liable for damages for using or making said heddles after the expiration of the original term of said patent and before the renewal of the same.

Mr. MYERS. I now demand the previous question.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the amendment was agreed to, and the bill ordered to be engrossed and read a third time.

The question recurring on the passage of the bill

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, demanded the yeas and nays on its passage.

The yeas and nays were not ordered.

The bill was then passed-ayes 63, noes 31, Mr. MYERS moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved to lay that motion on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

THOMAS D. BURRALL.

Mr. BROMWELL, from the Committee on Patents, reported a bill for the relief of Thomas D. Burrall which was read a first and second time.

The bill was read in full. It authorizes the Commissioner of Patents to grant an extension for seven years to the petitioner for an improved corn-sheller, commencing with the expiration of the original term, December 6, 1866.

Mr. BROMWELL. The report is not very long, if the House desire to hear it read. I can state the substance of it.

Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. Let the report

be read.

The report was accordingly read. Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROMWELL. For a moment.

Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. For a moment! Mr. Speaker, I have heard for a good many years of this invention. Will my col

league inform me when it is claimed to have been made?

Mr. BROMWELL. In 1845.

Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. It is therefore twenty-one years of age. All this time it has been dragging its slow length along for a fortune in Illinois. It is of full age. Now, sir, while I do not wish to be discourteous to my colleague, nor to oppose any interest of his constituents, I do suggest to him with great respect that there are other constituents besides this inventor who are interested in this question.

Now, it is stated, I believe, in the report just read, that this claim or invention has been infringed upon by many machine makers in that State. At least I infer that fact. I will state to the House that there are very many machines invented in Illinois for shelling corn, and I believe some few in other States in the West, and the effect of this reissue will be that in all cases where these new inventions have infringed upon this indorsed and confirmed right there is to be a lawsuit or a settlement made by which a considerable amount of money will be extracted from those infringers. The interests of agriculture in the West are not so flourishing and so prosperous that this Congress should step in and take away the rights of the people for the benefit of an individual. And now a gentleman has declared upon the subject of renewing patents that he stands for justice; that he yields nothing to the presentation of the widow or the hospital cases that have just been passed.

Now here comes a suggestion that there is some old man in this case. These things have of course no weight with the House; they are not designed to have any; the gentleman stands sternly upon the ground of justice and demands of Congress that we shall recognize the rights of men. That is what I will always do; I never refuse to do it.

Now, I understand there is a contract between the Government and all men who will make useful inventions, by which they shall have the use and benefit of their inventions for a limited period of years; no more, no less. When that period runs out, then the invention belongs to the public; it becomes their property. Now, who knows but what if this man had not been fencing with this subject some smarter man in my district would have made a much better machine? It does not follow that because there is money in this thing it should be continued for that purpose. The invention, if there is anything in it, belongs to the public, and not to this individual.

A case has just been passed upon, where one man was in a prosperous hospital business, and another was abroad as a foreign minister or something of that kind. Now here comes a man who has been receiving large rewards for an invention during twenty-one years, and now he wants to continue the same business. Now

I am opposed to it upon the general principle that it is giving away the rights of the people to an individual, and to the lawyers and others who are to prosecute his rights against an oppressed people for the purpose of obtaining money without earning it, or being entitled to it by strict law. These are my sentiments.

Mr. BROMWELL. I now call the previous question.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered, which was upon the passage of the bill.

Mr. BROMWELL was entitled to the floor. Mr. DAWES. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment?

Mr. BROMWELL. Certainly. Mr. DAWES. I do not intend to make an indiscriminate warfare upon the renewal of patents; but I desire to make a discrimination between them, and put each one upon its merits. I understand this to be a bill to extend by act of Congress a patent which has already existed twenty-one years, not to refer it to the Commissioner of Patents for examination.

Mr. BROMWELL. The gentleman is mistaken; the bill provides that this patent shall be extended, if the Commissioner of Patents

upon a full hearing shall deem it proper to do so.

Mr. DAWES. Then in that respect I was misinformed; the bill is better in that regard than I had supposed. If the bill is passed, the case ought to be referred to the Commissioner of Patents.

But I wish to call the attention of the House to the reasons upon which this bill is based. As I understand, the reason is given that this is an old man who has not yet received any fair remuneration for his invention. Now, is there any reason shown why he has not yet received a fair remuneration? Has the committee given any good reasons for it?

A few days since the committee reported a bill proposing to refer to the Commissioner of Patents to decide whether a patent should be renewed which had been in existence for twentyone years. The ground upon which that bill was based was that during nearly all the last seven years of the patent, the patentee, from the character of his patent, had been deprived from receiving any benefit from it. His patent was one in relation to the production or preparation of cotton; and during the whole of the late war he was shut out from any use of it whatever, and had therefore made nothing from it. But the House on a full hearing of that case said by positive vote that that was no reason why the case should be referred to the Commissioner of Patents, and they refused to give the patentee an opportunity for a rehearing. I thought that was wrong; I thought it was hard. I asked the House to refer that case to the Commissioner of Patents; but the House concluded otherwise.

Now, I do not see any better reason, I do not see any good reason for referring this case

to the Commissioner of Patents. If my friend from Illinois [Mr. BROMWELL] will show me as good a reason in this case as I thought existed in the other case I would vote for it; for I do not stand up here to oppose all these cases indiscriminately. But I desire to see a good reason for extending any further a patent which has already existed twenty-one years.

I will listen to the gentleman from Illinois, and see if he can show any good reason why this bill should pass.

Mr. BROMWELL. I wish merely to say a few words in answer to my colleague from Illinois [Mr. HARDING] and to the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. DAWES.]

In the first place, as to the cotton press mentioned by the gentleman from Massachusetts, I think it is safe to say that the House never ⚫ did hear that question discussed, because there was so much noise in the House while the gentleman who reported the bill was trying to show the reason for the extension of that patent. I admit that there was more reason for the extension in that case than in this.

But with all due deference to my colleague's views touching the right of the public in these inventions, allow me to say that in all these cases some principle of equity must be, and doubtless will be, recognized by this Congress. Many of these inventors devote the best years of their lives to a struggle to perfect their inventions; and it is these inventions and improvements that have transformed this country from a wilderness into what it is. Many of the men who have brought forward the most valuable of these inventions have led lives of poverty and vexation and have died poor.

The period of fourteen years has been named in the law as being, in general, and all things considered, a proper time during which the inventor shall enjoy the exclusive benefits of his invention. But is this period never to be varied by any considerations of equity? What do these bills which have been brought forward propose? They propose that the officer whom the law has appointed to consider questions of this nature, a competent man with legal knowledge, shall, by means of a bill of this kind, have jurisdiction to hear and determine the question between the inventor and the public at large upon principles of common equity. Shall this be denied? If the Commissioner is not a man of sufficient

knowledge and judgment to hear such cases properly, then authorize the appointment of a chancellor for that office and let him hear such cases; for these questions resting on equitable considerations continually arise.

Now, sir, the committee did not report any of these bills until they had been satisfied that the cases were such as to call for such interposition. The case at present before the House is that of a man exceedingly old and exceedingly poor. His means, whatever they may have been, are completely exhausted. He has a son who has attempted to carry on the manufacture of these corn-shellers for the benefit of the old man. This is the only resource left for the support of that old man, after a life-time expended in efforts to perfect inventions, some of which have been valuable, but the term of which has expired, so that the public has now the benefit of them all.

This bill expressly protects the rights of every person who may, since the expiration of the patent, have been possessed of one of these machines. The bill can hurt no one. It is not necessary that the "watch-dog of the Treasury" should fight these bills. They seek to take nothing from the Treasury. The question simply is whether this Congress is willing that the officer appointed by the law to hear such matters shall be endowed with jurisdiction to do justice in certain cases in which the law, by reason of its generality, operates harshly.

I am not prepared to say that this case presents stronger claims than any other. On the contrary, I think that there have been before the House cases equally entitled to favorable consideration, and I have no doubt that such cases will come before us again. I know, indeed, that some such cases will be reported soon. But I think that in this case there are sufficient reasons to induce us to allow the Commissioner of Patents to hear the application and decide it as he deems right in view of the rights of the public and the inventor.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time and passed.

Mr. BROMWELL moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

MAIL SERVICE.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the Postmaster General, transmitting, in compliance with the act of Congress of July 2, 1836, abstracts of offers received, contracts made, and allowances made to contractors for additional services, &c.; which was laid on the table.

The SPEAKER. By the law of 1864, this document is not to be printed except by special order of the House.

TAX BILL.

Mr. MORRILL moved that the rules be sus

pended, and that the House resolve itself into

the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the special order.

The motion was agreed to.

So the rules were suspended; and the House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee DAWES in the chair,) and resumed the considof the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. eration of the special order, being a bill of the House (No. 513) to amend an act entitled "An act to provide internal revenue to support the Government, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes," approved June 30, 1864, and acts amendatory thereof. The pending section was as follows:

That section seventy-four be amended by striking out all after the enacting clause, and inserting, in lieu thereof, the following: that the receipt for the payment of any special tax shall contain and set forth the purpose, trade, business, or profession for which such tax is paid, and the name and place of abode of the person or persons paying the same; if by a rectifier, the quantity of spirits intended to be rectified; if by a peddler, whether for traveling on foot, or with one or two or more horses or mules, the time for which and the date or time of payment, and

(except in the case of auctioneers, produce brokers, commercial brokers, patent-right dealers, photog raphers, builders, insurance agents, insurance brokers, and peddlers), the place at which the trade, business, or profession for which the tax is paid shall be carried on: Provided, That the payment of the special tax imposed shall not exonerate from taxation the person or persons, (except lawyers, physicians, surgeons, dentists, cattle brokers, horsedealers, peddlers, produce brokers, commercial brokers, patent-right dealers, photographers, builders, insurance agents, insurance brokers, and auctioneers,) or firm, company, or corporation in any other place than that stated; but nothing herein contained shall prohibit the storage of goods, wares, or merchandise in other places than the place of business, nor the sale by manufacturers or producers of their own goods, wares, and merchandise, at the place of production or manufacture, and at their principal office or place of business, provided no goods, wares or merchandise shall be kept for sale at said office. And every person exercising or carrying on any trade, business, or profession, or doing any act for which a special tax is imposed, shall, on demand of any offcer of internal revenue, produce and exhibit the receipt for payment of the tax, and unless he shall do so may be taken and deemed not to have paid such tax. And in case any peddler shall refuse to exhibit his or her receipt, as aforesaid, when demanded by any officer of internal revenue, said officer may seize the horse, wagon, and contents, or pack, bundle, or basket of any person so refusing, and the assessor of the district in which the seizure has occurred may, on ten days' notice, published in any newspaper in the district, or served personally on the peddler, or at his dwelling-house, require such peddler to show cause, if any he has, why the horses, wagon, and contents, pack, bundle, or basket so seized shall not be forfeited; and in case no sufficient cause is shown, the assessor may direct a forfeiture, and issue an order to the collector or to any deputy collector of the district for the sale of the property so forfeited; and one half of the same, after payment of the expenses of the proceedings, shall be paid to the officer making the seizure, and the other half thereof to the collector for the use of the United States. And all special taxes imposed after the 1st day of May in any yearshall be paid for and until the 1st day of May next succeeding, and shall be the ratable proportion of the whole amount of tax imposed for one year, and estimated from the first day of the month in which such tax is imposed.

Mr. DELANO. I move to amend as follows:

In line eight hundred and fifty-six strike out the words "one half of," and in lines eight hundred and fifty-eight and eight hundred and fifty-nine strike out the words "to the officer making the seizure, and the other half thereof."

Mr. Chairman, as the section now stands the peddler making a forfeiture of his "traps" is liable to be condemned by the action of the assessor, and one half of the forfeiture is to go to the assessor. I propose the amendment for the purpose of striking at the whole system of bounties to informers who are themselves the assessors. I will read the general provision on page 130, which does not cover this case:

And provided further, That no collector, deputy collector, assessor, assistant assessor, revenue agent, revenue inspector, or other officer or person connected with the Treasury Department, or any of the branches thereof, shall be entitled to or receive or shall be interested in any share allowed to an informer under the internal revenue law.

I respectfully suggest to my distinguished friend, the chairman, that does not include this case; and to make the bill homogeneous the amendment should be adopted.

Mr. MORRILL. I had intended to make the amendment myself.

The amendment was agreed to.

The Clerk read the next paragraph, as follows:

That section seventy-five be amended by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting, in lieu thereof, the following: that upon the death of any person having paid the special tax for any trade, business, or profession, it may and shall be lawful for the executors or administrators, or the wife or child, or the assignee or assigns of such deceased person to occupy the house or premises, and in like manner to exercise or carry on, for the residue of the term for which the tax shall have been paid, the same trade, business, or profession, in or upon the same house or premises as the deceased before exercised or carried on, without payment of any additional tax. And in case of the removal of any person or persons from the house or premises for which any trade, business, or profession was taxed, it shall be lawful for the person or persons so removing to any other place to carry on the trade, business, or profession specified in the tax receipt at the place to which such person or persons may remove without payment of any additional tax: Provided, That all cases of death, change, or removal, as aforesaid, shall be registered with the assistant assessor, together with the name or names of the person or persons making such change or removal, or successor to any person deceased, under regulations to be prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

Mr. MORRILL. I move, in line eight hun

as

dred and seventy, to strike out the words " signee or assigns," and insert "legal representatives."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. DARLING. I move to go back to offer the following amendment:

Insert in line seven hundred and seventy-five, after the word "provided," the following:

The several rates hereinafter stated for business tax shall be assessed annually and in all cases wherein an additional amount is dependent upon the amount of his or their sales, such sales shall be registered monthly, and the additional tax shall be assessed and collected as in the case of tax upon manufactures.

Mr. MORRILL. I object.

The Clerk read the next paragraph, as follows:

That section seventy-six be amended by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting, in lieu thereof, the following: that in every case where more than one of the pursuits, employments, or occupations, hereinafter described, shall be pursued or carried on in the same place by the same person at the same time, except as hereinafter provided, the ⚫tax must be paid for each according to the rates severally prescribed: Provided, That in cities and towns having a less population than six thousand persons according to the last preceding census, one special tax may embrace the business of land-warrant brokers, claim agents, and real-estate agents, upon payment of the highest rate of tax applicable to either one of said pursuits.

Mr. MORRILL. I move to strike out the word "may," in line eight hundred and ninetyeight, and insert "shall be held to;" so that it will read:

One special tax shall be held to embrace the business of land-warrant brokers, &c.

The amendment was agreed to.

The Clerk read the next paragraph, as follows:

That section seventy-seven be amended by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting, in lieu thereof, the following: that no auctioneer shall, by virtue of having paid the special tax as an auctioneer, sell any goods or other property at private sale, or employ any other person to act as auctioneer in his behalf, except in his own store or warehouse or in his presence; and any auctioneer who shall sell goods or commodities otherwise than by auction, without having paid the special tax imposed upon such business, shall besubject and liable to the penalty imposed upon persons dealing in or retailing, trading, or selling goods or commodities without payment of the special tax for exercising or carrying on such trade or business; and where goods or commodities are the property of any person or persons taxed to deal in or retail, or trade in or sell the same, it shall and may be lawful for any person exercising or carrying on the trade or business of an auctioneer to sell such goods or commodities for and on behalf of such person or persons in said house or premises.

Mr. MORRILL. I move to strike out the word "or," in line nine hundred and six, and insert the words "nor shall he;" so that it will read :

That no auctioneer shall, by virtue of having paid the special tax as an auctioneer, sell any goods or other property at private sale, nor shall he employ any other person to act as auctioneer in his behalf, &c.

The amendment was agreed to.

The Clerk read the next two paragraphs, as follows:

That section seventy-eight be amended by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting, in lieu thereof, the following: that any number of persons, except lawyers, conveyancers, claim agents, patent agents, physicians, surgeons, dentists, cattle brokers, horse dealers, and peddlers, doing business in copartnership at any one place, shall be required to pay but one special tax for such copartnership.

That section seventy-nine be amended by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting, in lieu thereof, the following: that there shall be paid, annually, on the 1st of May, or on commencing any trade, business, or profession, a special tax, as hereinafter stated, respectively, that is to say.

Mr. MORRILL. I move to strike out all after the word "following" in the last paragraph, and insert in lieu thereof these words: That a special tax shall be, and hereby is, imposed as follows, that is to say.

The amendment was agreed to.

The Clerk read the next two paragraphs, as follows:

1. Banks chartered or organized under a general law with a capital not exceeding $50,000, and bankers using or employing a capital not exceeding the sum of $50,000, shall pay $100; when exceeding $50,000, for every additional thousand dollars in excess of $50,000, two dollars. Every incorporated or other bank, and every person, firm, or company having a place of business where credits are opened by the

deposit or collection of money or currency, subject to be paid or remitted upon draft, check, or order, or where money is advanced or loaned on stocks, bonds, bullion, bills of exchange, or promissory notes, or where stocks, bonds, bullion, bills of exchange, or promissory notes are received for discount or forsale, shall be regarded as a bank or as a banker under this act: Provided, That any savings bank having no capital stock, and whose business is confined to receiving deposits and loaning or investing the same for the benefit of its depositors, and which does no other business of banking, shall not be subject to this tax. 2. Wholesale dealers, whose annual sales do not exceed $50,000, shall pay fifty dollars; and if exceeding $50.000, for every additional thousand dollars in excess of $50,000, one dollar. Every person shall be regarded as a wholesale dealer under this act whose business it is, for himself or on commission, to sell or offer to sell any goods, wares, or merchandise of foreign or domestic production, not including wines, spirits, or malt liquors, whose annual sales exceed $25,000. And the special tax to be paid by any wholesale dealer shall not be estimated on a less amount than his sales for the previous year, unless he has made or proposes to make some change in his business that will, in the judgment of the assessor or assistant assessor, reduce the amount of his annual sales; nor shall the payment of the special tax as a wholesale dealer exempt any such person acting as a commercial broker from the payment of the special tax imposed upon commercial brokers: Provided, That any tax understated may and shall be again assessed; and no person paying the special tax as a wholesale dealer in liquors shall be required to pay an additional special tax. on account of the sale of other goods, wares, or merchandise on the same premises: And provided further, That in estimating the amount of sales for the purposes of this section, any sales made by or through another wholesale dealer on commission shall not be again estimated and included as sold by the party for whom the sale was made.

Mr. MORRILL. I move to strike out the word "exceeding," in line nine hundred and fifty-five, and insert the words "their annual sales exceed;" also, to insert before the word one,

66

Gentlemen who are acquainted with the business will understand that the profits of one are about equal to the profits of the other, and the wholesale dealer can well afford to pay two dollars on $1,000 of sales during a year.

Mr. MORRILL. As the present bill is one mainly reducing the tax, I hope we shall not adopt the amendment proposed. For one I am disposed to allow the people of the United States to have all the goods they may have occasion to consume at the lowest possible rate, and a tax imposed in this form would necessarily enhance the price.

The CHAIRMAN. Debate is exhaused on the amendment.

Mr. PRICE. I move pro forma to make it $1 50. I want to show the fallacy of the argument of the gentleman. He proposes to give the people cheap goods. Will he tell me how much more a man will have to pay for a yard of muslin which is usually retailed at twenty-five cents when the wholesale dealer has to pay an additional dollar tax on a thousand dollars' worth of goods? It would be going a little further with infinitesimal arithmetic to get at that result than I am able to cipher.

Mr. MORRILL. As a matter of experi ence, we know that our city horse railroad companies put on a whole cent extra to cover a tax of one eighth of a cent. And when we put on a tax of six cents on a ton of coal, there was not a single instance where the price did not immediately rise at least twenty-five cents. And so it has been in a great many other in

stances. "in the next line, the words "they shall pay;" so that it will read:

And iftheir annual sales exceed $50,000 they shall pay one dollar.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL. I move to insert after line nine hundred and fifty-six the following:

And the amount of all sales within the year beyond $50,000 shall be returned monthly to the assistant assessor, and the tax on sales in excess of $50,000 shall be assessed by the assessors and paid monthly as other monthly taxes are assessed and paid. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL. It is now necessary to strike out after the word "and" in line nine hundred and sixty-two, down to and including the word "shall" in line nine hundred and sixty-seven, and to insert the word "shall" in line nine hundred and sixty-eight; so that the clause will read :

And the payment of the special tax as a wholesale dealer shall exempt any such person, &c.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL. I move further to strike out after the word "that," in line nine hundred and seventy-one, down to and including the word "and," in line nine hundred and seventy-two; so that it will read:

That no person paying the special tax as a wholesale dealer in liquors shall be required to pay an additional special tax, &c.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HUBBARD, of Iowa. I move to strike out line nine hundred and thirty-four to nine hundred and forty inclusive, and to insert in lieu thereof:

All banks chartered or organized under a general law shall pay $100.

Mr. MORRILL. I raise the point of order that we have passed that paragraph.. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair sustains the point of order.

[ocr errors]

one

Mr. PRICE. I move to strike out dollar" in line nine hundred and fifty-six and insert two dollars;" so that it shall read: Wholesale dealers, whose annual sales do not exceed $50,000, shall pay fifty dollars; and if their annual sales exceed $50,000, for every additional thousand dollars in excess of $50,000, they shall pay two dollars.

The object of the amendment is this: in the section immediately preceding we make banks and bankers pay two dollars for every additional thousand dollars over $50,000. This section proposes to make wholesale dealers pay one dollar on a thousand on their sales above $50,000.

This tax takes the place of a license. Some large wholesale dealers now pay seventy or eighty thousand dollars a year in the form of a license or special tax. I think it is enough.

Mr. PRICE. I withdraw the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. EGGLESTON. I move pro forma to make it $2 75. I wish my friend from Iowa [Mr. PRICE] would withdraw his amendment. So far as the business classes of the community are concerned they are not only taxed once and twice but in many cases five and six times. And now the gentleman proposes where a man sells more than $50,000 that he shall pay a tax of two dollars on every thousand dollars, or double the rate proposed in the bill. It applies to all commission merchants, all brokers, all classes of men who sell property which has been consigned to them. Take a firm that sells at one half per cent. commission. In the first place you make them pay a license and then you tax them on the sales. You will tax the business out of existence. I say that one dollar is high enough. I withdraw my amendment to the amendment.

The question recurring on the amendment of Mr. PRICE, it was disagreed to.

The Clerk read the next paragraph, as follows:

3. Retail dealers shall pay ten dollars. Every person whose business or occupation it is to sell or offer for sale any goods, wares, or merchandise of foreign or domestic production, not including spirits, wines, ale, beer, or other malt liquors, and whose annual sales exceed $1,000 and do not exceed $25,000, shall be regarded as a retail dealer under this act.

Mr. BALDWIN. I move to amend by adding the following:

Provided, however, That when the annual sales of a retail dealer exceed $25,000, for every additional thousand dollars in excess of $25,000 he shall pay one dollar.

As the law now stands, and as it has heretofore been executed, a retail dealer who sells $25,001 is charged as a wholesale dealer and required to pay a license of fifty dollars. That seems to me unreasonable and unjust. It seems to me more just and reasonable that retail dealers should be graded in this way, so as to pay a dollar for every additional thousand dollars, rather than to be required to pay fifty dollars for a wholesale license because their sales barely exceed $25,000.

Mr. MORRILL. I hope the amendment will not prevail. It is necessary to make some line of demarkation between a retail dealer and a wholesale dealer. At whatever point

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »