Opinion of the Court.

a throat formed between the upper and lower faces of the swinging bar D D', and that the springs or links which connect said bar to the end rail are attached to the bar at the edge opposite to that at which the woven wire enters the throat, and in about the same horizontal plane, so that the tension of the parts tends to maintain the bar in a substantially horizontal plane, thus presenting a suitable surface adapted to support the mattress without undue wear upon any portion of its lower surface. So, also, constructing the bar in such manner that it is adapted to receive a hook formed of one of the convolutions of the springs E facilitates the employment of such springs as they are usually found in the market, this result being best obtained by the employment of a strip of metal for one part of the bar D D'; but we do not wish to be limited to the use of metal for that purpose. One advantage which is due to the use of wood for this bar is the fact that its yielding and elastic nature permits attachment of the spring-wire of which the fabric C is formed, and the vibrations of the bar, when in use, without breaking their attached ends.

"By the use of the springs and swinging bars the great strain upon the woven fabric which is required in beds of other construction may be dispensed with, because the springs may be made of such strength as will permit the fabric to be supported with comparatively little tension upon it when the bed is not sustaining any weight except that of the bedding, the springs preventing undue sagging of the fabric when the weight of a person is thrown upon it.

"We do not wish to be limited to any particular description. of springs for connecting the swinging bar or bars with the bedstead, or with the supporting frame shown in Fig. 2, as many other forms of springs might be employed without departing from the spirit of our invention.

"Whenever in this patent we use the word 'bed-bottom' or 'bed' we wish to be understood as meaning either a removable construction, like that shown in Fig. 4, which is adapted to be made and sold as an article of manufacture, separate and apart from the bedstead with which it is to be used, or a construc tion adapted to be attached directly to the end rails of an

Opinion of the Court.

ordinary bedstead, our invention being equally adapted for use upon either of such constructions."

The claims are three in number, as follows:

"1. In a bed-bottom, the combination, with an end rail, of the links or springs, the section of woven-wire fabric, and an intermediate connecting transverse bar, provided upon one edge with a throat adapted to receive the ends of a wire, and upon the opposite side with means for attaching the links or springs, substantially as described.

"2. In a bed-bottom, the combination, with the end rail, of the links or springs, the section of woven-wire fabric, and an intermediate connecting bar consisting of a part to which the fabric is attached, and a part adapted to protect the mattress from contact with the ends of the wire, substantially as set forth.

"3. In a bed-bottom, the connecting rail consisting of the part D, of wood, to which the fabric is attached, and the part D', of metal, adapted to have the end of the springs E attached thereto, substantially as set forth."

The opinion of the Circuit Court says: "The essential feature of the invention consists in attaching the woven-wire fabric to a swinging cross-bar, which in turn is suspended by helical springs from the end rails of the bedstead. The patentees assert that by this arrangement are secured all the advantages of a swinging bed - elasticity, durability, and resiliency - while sagging in the centre and the sudden jerky motion. common in some bed-bottoms are avoided." It then recites the first two claims, and proceeds: "Every element of the combination covered by these claims was concededly old and well known at the date of the patent. Woven wire had been used for more than twenty-five years as a fabric for bedbottoms. It had been stretched from end rail to end rail and fastened by means very similar to that described in the patent. Bed-bottoms made of canvas, cord, sacking, and jointed links attached to 'swing-bars' had been suspended by helical springs in analogous combinations. If, for instance, a fabric of woven wire were substituted for the canvas of the Loomis structure, it would probably be an exact anticipation of the

Opinion of the Court.

complainant's combination." The "Loomis structure" thus referred to is the structure described in letters patent No. 101,029, granted March 22, 1870, to George W. Loomis, for an improved spring bed-bottom. The specification and drawings of the Loomis patent show a bed-bottom which has an intervening, vibrating, connecting swing-bar, the office of which is the same as in the plaintiff's patent, namely, to connect the web with the helical springs. The bed-bottom has a web of canvas, an intervening connecting bar, and helical springs. The web of canvas is fastened at both ends to the wooden swing cross-bars, which are attached to helical springs on the opposite sides.

The opinion of the Circuit Court then proceeds: "Is there patentable novelty in this change? It is thought not. If the patentees had been the first to introduce woven wire into the art, there would be more difficulty in reaching this conclusion, but they were not. All that they did was to suspend a fabric well known as a bed-bottom in substantially the same manner that other fabrics used for that purpose had been suspended. If the patentees, instead of using woven wire had used some other woven fabric-woven twine or tape, for example—if their claims had included carpet or rubber cloth instead of woven wire, it will hardly be contended that they would be entitled to take rank as inventors. Why, then, should the use of woven wire give them this distinction? Its peculiar advantages above referred to as a material for beds were not discovered by them. The idea of swinging a bed-bottom was not theirs. They have substituted one well-known material for another and nothing more."

The court also said that the same material had been fastened to the rigid end rails by similar devices, and that the changes made by the patentees were only those which would occur to a mechanic who had skill enough to adapt the heavy and cumbersome joint to the new circumstances.

We concur with the Circuit Court, and its decree is

Affirmed.

Statement of the Case.

EARNSHAW v. CADWALADER.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 348. Argued April 29, 1892. Decided May 16, 1892.

Under schedule C of § 2502 of the Revised Statutes, as enacted by § 6 of the act of March 3, 1883, c. 121, (22 Stat. 497,) iron ore was charged with a duty of 75 cents per ton, and that duty was assessible on the number of pounds of iron ore reported by the United States weigher, and not on the ore after the moisture was dried out of it.

THIS is an action at law, brought in January, 1888, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, by John W. S. Earnshaw against John Cadwalader, collector of customs for the district of Philadelphia, to recover $71.61, as an alleged excess of duties exacted by the collector on three importations of iron ore, made in February and April, 1887, by the plaintiff, into the port of Philadelphia, from Porman, Spain. The case was tried before a jury, in October, 1888, who rendered a verdict for the defendant, and he had a judgment, to review which the plaintiff has brought a writ of error.

The iron ore was dutiable under Schedule C of § 2502 of the Revised Statutes, as enacted by § 6 of the act of March 3, 1883, c. 121, (22 Stat. 497,) under the provision imposing a duty as follows: "Iron ore, including manganiferous iron ore, also the dross or residuum from burnt pyrites, seventy-five cents per ton." The plaintiff seasonably paid, protested, appealed and brought suit. The form of his protest as to each of the three importations was the same. The collector imposed a duty of 75 cents per ton on the number of pounds of iron ore reported by the United States weigher. The protest stated that the importer claimed that the collector erred in exacting duty on the full weight reported by the weigher, and that the importer paid the same under protest, "because the importation is dutiable as merchandise which is described as iron ore' in act of

Statement of the Case.

March 3, 1883, chapter 121, sec. 6, Schedule C, and 'iron ore' was and is understood among dealers in and consumers of such iron ore in this country to refer and did refer to iron ore in the condition of dryness in which it is sold in trade, which condition of dryness is usually ascertained in tradé by subjecting the iron ore to a temperature of 212° Fahrenheit; but you have levied the rate of seventy-five cents per ton on my importation when mixed with, and the weight increased by, a considerable per cent of water, thereby making me pay, in violation of law, that rate of duty on water, because the iron ore of commerce, to which the said tariff law applies, is iron ore in a dry state-i.e. free from water not chemically combined and because, although the method of ascertaining the amount of such mechanically mixed moisture is well known, easily applied, and actually used between buyers and sellers of such ores in this country, you have refused to ascertain the true taxable weight of the iron ore of this entry in this or any other way, or make any allowance for such mechanically and accidentally combined moisture, in ascertaining the weight."

The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that samples, representative of the whole mass, were taken by three different samplers, on the arrival of the different cargoes, which samples were delivered to two chemists, in the same condition as taken, in order that the amount of moisture mechanically present, and the amount of metallic iron, might be ascertained. The plaintiff then introduced evidence tending to show that the cargoes of iron ore so imported contained water mechanically present, and not chemically combined with the ore, and claimed that such water was not subject to duty as "iron ore." Evidence was given as to the quantity of such water; and there was no dispute as to the propriety of the method of ascertaining it, which was to dry the samples at the heat of 212° Fahrenheit, and thus expel the water or moisture mechanically present, without having any effect on the chemical ingredients of the ore.

The plaintiff asked the court to rule that "the term 'iron ore,' in its ordinary meaning, does not include water which is mechanically present and not chemically combined with