the requirements of a treaty stipulation came within their province.

Let me, however, to illustrate, put an additional question, growing out of that instance, to the honorable Senator from New Hampshire. Suppose in that treaty Russia had said that she would quiet all titles, as in a certain sense she did say, which her citizens might have, or rights in the fisheries, and suppose interchangeably the United States had said that if any American, squatter or otherwise, asserted any claim there, that should be extinguished, would the honorable Senator say that because that treaty had been consummated, if some citizen came here with a grievance saying, "I am one of those cut off by this treaty stipulation; I am one of those deprived of what I otherwise might have had; and therefore I ask recompense from my superior, from my Government, which has overslaughed my rights," would the honorable Senator say that an appropriation to ratify such a claim would be in pursuance of a treaty stipulation, controlled and provided for by it, so as to fall within this rule? Certainly he would not say that. What would he say? He would say, "Upon general principles of ethics, upon general principles of good faith between the Government and the citizen, here is a question of recompense arising which ought to be investigated; and if it is true that the Government, in its march toward this treaty, has trodden down the rights of a citizen, the Government will pause and stoop and repair those rights which she has incidentally injured or destroyed." That is what he would say; but he would not say that it was subject to a treaty stip ulation, controlled and provided for by it. Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. The Senator asks me a question. I would say that the treaty could not be carried out in full until the party by whose authority these grants were to be made good had purchased the right of the party possessing it previously.

Mr. CONKLING. If it is put upon that ground, that runs into a discussion of the merits of this case; and when we come to them I think the Senator will need all his ability and ingenuity to vindicate the propositions, first, that the State of Maine owned this disputed territory, the object of the treaty being to determine whether she did or not; and, second, that the State of Maine as a State, or the people of Maine as a community, had a right to interpose and say, "We arrest the execution of this treaty; it is not completely executed until we release our citizens." I think both of these propositions will need as able a defense as my friend can give.

Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. And to dispute them successfully will need all the genius my friend from New York possesses. I think the treaty cannot be successfully carried out until the Government pays the State of Maine for private property it took from her for the purpose of consummating the treaty, and it could not have consummated the treaty, could not have secured the assent of the commissioners of Maine and Massachusetts until it had agreed to do that. It is of the very essence of the treaty and of justice itself that this Government should come up and meet the obligation which it laid itself under when it made the treaty.

Mr. DAVIS. I think the view taken of this matter by the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Maine is obviously right. I take it to be a plain proposition whether a treaty stipulation on the part of the United States shall be executed or not; and I think that this appropriation of money is certainly plainly and unquestionably in the course of the execution of the stipulation in the Ashburton treaty. This matter has been up before the Senate repeatedly, and the only doubt upon my mind heretofore was on a very different point. I had no doubt that the territory ceded from the State of Maine to the United States was from 1783 within the limits of the State of Massachusetts; and the doubt in my mind was whether a treaty could be formed at all

between the United States Government and a foreign Government that would deprive a State of any portion of its territory. But when the United States stipulates to make good the title to the ceded country to Great Britain-and this can only be done by procuring the consent of the State of Maine and the consent of the citizens of the State of Maine who owned the land that was ceded-I cannot conceive the least difficulty in assuming the position that an appropriation to pay for that land is an appropriation in execution of a treaty. I do not think there is any room for doubt at all.

I think it is in two senses a proper proposition for appropriation. In the first place, the treaty is the supreme law of the land, and is made so by the Constitution itself. In that sense the treaty is the law of the land; and this being in the course of the execution of the treaty is necessarily in the course of the execution of the law. I do not think there can be any reasonable doubt about the proposition that this is a plain proposition to appropriate money in the execution of a law of the United States, and is not proscribed by the rule of the Senate which is relied upon to have that effect.

Mr. SUMNER. I wish to make one other brief observation. It seems to me that the rule of the Senate should not be extended

beyond its natural import and signification. It is a rule in restriction of the business of the Senate and in restriction of the rights of Senators. It should, therefore, be construed literally, so as to restrict as little as possible. Now, I insist, that in the absence of any specific phrase in this rule applicable to a State, the rule cannot be applied to the claim of a State. I insist that the claim of a State, in the view of Congress and of its rules, can be in no sense a private claim. I may be wrong in that; but I cannot see the point otherwise. But, sir, I will say nothing more,

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is the amendment under the thirtieth rule of the

Senate in order?

The question being submitted, it was decided in the affirmative-ayes twenty-five, noes not counted.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now is on agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. BUCKALEW. Mr. President

Mr. SHERMAN. As the Senator from Pennsylvania desires to speak on the amend ment, and I wish to have a short executive session, I will submit the motion.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. CLINTON LLOYD, its Chief Clerk, announced that the House had passed the following bills, in which it requested the concur rence of the Senate:

A bill (H. R. No. 910) for the relief of the grantees of Ann D. Durding;

A bill (H. R. No. 1131) regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases for the protection of officers and agents of the Government, and for the better defense of the Treasury against unlawful claims;

A bill (H. R. No. 1344) to confirm certain private land claims in the Territory of New Mexico;

A bill (H. R. No. 1343) to confirm the title to certain land to the Pueblo of Santa Ana, in the Territory of New Mexico; and

A joint resolution (H. R. No. 321) in relation to the erection of a bridge in Boston harbor.

The message also announced that the House had passed the following bills of the Senate:

A bill (S. No. 166) for the relief of the owners of the land within the United States survey No. 3217, in the State of Missouri; and

A bill (S. No. 469) confirming the title to a tract of land in Burlington, Iowa.

BILL INTRODUCED.

Mr. CONKLING asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 584) relating to the finding of indictments in the courts of the United States in the late

rebel States; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed.

AMENDMENTS TO APPROPRIATION BILLS.

Mr. FOWLER and Mr. HARLAN submitted amendments intended to be proposed to the bill (H. R. No. 818) making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1869, and for other purposes; which were referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

EXECUTIVE SESSION.

Mr. SHERMAN. I now move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

The motion was agreed to; and after some time spent in executive session, the doors were reopened at five o'clock, and the Senate took a recess till half past seven o'clock p. m.

EVENING SESSION.

The Senate reassembled at half past seven o'clock p. m.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a letter from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting a copy of a communication from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, asking an appropriation for the purpose of paying the extra and temporary clerks that are absolutely necessary to carry on the business of the Indian Bureau for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1869; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

He also laid before the Senate a letter from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting a copy of a communication from the disbursing clerk of that Department, relative to certain reductions from the amounts estimated for in the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation bill, now pending before Congress; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED.

The following bills, received from the House of Representatives, were severally read twice by their titles, and referred to the Committee on Private Land Claims:

A bill (H. R. No. 1343) to confirm the title to certain land to the Pueblo of Santa Aña in the Territory of New Mexico;

A bill (H. R. No. 1344) to confirm certain private land claims in the Territory of New Mexico; and

A bill (H. R. No. 910) for the relief of the grantees of Ann D. Durding.

The bill (H. R. No. 1131) regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases for the protection of officers and agents of the Government and for the better defense of the Treasury against unlawful claims was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The joint resolution (H. R. No. 321) in relation to the erection of a bridge in Boston harbor was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

HOUSE ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. There is a resolution from the House of Representatives which, on my motion, was laid on the table a few days ago, in regard to the Assistant Librarian of the House. I am desired to ask for the present consideration of it, and I move to take it up.

The motion was agreed to; and the joint resolution (H. R. No. 312) relative to the pay of the Assistant Librarian of the House was considered as in Committee of the Whole. It provides that for the present Congress, commencing therewith, the Clerk is directed to pay from the contingent fund of the House, to the Assistant Librarian in charge of the Hall Library, the difference between his present pay and the pay of the file, printing, and engrossing clerks.

The joint resolution was reported to the Senate, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

COLONEL JAMES A. MULLIGAN.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of House bill No. 1129.

The motion was agreed to; and the bill (H. R. No. 1129) for the relief of the widow and children of Colonel James A. Mulligan, deceased, was considered as in Committee of the Whole. The preamble to the bill recites that James. A. Mulligan, on the 15th of June, 1861, was mustered into the service of the United States as colonel of the twenty-third Illinois infantry, known as the Irish Brigade, marched to the front in July, 1861, and from that time, excepting two months when a prisoner of war, was actively engaged in the military service of the Republic against armed rebels until he fell on the battle-field of Winchester, on the 26th day of July, 1864; that during two years of that military service he was assigned to the command of brigades and divisions, and performed the duties of brigadier and major general, but only received the pay of a colonel; that his widow and children are justly entitled to, and need for their support, the amount of pay which he would have received if he had been commissioned according to his respective commands in the field. In consideration of the premises the bill proposes to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to Marian Mulligan, widow of Colonel James A. Mulligan, the sum of $5,000, out of the money appropriated for the pay of the Army.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. President, there is a report accompanying this bill which I do not know that it is necessary to read. I will, however, make a statement in reference to the case.

The report briefly sets forth the facts of the case, and closes without any recommendation, leaving it to the judgment of the Senate whether the bill shall pass. The Committee on Claims took this course, not because they doubted the propriety of the bill, but because they feared that those having other cases might not discriminate them although radically distinguishable from this, and that this might thus be held as a precedent.

The circumstances of the claim are these: Colonel Mulligan was a promising young lawyer of Chicago, of Irish descent. Early in the rebellion he enlisted in the cause of the country and succeeded in raising a regiment, principally of Irishmen, eight hundred strong, and with the colors of the Union and the Irish flag floating together in his ranks he marched out of Chicago. He was given the command of Lexington, in Missouri; and there, with a force of twenty-five hundred men, resisted for a number of days an army of ten thousand rebels commanded by General Price; and he only surrendered when his men were fainting for the want of water and after he had fired his last cartridge. His skill and bravery on that occasion attracted the notice and admiration of the country, and Congress passed a vote of thanks to him and directedLexington" to be inscribed on his colors.

Three years after this, in 1864, he fell at Winchester, mortally wounded. His brotherin-law, the brother of his widow, a youth of about twenty years, came to his rescue, and he was shot down. There is an incident connected with General Mulligan's death which is worth recording. As his aids gathered around him to carry him from the field he used these words, Lay me down and save the flag;" and those words have entered into the melodies of the country;

But in all this I do not know that the case is distinguishable from that of many other officers and soldiers who have bravely fallen before the flaming line of battle and left nothing but a legacy of sorrow and penury to their families. Colonel Mulligan's case is distinguishable from others, however, in this, that early in the rebellion by his enthusiastic adoption of the cause of the country at a most critical period he gave direction to the sentiment of the foreign element of this country, and thereby secured for us many valuable soldiers; and to-day the fact

that those of foreign birth will fight the battles of this country has no insignificant influence on our relations with foreign countries; and 1 think it is eminently proper and wise that we should pay a tribute to that sentiment by conferring a benefit upon the widow and children of him who is a representative man.

Besides all this, Colonel Mulligan did not perform the duties of a colonel, but for three years he discharged the duties of a brigadier general and of a major general; and the difference between his pay as a colonel and that of brigadier general during the period is $6,700; and all that is asked is $5,000. And he stands, too, upon the roll during this whole period as a brigadier general, that commission having been conferred-upon him at his death; and I may also observe that he was offered a commission as brigadier general and refused it because of his honorary obligations to his regiment to remain their colonel. Now, sir, that case may safely be made a precedent. If any officer of the Army has discharged the duties of a brigadier general through his whole course, if he stands upon the roll commissioned as a brigadier general, no matter when the commission was given him, and if he was actually tendered such a commission and refused it, let him receive the pay of a brigadier general. There is now and then a case where it is wise to act from our first generous impulses rather than from cold economical calculations; and this is one of those cases. I might go on and say that Colonel Mulligan expended all his property for his country; but as we are only asking the pay of a soldier and not charity, I do not think it necessary to enter into these considerations.

We cannot now by our action reach him; he has nobly done his work and gone to his rest; but we can benefit those who were dearer to him than self by performing an act of generous justice.

Mr. YATES. Mr. President, I do not propose to add anything to what has been so well and so eloquently said by the Senator from New Jersey, but I rise simply to say that General Grant has recommended that this appropriation be made, and to state another fact connected with the biography of Colonel Mulligan. He presented himself at the office of the Governor of Illinois with his regiment, but so many troops offered themselves there that many had to be declined. So anxious, so persistent was he in his desire to enter the service, that he procured letters from Mr. Douglas, he came on to Washington, and got the consent of the President, Mr. Lincoln, to raise his regiment. All that I have to say is that he is one

of the noblest men in the memory of the people

of Illinois. He was one of the first to enter the service at the head of his Irish regiment, and he afterward commanded a brigade, and then commanded as major general. At the siege of Lexington he rendered service which, as the Senator from New Jersey well remarks, the country remembers with joy and gratitude. I sincerely hope that this bill will pass by a unanimous vote.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

MARTHA M. JONES.

Mr. THAYER. I move to take up House bill No. 780, for the relief of Martha M. Jones, administratrix of Samuel T. Jones.

Mr. WILLEY. That is a bill which comes from the Committee on Patents, and it involves questions of a great deal of interest to the community. I understand from the Senator from Nebraska that he proposes to object to the amendment reported by the Senate Committee on Patents, and to insist on the passage of the bill as it came from the House of Rep resentatives. The report was prepared by the Senator from Connecticut, [Mr. FERRY.] The papers connected with it have been in his hands ever since the report was made. It is a case in which he has expressed to me a good deal of interest. It is a case which he has exam

ined very thoroughly. Certain facts obtained by myself from the Patent Office since the report was made to the Senate, bearing very materially, as I conceive, on the merits of the case, were placed by me in his hands. He is not here to-night. I understand that he has probably gone home. That is the best information I can get in respect to him. The matter was acted upon in the committee two or three months ago, and I have partially forgotten the facts. I only recollect the case from a very distinct conviction that I had that the report of the committee recommending the amendment proposed was right, and that the bill ought not to pass as it came from the House of Representatives.

I submit to the Senate whether, under these circumstances, when the Senator from Connecticut, having charge of the bill, who has the evidence in his possession, is not here, the bill should be taken up. I can say that the bill involves very considerable interests, either belonging to the persons desiring this action on the part of Congress or to the community at large, for investments have been made in the manufacture of the article patented, and it seems to me but just to the community that the matter should be thoroughly investigated and thoroughly heard before the Senate. This investigation has been particularly made by the Senator from Connecticut. He has the facts in his hands, and the evidence in his possession, and I know not where to procure them. He is not here now, and I submit to the Senate whether, under the circumstances, it is proper to take up for consideration the case in his absence.

Mr. CONNESS. I happened, sir, yesterday, as I do every day, to be seated by the side of the honorable Senator from Connecticut, now absent. He had this bill upon his desk and was very anxious to get it up. I chatted with him in regard to it, and I said to him, "We will take it up, Mr. FERRY, and act upon it while you are absent, just as well as when you are here." He did not develop any feeling, I believe, or any disposition particularly in regard to it, and I hope we shall take up the bill and act on it.

Mr. THAYER. There has been an understanding between the Senator from Connecticut and myself that he would bring up this bill at the very first opportunity. We have spoken daily about it for several days past, and i tried to get the floor yesterday and the day before yesterday for the purpose of bringing up this bill, but failed to do so. To-day was the first time when I succeeded. I had no knowledge of the absence of the Senator from Connecticut to-day when I made the motion for an even

ing session for the purpose of acting on this

bill. I do not know now that he has left the city, but I have observed, my attention being called to it by the chairman of the Committee on Patents, the Senator from West Virginia, or by his asking me if I knew where Mr. FERRY was, that he is not in his seat. If he was about to leave the city for a number of days it certainly was due to myself and to the Senate that he should have notified me if he wanted the bill to be delayed until his return.

Mr. POMEROY. It is so near the close of the session that I think the absence of a Senator is not sufficient reason for delaying the consideration of a bill.

Mr. WILLEY. Whether the Senate take up the bill or not I believe it my duty to submit the case to them, having a distinct and unequivocal conviction that this bill ought not to pass as it came from the House of Repre sentatives. Having submitted the whole-matter to the Senator from Connecticut, it being understood that he was to take it in charge, and having placed all the evidence in his possession, I am not prepared in his absence to take it up. After the Committee on Patents, upon investigation, have reported an amendment and suggested their opinion to the Senate, that the bill as it came from the other House ought not to pass, I submit whether it is fair to the Senator from Connecticut, and fair to

the country, that the matter should be investigated here, when it cannot be fully heard.

I know, sir, that I have not merely to encounter the Senate; I could get along well enough with that, humble as I am; but there is a lady in the case, and a very highly intelligent and accomplished lady, too, as every Senator on this floor can, from his personal knowledge, testify, I have no doubt.

I have stated the case to the Senate; I have stated that I am not prepared to investigate the subject at this time. I stand here only with my conviction distinct and unequivocal that when the committee did investigate it I came to the conclusion that the bill as it came from the House of Representatives ought to be amended. The Senator from Connecticut had the papers placed in his hands, and made the report; and after it was made I furnished him with additional evidence which I procured from the Patent Office. Where it is now I know not. With this statement made to the Senate, if they see proper to take up the case in the absence of the Senator from Connecticut, and in the absence of evidence which I tell the Senate I do know has a material bearing on the case, they can do so.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Nebraska, to take up the bill for consideration.

Mr. WILLEY called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 28, nays 4; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Davis, Drake, Edmunds, Fessenden, Fowler, Hendricks, Howe, Johnson, McCreery, McDonald, Morrill of Maine, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Vickers, Williams, and Yates-28.

NAYS-Messrs. Harlan, Morgan, Wade, and Wil

ley-4.

ABSENT-Messrs. Bayard, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Dixon, Doolittle. Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Howard, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Norton, Osborn, Patterson of Tennessee, Rice, Ross, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, and Wilson-25.

So the motion was agreed to; and the bill (H. R. No. 780) for the relief of Martha M. Jones, administratrix of Samuel T. Jones, deceased, was considered as in Committee of the Whole. The preamble to the bill recites that the Commissioner of Patents did, on the 23d of February, 1866, upon the petition of Martha M. Jones, administratrix of the estate of Samuel T. Jones, deceased, extend for the period of seven years, from the 24th of February, 1866, the letters patent of the United States granted to Samuel T. Jones on the 24th of February, 1852, for an invention in the manufacture of the white oxide of zinc, for which invention letters-patent had been granted unto him by the Government of Great Britain on the 23d day of July, 1850; and that doubts exist as to the power of the Commissioner to grant the extension after the expiration of fourteen years from the date of the foreign letterspatent. And the bill proceeds to the extension of the letters patent of the United States for the term of seven years from and after the expiration of fourteen years from the date of the foreign letters-patent to be valid and binding, and the power of the Commissioner to make it is in all respects confirmed, and the letters patent are hereby declared to be, and to have been, by force of the certificate of extension thereon indorsed, duly extended for the period of seven years from the 23d of July, 1864; but this act is not to operate during the period between the date of the English patent and the date of the original American patent.

The Committee on Patents and the Patent Office proposed to amend the bill by striking out the following words, in lines thirteen, fourteen, and fifteen, that this act shall not operate during the period between the date of the English patent and the date of the original American patent,'' and in lieu thereof to insert:

That all persons who enjoyed the lawful use of the invention secured by said patent during the original term thereof may continue to use the same without. liability therefor, as if this act had not been passed;" and no person shall be held liable for uslug said invention after the expiration of the original term of the patent and before the approval of this act.

Mr. WILLEY. Now, sir, I shall have to do the best I can. There is a report in the case which I should be glad to have read. It may refresh my recollection.

The Chief Clerk read the following report, made by Mr. FERRY, from the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office:

The Committee on Patents and the Patent Office, to whom was referred the petition of Martha M. Jones, praying for confirmation of a certain patent for an invention in the manufacture of white oxide of zinc, respectfully report:

That the petitioner is the widow and administratix of Samuel T. Jones, deceased, who was the inventor of a certain process for the manufacture of white oxide of zine. That the said Samuel T. Jones, in his lifetime, on the 23d day of July, 1850,obtained letterspatent in England for said invention, and afterward, on the 24th day of February, 1852, obtained also letters-patent for the same in the United States, both which patents, according to the laws of the United States, expired on the 23d day of July, 1864. That said Samuel T. Jones died in the year 1858, and no effort was made to obtain an extension of said patent by his administratrix till 1866, when the Commissioner of Patents no longer had jurisdiction of the case, and when the right to use the said invention had fully vested in the public, and was extensively enjoyed by manufacturers and others in different parts of the Union. The reason of the omission of the administratrix to apply for an extension at an earlier period was her ignorance of the existence of the English patent, but the committee are of opinion that her misfortune in this respect does not entitle her to defeat the rights lawfully acquired by those engaged in the manufacture and use of this article after her patent had ceased to exist. The Commissioner of Patents, in 1866, being also in ignorance of the existence of the English patent, granted an extension of the American patent, which extension is utterly void from want of jurisdiction in the Commissioner at the date thereof, Your committee are willing, however, to give validity to the said extension from the expiration of the original patents in such a manner as not to defeat the lawfully acquired right of other parties, and therefore recommend the passage of the House bill, amended by striking out the proviso at the end thereof and inserting in lieu of the same the following:

Provided, That all persons who enjoyed the lawful use of the invention secured by said patent during the original term thereof may continue to use the same without liability therefor as if this act had not been passed, and no persons shall be held liable for using said invention after the expiration of the original term of the patent and before the approval of this act.

Mr. WILLEY. If the Senate have paid attention to the report, if they have been able to divest themselves of the fascination that surrounds them, to cut themselves loose from all female influence, they will see that the ing that which was invalid and not binding; original bill proposes to render valid and bindder the circumstances and under the influence and not merely to do that. The committee, unbrought to bear upon them, were willing that that should be done, provided that in doing so we did not violate the vested rights of capitalists who had invested their capital in the manufacture of this article between the expiration of the English patent, and the extension of the American patent. Senators, by referring to the law, will find that where a patent is issued abroad, where there is a foreign patent, and there is an American patent taken for the same invention at home, the American patent, it is provided, shall relate back to the date of the issue of the foreign patent, and shall run fourteen years from the date of the foreign patent and not from the date of the American patent. seems that in this instance, as the report alleges, but as subsequent evidence filed with the Senator from Connecticut goes very far to show cannot by any possibility be the case, this administratrix was ignorant of the fact that there was a foreign patent at the time she applied for an extension of the American patent; and hence the American patent expiring nearly two years after fourteen years from the time of the issue of the foreign patent, the application for the extension was not made by the administratrix until time enough, as provided lic property. The extension was void at the by law, had elapsed to make the invention pubtime this extension was made. She got the extension of the American patent two years after the expiration of fourteen years from the date of the foreign patent.

It

She brought suit to recover a royalty, or applied for an injunction to prevent the infringement of her patent. Meantime it was discovered that there had been a foreign patent

issued, and her counsel became apprehensive that the extension of the American patent was void, and that she must wholly fail; and hence you will see the language of the original bill is to make that valid which in point of fact was supposed to be invalid, the extension having been from the expiration of the American patent instead of from fourteen years after the date of the English patent. To remedy this defect this bill was passed by the House of Representatives; but it comes to the knowledge of the committee of the Senate that capitalists in New Jersey and in other sections of the country who appeared by their counsel before the committee had in the mean time invested largely their capital in the manufacture of this article, and that if this bill passed as it came from the House the result would be that the administratrix of Mr. Jones, under the ratification of this extension, would be coming back on these innocent men for her royalty and for damages for the infringement of the patent. We thought it unjust under the circumstances that she should be allowed to do so, but that men who in this interregnum between the end of fourteen years from the expiration of the foreign patent and the time of the extension of the American patent should be allowed to carry on their business without detriment, and that all manufacture of the article by any person whatsoever during this time should not be held responsible.

Why, sir, what is the result? There was no valid patent; they could not be held responsible without this action of Congress; there was no patent to infringe. But here Congress is applied to to pass a law that relates back behind the time of these supposed infringements and renders men guilty for doing that which was innocent at the time they did it, renders that illegal against which there was no law, declares that they shall be held liable for the infringement of a patent which at the time they invested their capital in the manufacture of this article did not exist, for there was no such valid patent; and it is to remedy that defect that the bill comes from the House of Representatives, and it is to prevent this injustice that the Senate committee recommend the adoption of the amendment.

Now, let us look at this thing. The Senate has got something to decide here; the Senate stands upon its obligations not only to this lady, but upon its obligations to the country. The public interests are involved in this matter. Here is an important article entering largely into the convenience of the country, largely into the manufactures of the country. It enters into the welfare of the people at large. Every man's house, more or less, derives the benefit of it as it enters into the various kinds of paint that are manufactured in the land. The policy of all just Government is against monopolies; but to encourage inventions Congress has seen fit in its wisdom in time past to say that a party, to indemnify himself for the expenses of an invention, to repay himself, shall have a monopoly of it for fourteen years, and Congress by the law heretofore existing has also said that if the inventor shall not by due diligence have realized sufficient out of his improvement to indemnify himself for the value of it and for his expenses in putting it into operation, he may, by showing those facts before the Commissioner of Patents, have an extension for seven years longer.

Will the Senator allow

Mr. HENDRICKS. me to ask him a question? Mr. WILLEY. Yes, sir; as many as you please.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Does it appear from the evidence that the investments were made by the manufacturers whom the committee seek to protect by the amendment after the expiration of the British patent, with a knowledge of that fact, and with a knowledge of the fact that no renewal could be had?

Mr. WILLEY. My recollection, I will say candidly, is that the knowledge of the exist ence of the British patent never came to the parties who have invested their capital in the

manufacture of this article until since suit was brought.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Then I wish to ask the Senator if it does not appear that they made their investments at a time when they supposed the American patent had not expired, and when they knew that, according to law, if that were the case, she would have a right to a renewal?

Mr. WILLEY. Some of them, I suppose, did so. The difficulty is that I cannot pretend to state the evidence precisely; as I stated to the Senate, the conviction on my mind is distinct and unequivocal, but I have not a memory of the distinct, naked facts as they exist, only of the conclusion to which an examina tion of the facts at that time brought my mind. During this interval, as I understand, there are some persons who commenced the manufacture of this article; and those most largely engaged in it have, since the expiration of fourteen years from the date of the British patent, very much enlarged their operations and increased their capital, which is tantamount to having commenced the business within that time, to that extent at any rate but that is aside from the remarks which proposed to make. I know that anything that I can say here has no effect; but I believe I owe it to the country, as chairman of the Com. mittee on Patents, however hopeless and thankless a task it is, to discharge my duty; and I am going to do it, and I want the facts to go to the country.

Now, sir, what are the facts? It was the duty of the Commissioner under the law, when application was made for the extension of this patent, to inquire first, is it a novel invention; second, is it a useful invention? Granting these two facts-for I suppose it is true that the invention was both novel and useful-then comes the material consideration; in the third place, did the patentee derive from his monopoly, during the fourteen years, adequate compensation to indemnify him for his time and trouble and expense? How could there be any fair investigation of that fact before the Commissioner of Patents, when the party applying for the extension either did not know, or, if she did know, sedulously concealed from the Commissioner, the fact that pari passu with the American patent she had a patent existing in Great Britain, and not a cent of account is given for anything realized out of the foreign patent, in order to ascertain whether the party had been indemnified for the invention or not? I went to the records-I wanted to see that fact-and I recollect distinctly that the papers show that not a whisper was made at the time this party was making her application before the Commissioner for the extension of the patent of the existence of the foreign patent, and it is the material inquiry-it is the most material inquiry in all investigations of this character-to see whether the party has had an adequate compensation for the invention, and whether a useful invention may not be enjoyed by the country at large and not by monopolists, who, after having received ample and adequate compensation for a useful invention, may still lay a charge and a royalty on the business of the country at large. Sir, the policy of this country is op. posed to it, and so distinctly has this impression been made on the mind of Congress and the country that a few years ago the authority to extend a patent was utterly repealed, and the law now stands that the patentee may enjoy his monopoly for seventeen years, and there shall be no further application for an extension; it shall stop then unless he comes to Congress and shows some grounds, or the estate happens to fall into the hands of an accomplished and fascinating lady.

Now, Mr. President, can Senators say here that this party has not had an adequate compensation for this improvement? Can they tell me what the compensation was at all? Sir, I cannot tell what the compensation was for the American patent, because the Senate has excluded me from access to the evidence

by considering the case now while the evidence is shut up in the desk of an absent Senator, and the Senate is here about to decide on the question and say that this party has not had adequate compensation even at home, when it has not one jot or tittle of evidence on which to base its conclusions, and it is to say that the Commissioner, too, was justified in coming to his conclusion when he had no evidence and no knowledge of the fact that at the time or shortly before this application for extension in this country the party had had, for I do not know how many years, a patent in Great Britain, from which, for aught any Senator | can say, for aught I can say, the patentee may have realized hundreds of thousands of dollars, amply sufficient to compensate him. And now, sir, under the fascinating influence of an accomplished lady, the Senate cannot wait a few days until we can get the evidence to see how that fact is; and if it were to wait a month no evidence would come in regard to how much compensation was received from the foreign patent. And after Congress has given the country to understand that it would protect the public interests from monopolies hereafter, to the extent of providing that they shall not run twenty-one years, as heretofore, but only seventeen years, and without any knowl edge of how much compensation this estate has received even in this country, to say nothing of the foreign compensation, we are in such hot haste to fasten this monopoly upon the industries and interests of the country that we cannot wait a few days until we can get the evidence and have a fair hearing of the

case.

cle of evidence to show how much compensa. tion the party received from the monopoly abroad. Now I will ask the Senator this question: whether he can say, if the receipts of the foreign patent had been brought into the account it might not have appeared that the inventor had received an ample compensation? Can he say that it would not appear?

Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, of course not being upon the committee I cannot answer any question of the sort; but I would suggest to the Senator whether the right to the use of the invention in this country ought not to be continued for the benefit of the patentee, provided its use and enjoyment in this country had not resulted in a profit, although the citizens of a foreign country may have used the patent to an extent that made it valuable there?

Mr. WILLEY. I say no, sir.. The object, and the only object, in granting this monopoly is to grant indemnity to the party for his invention, to give him an opportunity of using it so long as shall be necessary to enable him to repay himself. It is a contest between the individual monopoly of the inventor and the people at large; and the policy of the law is that when the party has been sufficiently indemnilied for the value of his invention and his trouble in putting it into use and operation, then his monopoly ought to cease, and then the country ought to get the benefit of it. That is all that any inventor could ask; and this party comes into the Senate here in the questionable shape of saying that she has not received a due compensation for the invention of her husband, when she gives no account of the compensation that she received abroad, and when there is no intimation that there was an invention abroad. Why, sir, if I had the evidence here I should like to go into the inquiry whether in point of fact there has not been some sharp practice in this matter. My short experience in regard to these applications for the extension of patents and maneuvers of management that have come to my knowledge in relation to them, has made me very suspicious, and has inspired me with a determination to be very careful, so far as I can, to the extent of my humble abilities, that the Senate and the country shall never be imposed upon; but hereafter whenever a lady comes here for an extension of a patent I shall not consider it worthy of exam

Now, sir, I have said more perhaps than I ought to have said after the indications given by the Senate. Perhaps, under the circumstances, it may have been somewhat presumptuous in me to say what I have said, but I considered it my duty. The Senate considered this matter worthy to be referred to the Committee on Patents, one of its own committees, created by itself, designated for the examination of these questions. The committee have reported; they have, as I think, made a very liberal report; they have agreed to validate that which is acknowledged by the party to be invalid, to extend that which is a nonentity in law at present, and will be so declared by the courts, in all probability, or at least the counselination, and just whatever she asks i will subfor the party apprehend that; and all the committee ask is that those who have invested their capital during this interregnum, while this thing was invalid and up to this time, shall not be made responsible in vexatious suits and royalties for the enjoyment of a right which did not belong to the party.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Will the Senator allow me to ask a question? As I have not had an opportunity to investigate the case, I wish to ask the distinguished chairman of the committee whether the question he has just discussed, the question as to the receipt by the patentee of an adequate compensation for his invention, has not been investigated by the Commissioner of Patents and decided upon by him; and whether, also, the Committee on Patents, in reporting favorably to the bill with the amendment, has not conceded that there is a right to a renewal because of the want of a sufficient compensation?

Mr. WILLEY. I will say to the Senator that the committee were somewhat under the same influence that the Senator himself is, [laughter;] and while we were willing to concede to this lady every possible right, while we were willing to give her privileges that did not run directly against and injure other vested rights, I have to say, in answer to the Senator, that his question is well put in regard to the Commissioner of Patents having so decided; but the Senator cannot have forgotten that I stated that when this investigation was made before the Commissioner of Patents there was not a whisper to him, not a word in evidence, not an intimation that this party had also enjoyed a monopoly for the very same invention in Great Britain; and there is not a parti

mit to the Senate.

Now, Mr. President, I want to finish the remark I commenced to make a while ago. I said that the Senate had considered it necessary to organize a committee to examine into these questions. This matter was deemed worthy to be referred to the committee. They have examined it, and examined it carefully. On the value of my own examination 1 place no weight whatever, of course; but Senators know that there are gentlemen on that committee whose opinions are entitled to consideration, especially my colleague on that committee, the Senator from Connecticut, who is an experienced patent lawyer, and who knows more about mechanics, perhaps, than any other member on this floor, and from whom I have received great advantage in the investigations which have come before our committee. This matter has been submitted to that committee. That Senator has made the report. It is a matter of interest to him. If after all this the Senate is to pay no attention whatever to the report of the committee, to give it no weight whatever, and without a jot or tittle of evidence before it, without looking into the record, when it is not possible to produce the evidence before it, it, under all these circumstances, it is disposed to vote down this amendment and pass the bill as it was, I cannot help it; and that is all I have got to say.

Mr. BUCKALEW. Mr. President, as some parties in interest reside in my State I desire to say a word in justification of my vote for this bill. The amendment which the committee have reported, so far as I understand it, is tantamount, if adopted, to a rejection of the bill; no beneficial interest will be taken under

may

it by the patentee or enjoyed by her. We
as well, therefore, accept the amendment of
the committee as a substitute for a direct vote
rejecting the bill itself. This being its charac-
ter it is only worth its value as an argument
following the report which has been submitted.
I understand the committee differed in opin-
ion; it was not a unanimous report.

Now, Mr. President, what is this bill? It is simply to remove from this case a technical difficulty which has been discovered by lawyers in the course of some judicial investigation. Called to account by the patentee for the use of a valuable-I might say an almost invaluable-invention, they were disposed to resist the claim or to resist it in part, and their counsel in pursuing investigation into the case discovered, unearthed, a foreign patent, which it is supposed interposes a technical legal difficulty, if it be pressed in the courts of law, to the enjoyment of any interest whatever under the renewal of the patent. Now, what is this bill? It is simply to remove that difficulty. It does not seem that the patentee when this renewal was made understood that there was a foreign patent, or that the manufacturers who have used this patent understood it. In fact, I believe the truth is that the foreign patent never was extensively used; no extensive fruits, if any at all, were ever received from it. I understand it was never used in fact abroad.

Now, the Senate of the United States, instead of passing a bill such as it is described to be by the Senator from West Virginia, are just removing out of the hands of the manufacturers who are using this patent a plea in court which is partly technical, has no merit in it, which reaches no substantial point of equity involved between them and the patentee.

That is the whole of this bill. It may be that some consideration should be given to those manufacturers that may have used the patent in ignorance or innocently; and if there was some amendment of that sort-I do not know how it could be drawn-there might be an argument in favor of it.

Mr. CONKLING. That very thing is in the House bill, that it is not to attach to the interval between one date and the other.

Mr. BUCKALEW. But so far as regards the use of the patent hereafter, until 1871, when it will expire by its own limitation, there can be no argument at all, and no appeal to the justice of the Senate

Mr. CONNESS. Will the Senator permit me before he takes his seat, so as to do it in this connection, to make a statement on one important point?

Mr. BUCKALEW, Certainly.

Mr. CONNESS. And that is the profits resulting to the patentee from the use of the patent in this country. They are within six thousand dollars. Fifty-one or fifty-two hundred dollars is the total amount received, as proven upon the application for an extension.

Mr. WILLEY. Did you get that from the evidence, or from a pamphlet on your table?

Mr. CONNESS. It is taken from the sworn testimony; and the chairman of the committee could have had access to it, and ought to have known it.

Mr. WILLEY. I desire to say to that that I put the whole evidence in the hands of the Senator from Connecticut, and I wanted the Senate to wait till I could get it.

Mr. CONNESS. Then I have to say, with the permission of the Senator from Pennsylvania again, that the Senator from West Virginia, being in ignorance of the fact, ought not to have called my statement in question.

Mr. BUCKALEW. Well, Mr. President, I have endeavored to state what I understand to be the true character of this bill and to show that it is not open to the objections which have been made by the Senator from West Virginia. Now, one word in conclusion, and I shall leave the subject.

We may take for granted, for all the purposes of a vote upon this bill, that the Commissioner of Patents acted properly in extending this patent. There is nothing before us to 40TH CONG. 2D SESS.--No. 229.

show that he acted corruptly, from motives of favoritism or of enmity to any human being. The presumption is that he as a public officer acted in a proper, reasonable, and just manner in extending this patent for a period of seven years; that he had before him the necessary evidence to bring this case within the requirements of the general patent laws. We are by passing this bill, as I said before, doing nothing except removing the legal obstacle which this lady encounters to the enjoyment of her rights under our laws by the unearthing of an unused, valueless foreign patent which was taken out but never followed up by the patentee.

Mr. CORBETT. I merely wish to call the attention of the Senate to the provisions of the amendment reported by the committee. It seems to me that extending the patent with that provision in the bill would probably amount to nothing, because it would place this business entirely in the hands of those companies that are already established, and have large capital, and have been extending their works. Consequently they would have the advantage, and no new concern would enter into the manufacture of this article, and hence the country at large would have to pay more for the article if manufactured by these few establishments. No one being allowed to come in competition without paying a royalty, the result would be to deter any one else from entering into the market in competition with these manufacturers who do not have to pay any royalty.

prize cases in the southern district of Florida was considered as in Committee of the Whole. It proposes to direct the Secretary of the Treasury, upon the execution and delivery to him by the administratrix of the estate of James C. Clapp, deceased, late United States marshal for the southern district of Florida, of a proper written release of all claims and demands for, or on account of, all costs, charges, fees, and expenses due, or claimed to be due, to him as marshal or to his estate, in any prize or other cases in that district, to accept from the administratrix the sum of $50,000 in full satisfaction of all claims and demands of the United States against the estate of James C. Clapp, and against the sureties in his official bond, and that this sum of $50,000, when paid, together with the sums now on deposit with the Assistant Treasurer in New York to the credit of Clapp and to the credit of the United States district court for the southern district of Florida, shall be deposited with the Assistant United States Treasurer at Washington, subject to the order of the United States district court for the southern district of Florida, for the purpose of meeting decrees of distribution or restitution in the following prize causes pending in that district: Schooner Lucy No. 1, the cargo of the steamer Adela, schooner Alicia and cargo, schooner Isabel and cargo, the steamer James Battle, schooner Diana and cargo, schooner Sea Lion and cargo, the cargo of the steamer Nita, steamer Pearl and cargo, schooner Teresa No. 2, steamer Union, steamer Victor and cargo, and schooner John Williams.

The Secretary of the Navy is to deposit with the Assistant United States Treasurer at Wash

Mr. HARLAN. I desire to ask a question for information. Now that this amendment has been rejected, I wish to know whether, if the bill should pass in its present form, the parties entitled to this patent would be able to collect a royalty, as I believe they call it, from the date of the expiration of the first fourteen years up to the present period?

Mr. CONKLING. No, sir; the bill says the contrary. The last clause is:

Provided, That this act shall not operate between the period of the date of the English patent and the date of the original American patent.

The bill was reported to the Senate without

amendment, ordered to a third reading, read

the third time, and passed.

WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD.

Mr. CONNESS. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill (S. No. 159) relating to the Western Pacific railroad.

Mr. FESSENDEN. That is not a private

bill.

Mr. CONNESS. What is it, pray? Mr. FESSENDEN. This evening was set apart for private claims.

Mr. CONNESS. I was not aware of that fact. I did not know that this evening had been set apart for private claims. [Certainly."]

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It was so set apart.

Mr. CONNESS. I am the last man to interfere with any such order of the Senate, and I

ers Adela and Nita, condemned in the district court for the southern district of Florida, and taken into the naval service, and, after deducting all proper charges and expenses, a moiety of the same is to be distributed under the decree of the court, according to law, among the captors entitled to share in these prizes, and the remaining moiety is to be subject to the order of the district court.

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not exactly understand the bill. I suppose there is a much larger sum due by the marshal than the amount to be paid by the widow, and the amount is to be taken by way of compromise under the impression that the whole cannot be collected. I hope the honorable member from Indiana will give us some information on the subject.

Mr. HENDRICKS. The printed report which I made to the Senate states the facts. The report is No. 128. The marshal was a defaulter. The sum realized from the sale of these vessels was about two hundred and The money twenty-four thousand dollars. that is still on deposit to his credit is some fiftyodd thousand dollars, and there is another sum of $19,000 which can be obtained, and there is $50,000 which the widow is willing to pay out of her own estate, provided her husband's estate can be released, and the bondsman, whose bond is $20,000, can also be released. These sums will make about one hundred and twentyfour thousand dollars. That is about the amont which can be realized by the Government.

Mr. JOHNSON. What is the value of the estate left by the husband?

Mr. HENDRICKS. The estate is worth

me at some other time.

PRIZE CASES IN FLORIDA.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I move to take up Senate bill No. 486, to facilitate the settlement of certain prize cases in the southern district of Florida.

Mr. HOWE. I think that is not one of the bills the Senate has met to consider this evening.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Yes, sir; it is to settle the rights of certain parties who claim prize money, and to secure it to them. It comes from the Committee on Naval Affairs.

The motion was agreed to; and the bill (S. No. 486) to facilitate the settlement of certain

have been made to realize, but nothing more can be had. This is the largest sum that can be realized.

Mr. EDMUNDS. What is the sum that ought to be realized?

Mr. HENDRICKS. Two hundred and twenty-four thousand dollars. To make up the sum of $124,000 the widow pays $50,000 out of her own estate in order to relieve her husband's estate and the bondsman.

Mr. JOHNSON. What is the amount of the bond?

Mr. HENDRICKS. Twenty thousand dol lars. This is to enable these cases to be adjusted in court; they cannot be otherwise.