IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. APRIL 12, 1858.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. MALLORY made the following REPORT. [To accompany Bill S. 253.] The Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the petition of F. M. Gunnell, passed assistant surgeon in the navy, have had the same under consideration, and report: The petitioner, an assistant surgeon in the navy, attached to the United States ship Independence, of the Pacific squadron, was ordered by Captain Josiah Tatnall, on the 17th day of September, 1855, to proceed to San Francisco, and report himself for duty at the United States naval rendezvous in that city, and to return to the ship when the rendezvous should be closed. Under this order the petitioner performed the duty assigned him twelve weeks in the city of San Francisco. His board, during that time on shore, amounted, according to the voucher filed by him, 12 weeks, at $18, to $216. In view of the fact that in fixing the salary of his grade reference was had to its ordinary expenses, the committee deem it but equitable, and in conformity with the usage of Congress, to reimburse the memorialist for any extraordinary expense incident to public duty assigned him proin the discharge of his duties as an assistant surgeon, his mess bill would perly incurred. Had the memorialist remained on board of the ship, not probably have exceeded $20 per month; deducting this amount from his expenses on shore, leaves the sum of $156, and for this the committee report a bill, and recommend its passage. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. APRIL 12, 1858.-Agreed to, and ordered to be printed. Mr. TRUMBULL submitted the following REPORT. The Committee on Patents and the Patent Office, to whom was referred the petition of Bancroft Woodcock, praying an extension of the patent for certain improvements on the plough, report: That the petitioner, Bancroft Woodcock, was the inventor of a plough for which he obtained a patent January 26, 1832, for fourteen years. Shortly previous to the expiration of that period, he presented to the Commissioner of Patents an application for its extension for the term of seven years. The examiner who reported upon the application states, in his report, that there was but little novelty in the invention, and places no estimate upon its value. Upon this report the application for an extension was rejected by the board then authorized by law to consider such applications. The petitioner alleges that owing to the number of inventions of ploughs, and the prejudices of agriculturalists against innovations, he failed to realize, within the fourteen years, an adequate remuneration for the invention. He accompanies his present application to Congress by a statement, showing that his receipts from patent fees amounted to $2,400; that his expenses were $2,477, of which two thousand dollars is charged as expenses incurred in making experiments and in the preparation of patterns, prior to his securing a patent and during the first three years of its existence. Further improvements were patented June 14, 1837, founded upon the previous invention. On the 31st of January, 1845, an additional improvement was patented. This is the seventh time that the petitioner has presented the same application to Congress; the first having been made at the first session of the 29th Congress. Favorable reports were made by the Committee on Patents of the Senate at both sessions of that Congress, accompanied by bills, but neither were acted on by the Senate. Favorable reports were also made by the committee of the 30th and 32d Congress; the committee of the 31st and 34th Congress had the petition under consideration, but took no action. The patent for which a renewal is now asked, expired January 26, 1846. The first improvement expired June 14, 1851, but has been renewed for seven years; its extension will expire on the 14th of June, 1858. The second improvement will expire January 31, 1859. This case presents a strong illustration of the impropriety and uselessness, in most cases, of applications to Congress for extensions of patents. For more than twelve years the petitioner has been asking Congress to extend his patent, and in the meantime has had four reports of different committees of the Senate in his favor, but no bill for his relief has ever passed this body. Since January 26, 1846, the public have been in the free and unrestricted use of the petitioner's invention, and whatever there was of value in it, must long ago have been introduced into general use. To renew the patent at this time would be to interfere with all who have adopted the improvement and entered into its manufacture in the last twelve years, or, if their rights were protected, the renewal would be of but little value to the petitioner, since it is inconceivable that an improvement of value to an article of such common use as a plough, should not be generally adopted after it had been free to the public for a dozen years; if the improvement has not gone into general use, it surely is not of such importance as to justify a renewal of the patent for its protection. The committee, however, do not agree with former committees who have reported favorably upon this case, even if the patent were now just expiring. The petitioner applied to the Commissioner of the Patent Office for an extension of his patent in 1845, and his application was rejected, the examiner reporting that there was but little novelty in the invention. The act of July 4, 1836, authorizing the extension of patents on application to the Commissioner of Patents is general in its provisions and liberal to the patentee, embracing nearly every case in which a patent should be renewed, and was intended to relieve Congress of applications for extensions of patents by special acts. Unless, therefore, a patentee can show that his failure to obtain an extension of his patent from the Commissioner has resulted in some way from an inability, without fault on his part, to have his case fairly presented, or from a decision clearly erroneous upon the facts shown, and pointing out wherein the error consists, Congress ought not, in the opinion of the committee, to extend a patent in any case which the Commissioner of Patents has refused. Acting upon this rule, the committee do not think the petitioner presents a case entitling him to the relief sought, and recommend the adoption of the following resolution: Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioner be rejected. CONGRESS, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. APRIL 12, 1858.-Agreed to, and ordered to be printed. Mr. TRUMBULL submitted the following REPORT. The Committee on Patents and the Patent Office, to whom was referred the petition of John A. and Hiram A. Pitts, report: That John A. Pitts and Hiram A. Pitts are the inventors and patentees of certain useful improvements in a machine for threshing and cleaning grain, for the extension of which patent they petition Congress. The patent was granted the 29th of December, 1837, for fourteen years, was renewed in 1851 for seven years by the Commissioner of Patents, and will expire the 29th of December next. Upon presenting their application to the Commissioner of Patents for an extension in 1851, the petitioners presented a statement of receipts and expenditures up to that time. The latter they allege to have been $40,263 75, and the former $17,117 75, showing a loss, during the fourteen years of the existence of the patent, of $23,146. The petitioners now offer an affidavit showing the receipts and expenditures of each during the last seven years, for which an extension was granted by the Commissioner of Patents. Hiram A. Pitts estimates his receipts at $34,490, and his expenses have been, "exclusive of his own time in and about the litigation to defend his rights," about $15,000, showing an income of nearly $3,000 per year. John A. Pitts estimates his receipts, during the same period, at $37,970, and his expenses and losses, not includ ng his time, at $12,000, showing an income of over $3,500 a year. The chief ground upon which the petitioners now ask a further extension of their patent by special act of Congress, is, that by reason of the litigation to which they have been subjected, they have been unable to derive profits from their invention commensurate with its value to the public, and the time and expense they have bestowed upon it. They allege that their discovery being of great value and relating to a matter of general use, the temptation to infringe upon their rights has been such as to involve them in a succession of lawsuits, |