1st Session.

: No. 93.

IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

MARCH 26, 1850:

Submitted, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. ATCHISON made the following

REPORT:

[To accompany bill S. No. 171]

The Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom were referred the papers in relation to the claims of H. J. McClintock, Harrison Gill, and Mansfield Carter, after an examination of the papers referred, and all the inform ation that the Commissioner of Indian Affairs could furnish, find the following facts:

In the year 1846, H. J. McClintock was employed by the sub agent at the Grand Nemahaw sub-agency as farmer for the Sac and Fox Indians. He entered upon the discharge of his duties on the 12th of February of said year, and continued to discharge his duties as farmer until the 14th day of April, same year, when he was discharged by the superintendent of Indian affairs at St. Louis-not for any neglect of duty or offence, but for an alleged irregularity in his appointinent. By his contract he was to receive fifty dollars per month. The claimant, McClintock, also employed two laborers, to assist in the labors on the farm, which he was authorized to do, for which he paid, the sum of thirty-seven dollars and twenty

cents.

Mansfield Carter was employed by the same sub agent as assistant blacksmith for the Sac and Fox Indians, and was engaged in such employment from the 1st day of December, 1845, to the 14th of April, 1846, at twenty dollars per month, when he was discharged by the superintendent of Indian affairs at St. Louis, (Major Thomas Harvey.)

Harrison Gill was employed, by said sub-agent, as assistant farmer for said Indians, and was engaged in that business from the 17th of January, 1846, until the 14th of April thereafter, when he was discharged by the superintendent of Indian affairs at St. Louis.. By his contract he was entitled to twenty dollars per month.

The proof is, that the claimants faithfully discharged their respective duties during the time they were employed, and that they were discharged from some alleged irregularity in their appointments; and that they were promised, at the time of their discharge, full payment by the superintendent, according to contract, for the time they were engaged. This has not been done.

The committee are of opinion that they are entitled to receive the amount they respectively claim, and report a bill accordingly.

The Committee on Patents and the Patent Office, to whom was referred the petition of William R. Nevins, have had the same under consideration, and they find

That in the year 1836, on the 2d of March, the petitioner obtained letters patent for a machine for cutting and rolling dough for crackers, biscuit, &c.; that in the year 1847, as he says in his petition, he discovered his letters patent were defective, for the want of a proper specification and claim; that, in consequence of this discovery, on the 9th of May, 1848, the Commissioner of Patents, on an amended specification and claim, reissued to him his patent. On this statement, he asks of Congress an extension of his patent.

The committee can find no good reason for the interference of Congress. By the laws regulating patents, it was the duty of the petitioner to make application to the Commissioner of Patents, &c., for an extension. His failure to do so implies an unwillingness to submit to the skill and judgment of that officer; an unwillingness to incur the expenses justly required by law; and, having failed to conform to the provisions of the law granting him the privilege (if, in the judgment of the Commissioner, it should be proper) of an extension of his patent for seven years, the committee are not prepared to divest from the public the rights vested by the laws, and re-invest that right in the petitioner. They therefore ask to be discharged from the further consideration of said petition.

1st Session.

No. 95.

The Committee on Patents and the Patent Office, to whom were referred the petition and papers of Benjamin Tatham and brothers, have had the same under consideration, and submit the following report:

From the petition and papers referred to the committee, it appears that petitioners, when in England, became acquainted with the invention for the manufacture of lead pipes, and they purchased from the inventors in England all their right, title, and interest in and to said invention for the United States; for which invention petitioners obtained letters patent bearing date the 29th day of March, 1841, but granted for the term of fourteen years from the 31st day August, 1837, that being the date of the foreign letters patent to the inventors, in accordance with the statutory provisions in such cases; thus leaving the invention to be used by any one in the United States for a period of nearly four years free of cost, before the issuance of the patent.

Your committee are not advised that Congress has in any instance extended a patent at the instance and for the exclusive benefit of an assignee alone. This, in the judgment of the committee, would be impolitic and unjust in the extreme, as the assignee is a mere trader and speculator upon the labor and inventions of others, and has therefore no more merit or claim on the government for its aid and assistance than the speculator in any. thing else would have. The policy of the patent laws is to give protec tion and encouragement to the ingenious and meritorious inventors, and to secure to them, if possible, a reasonable reward for their skill, labor, and expenses in and about their inventions, and presenting them for the pub. lic use. This being accomplished, the object and intention of the law is fulfilled. An assignee has not the merit of discovering or inventing anything to better the condition or promote the interest of mankind; this is the merit of the inventor alone, and for which he alone ought to receive the countenance and protection of the government.

The petitioners do not inform us what they paid for this invention, nor of the sums of money secured to them by their sales. These facts they prefer keeping to themselves, and for reasons best known to themselves; but, looking to other sources for information, your committee are of opinion that the petitioners have realized very large profits from their patent.

The patent has not yet expired, and no reason is given by the petition