Puslapio vaizdai

Steel Institute itself do not possess copies. Here is Correspondence.

a chance for Mr. Burt's charity, that he should present to this Society at least a set of such works. I should then find it a less difficult matter to study them than

at present. It is suggested that I despise “unSTATISTICS OF THE IRON AND STEEL complicated and undeceiving tonnages.I quoted INDUSTRIES.

several such in my paper, and was properly reproved It is a custom in Courts of Justice that the counsel

by Mr. Bennett Brough, who gave figures which for the defence should be allowed the last word. As,

showed that the values put a different construction therefore, the defender of my own paper I may,

on such figures. It has also been an interesting point perhaps, beg to be allowed a rejoinder to Mr. Burt's in the tariff controversy that export tonnages have communication of May 30th. The point at issue is been rarely used in propaganda. Rather have we whether a comparison of the margin between exports

had values in £ sterling quoted and requoted by those and imports is a legitimate one if expressed in its

who in their fiscal zeal outrun their statistical discrefood-purchasing equivalent. I have given for thirty

tion. Weights and volumes are well enough for the five years for the United Kingdom the margin in

rawest of raw materials. But who would buy lococurrency and in its equivalent. I have pointed out otives for aught but a scrap heap at a per ton rate ? that such currency margins have only existed since Or dynamos, or boilers, or sewing-machines ? Yet 1894 in the United States and since 1880 in Germany. locomotives, boilers, dynamos, and sewing-machines Currency comparisons are of value when comparing are among the exports which are largely dependent recent years of various countries; but widely sepa

on the iron and steel and their allied trades, and rated periods in which the purchasing value of gold among the productions which add to our internal may vary, require correction for this fluctuation. If I wealth. had taken, say, the prices of all commodities rather Finally, a review of our respective positions. I than food stuffs only, I should have laid myself open

state that in regard to our iron and steel industries, a to the more serious criticism that the very factor of computation of the excess of exports over imports, comparison employed included Au ns in iron when allowance is made for either the fall in food and coal prices. Had I, however, taken the index stuffs, or in all commodities, shows no retrogression number of all prices for the United Kingdom I had

in external trade. For internal trade we have only not grievously erred in stating the British position.

indirect evidences as to its prosperity. I appeal for It would be an easy matter for Mr. Burt to prepare

direct evidence. On the other hand, Mr. Burt such a Table.

disputes my first premise, and failing to supply the Contrasting only the margin between exports and evidence required regarding internal trade, advocates imports for one country over a period of years, in

an experiment in tariff revision, forsooth, because urging the legitimacy of iny comparison, I must other countries and colonies employ “protection.” remind Mr. Burt that in its final stage all inter- Neither into early economic history, when the United national commerce is a barter of the products of one Kingdom was Protectionist, nor into the elements of country for the products of another. British exports political economy need I venture, which are really of manufactured goods are in the main bartered for extraneous to the matter at issue. food stuffs and raw material. German and American

W. POLLARD DIGBY. exports are bartered for goods of a different character, Trafalgar-buildings, Charing-cross, London, W.C. therefore, the factor which is a fair one in computing

June 14th, 1904. British external trade cannot be properly applied to those of countries whose produce is exchanged mainly for commodities differing in nature. Inconsistent, irrelevant, and incomplete are the terms now applied to me. What can be more inconsistent than to sug

THE ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL PROgest my measuring the volume of our external iron

GRESS AND CONDITION OF INDIA. and steel commerce in its coal-purchasing value, Amongst the topics discussed in Mr. O'Conor's when we do not barter steel plates for lignite, paper were (a) the apparent financial gain to the briquettes, or anthracite ? What can be more irrele- Indian Government through supersession of the vant to the issue than a suggestion that the margin automatic currency system and fixing an approximate should be measured in rates and taxes ?

gold-value to the rupee by legalised “regulation.” Incompleteness I conceded in the paper itself. But this is only the outside and surface of that transMr. Burt states, “ The internal consumption is known action. Though the “cost of exchange" has been


than in any other industry." He is alluding, -the burden inseparable from large and permanent

presume, to the annual statistical statements of an association of manufacturers. These are not gener. ally accessible. The libraries of the Society of Arts, of the Royal Statistical Society, even of the Iron and

excess of exports--could not be extinguished by any currency manipulation. So that as regards India's interational commerce the effect of artificially raising the value of the rupee may be traced in the increased

credit of Egypt. As to the strictly financial results of Indian railway extension that was a shrewd observation by Mr. O'Conor, to the effect that “the rail. ways have been one chief means of maintaining and causing the (comparatively moderate) increase of the land revenue, which forms nearly half of the whole net revenue of the Indian Government." This juxtaposition throws strong sidelights on some other passages in the paper, as also on the whole question of India's economic situation.


percentage of that export-excess; while, as regards internal Indian trade and production, evidence of its cost is, so far, obvious in the “ profits on coinage,” which, during the last four years, amounted to £6,177,224-a penalty on production, levied from planters and ryots alike.

(b) Mr. O'Conor took the chief items of which the Home Charges consist, and this would be useful for many of his audience; but it does not touch the strictly economic branch of the argument. The mercantile items on the list are already included in his import returns, and thus do not form any portion of India's actual excess of exports. Even if the whole of these charges in England consisted of “visible" commercial transactions, the fact remains that those annual State payments are made in a foreign country, and have a totally different economic effect as compared with outlay of revenue within the country itself. If this United Kingdom had to pay for its civil and military pensions; the interest on its debt; and for its railway and other public works material, say to Germany, to France, or the United States, the economic pressure on our industrial and monetary condition would be readily perceived and selt. Quite apart from any argument on the details of those obligatory payments of Indian revenues abroad, the adverse economic effect of such perennial transfer must be realised when its aggregate amounts are considered. For instance, only in the six years up to 1902-3 the total sum of India's unbalanced excess of exports was Rx.132,755,900.

That Mr. O'Conor is himself sufficiently conscious of the gravity of this standing drawback on “ the economic and industrial progress and condition of India,” may be inferred from his remarks on the "burden in the expenditure abroad of taxes raised in India ;” and his timely warning that the “greatest care should be taken to restrict the growth of the Home Charges." No doubt, he is well aware, that the only way to secure such restriction is, that this master country shall sustain some substantial share of those charges through which we maintain profitable sway over our Indian Empire ; but this is another story.

(c) Mr. O'Conor's incidental dealing with the public debt of India was scarcely serious enough in its economic aspect. His remark, that of the whole debt two-thirds represents capital expended on railways (a statistic that needs verification): and is therefore * an asset," omits, at least, one essential item of huge amount. That is the fifty millions or more contributed from the revenues of India during a long series of years, towards guaranteed interest and up.keep of the Indian railway system. This has gone under, and does not appear in the face of the accounts (except in the Railway Administration Reports) ; but it has been, and is (more so if compound interest be considered a very heavy set off against the large credit claimed for railways as having facilitated the enormous increase of India's export trade; more so, since being supplemented by that grand international public work the Suez Canal, provided out by the revenue and


INVENTOR. In a letter to the Journal of the Society of Arts, of the 26th of February, 1904 (see ante p. 323), Mr. Abel states that the United States Patent Laws are tyrannical, and operate to the prejudice of the inventor, and gives three reasons for his belief. These are, briefly--(1) Harsh requirements for division of an application into two or more appli. cations ; (2) Stubborn examiners and a vexatious course of appeal; and (3) The existence of four rules that have been laid down by the examiners of late years.

Since the establishment of the United States patent system, it has been the practice of the Patent Office, that from a requirement of the examiner for division, an applicant may petition, without the payment of a Government fee, to the Commissioner in person, by whom the question is always carefully considered. A recent decision of the United States Supreme Court apparently results in the necessity of an appeal to the examiners in chief at a cost of ten dollars. The practice as to division of an application has varied under different Commissioners, some per. mitting greater latitude than others in the joinder of inventions. But, in any case, dependent inventions may be joined in the same application; independent inventions must always be prosecuted in separate applications. A thorough examination as to the prior art, which consists of more than 700,000 United States patents, renders absolutely necessary a proper and thorough classification of inventions. This cannot be effected if independent inventions are joined in the same applications. If the British Patent Office attempts to make a thorough search as to novelty, it will soon find this to be true. Moreover, the number of United States patents is vastly in excess of British patents, and, therefore, a greater refinement of classification is necessary. Mr. Abel states that the inventor is under the “complete thraldom of an opinionated examiner.” The six quoted words express three false statements :-(1) The jurisdiction of the examiner is not complete. He is the primary eraminer. Any decision of his is subject to review, and upon any merely formal matter it will be reviewed by the Commissioner in person without Government charge. (2) The inventor is under no thraldom of

the examiner, for the reason that the examiner's applications maturing into patents is large. Where decision is in no case final; inventors and attorneys 40,000 applications are filed, from all sections of the who have an intelligent understanding of the American world, and are carefully searched by the Patent Office system never bave to complain of thraldom. (3) The as to the prior art of a half-dozen countries or more, examiners are not opinionated in the sense meant. it stands to reason that a considerable percentage There are nearly forty primary examiners, each of applications must be without patentable novelty. taking pride in the development of the art under his Yet it will be seen that three-fifths of the applicacharge. They are men versed in science, mechanics, tions mature into patents. and law. They know that the extent of the field of Where an applicant replies promptly to the official knowledge is constantly enlarging, in a great measure actions, a patent inay usually be obtained in the due to American research and invention, and are course of a few months. Often the first action is the willing and glad to learn from the inventors the facts allowance of the application, only a month after which extend this field of knowledge.

The ex

filing. Unless a case be involved in interference proaminers, or many of them, spend much of their ceedings, it need not be pending in the Office more annual leave visiting shops and mills to obtain more than a year. A case pending more than a year is the intimate and working knowledge of their art, thus exception rather than the rule, and the reason is very coming in close touch with inventors, and always apt to be the delay on the part of the attorney. To endeavour to grant them all the patent protection say that the inventor has to argue “wish the examiner to which they are entitled. There is no reason for years sometimes, before the latter will allow that why it should be otherwise. The United States the inventor has any patentable article at all” is to Patent Office at all times contains several scores of state something that very seldom, if ever, occurs and examiners and assistant-examiners, who will even- if it does occur there is no reason therefor. The tually form a part, and a conspicuous part of the inventor and the examiner may come to an issue Patent Bar of the land. Many of their clients will with


little delay, and if dissatisfied, the inventor, be those whose applications they are now passing for a fee of $10, may appeal, and will be heard within upon. Why, then, should they treat them harshly, a month, and will get a very prompt decision. Mr. or with aught than full and equal justice ? Looking Abel's reference to an appeal to the Supreme Court at it from a selfish standport merely, it is absurd to is erroneous. Appeal lies from the Commissioner to say that a man will hamper his future career by the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia making for himself a reputation for harshness and but this is seldom taken except in an interference severity. And looking at the matter from a higher standpoint, it must be remembered that an examiner Regarding the form of claims, the examiner's sole is an official who has sworn to do his duty. Every desire (aside from the consideration of novelty) is to one of them is proud of the United States patent obtain “ a plain and straightforward expression of system, and of the inventors whom it fosters. Be the invention, that anyone could readily understand," the inventor rich or poor, influential or obscure, he is Mr. Abel's statement to the contrary, not with. accorded equal courtesy. As a single instance, it standing. Large latitude is left to the inventor. In may be stated that recently an inventor, a poor man, applications filed by American attorneys and particuwho thought his presence necessary, came from the larly by skilled attorneys, there is very little difficulty far South-west at a cost he could ill afford. He was with the form of claims. In order that there may be given a number of interviews and helped in every certainty as to their scope, it is required that each way, and finally went home happy in the assurance element be definitely and directly included, and that that his patent had been allowed. Had he been the the claim be not, what may be termed, rambling. richest manufacturer of the land he could have gotten Further than this the examiner seldom goes, and as no fairer treatment.

before stated, any ruling of the examiner is subject to The number of applications filed and the number revision on petition to the commissioner. of patents granted, during the past five years, are as Four alleged rules are laid down by Mr. Abel as follows:

follows, which will be separately considered :

Firstly,– You cannot have a patent for a method of Applications.


operating unless this can be expressed entirely with1899 41,443

25,527 out reference to apparatus or machinery. 1900



Secondly, -You must not, in a claim for construc1901 46,499

27,373 tion of apparatus or machinery, introduce any 49,641

description of the manner in which it operates1903 50,213


your claim must be limited to the enumeration of

the cranks, levers, cams, &c., that constitute your Considering the percentage of cases allowed, and machine. which the inventors do not patent, and for cases Thirdly,—You cannot in one and the same patent which are not prosecuted after the first official include a method of operation and the machine or action (showing there is little or no novelty in the apparatus by which that method of operating is application), it will be seen that the percentage of carried out.




Fourthly,- If your invention is capable of being carried out by several modified arrangements, you must take out a separate patent for each such modification, as each one is considered a separate invention.

First Alleged Rule.—"A method of operating," expressed by reference to apparatus or machinery, is very apt to be a mere function of the particular machine, and not a true method at all. In such case the invention resides in the machine, and therefore it is the machine that should be claimed. But numerous instances could be cited where a true “mechanical method” contains references to the mechanisnı by which it is carried out. The Patent Office recognises the fact, not only that a method may be carried out by machinery, but that it may, so far as known, be carried out by only one particular machine. A lengthy and convincing discussion upon this point, by the United States Supreme Court, will be found in the case of “Boydon Brake Power Company v. Westinghouse," 83 Official Gazette, 1067.

Second Alleged Rule.—No such rule exists. It is merely to cite the following claims upheld by the United States Supreme Court in “ Morley Sewing Machine Company v. Lancaster,” 47 Official Gazette, 267. Thousands of other claims might be instanced.

The combination in a machine for sewing shankbuttons to fabrics, of button-feeding mechanism, appliances for passing a thread through the eye of the buttons and locking the loop to the fabric, and feeding mechanism, substantially as set forth.

The combination, in a machine for sewing shankbuttons to fabrics, of a needle and operating mechanism, appliances for bringing the buttons successively to positions to permit the needle to pass through the eye of each button, and means for locking the loop of thread carried by the needle to secure the button to the fabric, substantially as set forth.

Third Alleged Rule.- Patent Office Rule 41, which prohibited the joinder of process and apparatus claims in the same application, has just been held invalid by the United States Supreme Court. See United States, ex rel. “ Steinmetz v. Allen," Commissioner of Patents, 109 Official Gazette, page 549, March 8, 1904.

Fourth Alleged Rule.--Mr. Abel comes nearer stating the truth here than at any previous point. If an invention be capable of being carried out by several modified arrangements, a broad claim may be secured which will include each and every one of such arrangements, and all this may be done in one application. One application may show a number of substitute forms, but while a claim broad enough to cover them all may be allowed, only one form may be specifically claimed. If the applicant wishes to obtain a specific claim for each form, which generally may be regarded as unnecessary, he must file separate applications. It is obvious that two forms or arrangements of a device or mechanism which are entire

substitutes for each other, are not dependent inventions, as they are entirely independent of each other ; they do not co-operate in any way.

Since the alleged rules fall to the ground, the so-called result specified in the paragraph following them vanishes into thin air. Regarding the alleged “interminable arguments with an opinionated examiner,” it may be noted that attorneys are daily allowed interviews with the examiner, the case is thoroughly discussed and patentable claims are agreed upon. The examiner is always glad to do this, and will give an inventor or his attorney all the time he wants for discussion.

The claim which Mr. Abel draws for James Watt is a curiosity. Of course, Mr. Abel is not serious in the matter, and hence it will do no harm to state that such a claim, if seriously presented, would show gross ignorance and carelessness.

As to the figures quoted by Mr. Abel, regarding the number of United States patents held invalid in whole or in part in the United States, it may be said that a large proportion, a very large proportion of these were held invalid only in part. Again, these patents, or many of them, were held invalid upon grounds not accessible to the Patent Office, such as the discovery of a prior anticipating device (nct patented), or the existence of public use for two years prior to the application in spite of applicant's oath to the contrary. Again, patents litigated in 1896 were granted mainly before 1890, and the examination system and proper classification of patents are im. proving as time passes. Again, if the United States Patent Office had proper facilities and could give to the examination of each case as much time as is given by counsel when the patent is in litigation, compara. tively few patents would be held invalid. Thus, the system of the United States is not at fault in the matter.

IRVING U. TOWNSEND, Examiner of Textiles, U.S. Patent Office.


SIR WILLIAM HENDERSON, LL.D.-Sir William Henderson, a member of the Society since 1878, died on Thursday, 9th inst., at Devanha-house, Aberdeen. He was born in 1826, and in 1845 he went to Aberdeen to enter the employment of Mr. George Thompson, the founder of the Aberdeen line of steamers. He became a partner in 1850, and from 1854 to 1857 he took charge of the London branch of the business. He returned to Aberdeen, and took an active part in the affairs of that city throughout his life. He was for some years president of the Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce, and from 1886 to 1889 was Lord Provost, He was knighted in 1893.

[blocks in formation]

The following candidates were proposed, COVVERSAZIONE.

balloted for, and duly elected members of the

Society :The Society's Annual Conversazione was

Abbott, Professor Frederick, A.; Agricultural held in the Gardens of the Royal Botanic

College, Mississippi, U.S.A. Society, Inner Circle, Regent's - park, on

Abercrombie, Hugh Romilly, care of the Standard Monday evening, 27th ult.

Bank of South Africa, 10, Clements-lane, E.C, The reception was held by Sir William

and P.O. Box, 184, Pretoria, Transvaal, South Abney, K.C.B., D.Sc., F.R.S., Chairman, Africa. and the following members of Council:—Sir Allen, Miss Geraldine, 7, Rue Belloni, Paris XV., Mancherjee Merwanjee Bhownaggree, K.C.B., France. M.P., Mr. William Bousfield, Mr. Henry Babbs, Arthur Thomas, The Rhodes Building, St.. H. S. Cunynghame, C.B., Mr. Lewis Foreman George's-street, Cape Town, South Africa. Day, Mr. Francis Elgar, LL.D., F.R.S., Mr. Bainbridge, Oliver, 43, Upper Bedford-place, W.C. Robert Kaye Gray, Colonel Sir Thomas

Baldwin, Henry P., Haiku, Island of Mani, Hawaii, Holdich, R.E., K.C.M.G., K.C.I.E., C.B.,

Blelock, Robert, Johannesburg, Transvaal, South

Africa. the Hon. Richard Clere Parsons, Sir Owen

Bowles, Colonel Henry Ferryman, M.P., Forty Hall, Roberts, D.C.L., Mr. Alexander Siemens,

Enfield, Middlesex. and Mr. Carmichael Thomas.

Butcher, Herbert Thomas, A.R.S.M., F.I.C., A Selection of Music was performed by the

Dorunkeh Chambers, Cobham Town, Old Calabar,., String Band of the Royal Artillery (Conductor,

West Africa. Cavaliere L. Zavertal, M.V.0.) in the Con

Clark, William, 4, Snow. bill, E.C. servatory, and by the Band of H.M. Irish

Clews, Henry, LL.D., II, Broad-street, New York Guards (Conductor, Mr. C. H. Hassall) in the City, U.S.A. Gardens.

Cole, Professor J. Abayomi, Percival-street, FreeA vocal and instrumental concert was given town, Sierra Leone, West Africa. in the Club House by the Royal Criterion Bell Collie, James V. B., 15, Barrack-street, Cape Town, Ringers and Glee Singers, under the direction South Africa. of Mr. Harry Tipper.

Craigie, Mrs. Pearl Mary-Teresa, 56, Lancaster-gate,

W. An Exhibition of Growing and Cut Roses and other Flowers were arranged in a marquee

Davidson, Thomas Edward, 32, Clayton-street West,

Newcastle-on-Tyne. in the grounds by Messrs. William Paul and Sons, of Waltham Cross.

Davis, Charles, 147, New Bond-street, W.

Dennis, William, F.C.S., 170, Albert-road, JarrowThe Tropical House, containing the Giant

on-Tyne. Water Lily (Victoria Regia), which was in

Dowling, T. Barrow, Mus.Doc., Thornhayes, Cape flower on the evening, was open to visitors.

Town, South Africa. The number of visitors attending the Con- Dudley, Mrs. Lucy Bronson, 80, Pine-street, New versazione was 2,075.

York, U.S.A.

« AnkstesnisTęsti »