tised by the Swedes. The most celebrated physical exercises in Sweden consisted of gymnastics. The practice of gymnastics was compulsory in every school.

In several of the scenes depicting the Northern Games the King of Sweden and members of the Royal Family appeared as interested and appreciative spectators.

The Lord Chief Justice said that he was sure that the meeting would wish him to express their hearty thanks to Colonel Viktor Balck for his most charming lecture and for the delightful and graphic way in which he had described these most interesting games and the beautiful scenery of Sweden and Norway. He (Lord Alverstone) regretted that he was himself not young enough to go to Sweden and take part in the games, and he wished that he had sufficient leisure from his duties to go to witness them, even though he could not take part in them.

were doing. They were workers for international good will and nothing more and nothing less. The Baron concluded by proposing a vote of thanks to the Lord Chief Justice who had done them the honour of occupying the chair.

Sir Howard Vincent, in seconding the motion, said that the Lord Chief Justice was one of the best sportsmen which the country had ever had, and they only wished that, as he had said, he was young enough to take part in the Northern sports, the representation of which by Colonel Balck had given the meeting such great pleasure.

Baron P. de Coubertin was then asked by the Chairman to make a statement with regard to the revival of the Olympic Games. He stated that their organisation was started ten years ago, and held its first meeting in Paris. About seventeen different countries were represented at the gathering, and over one hundred societies sent delegates. On that occasion it was decided unanimously that the Olympic Games should be revived, and that the first performances should be held in Athens in 1896. This decision was carried out, and over seventy thousand people attended. The second meeting was held during the Paris Exhibition of 1900, and the third was taking place this year at St. Louis, in America. The next games were to take place in 1908. A meeting of the International Committee had been held in London under the patronage, he was glad to say, of His Majesty the King, and it had been decided unanimously that the games of 1908 should be held in Rome. He might be allowed to quote a few Latin words with regard to the moral side of the international revival of the Olympic Games. The words which he was thinking of were si vis pacem, para bellum. He wished to turn that saying round the other way, any say, si vis bellum, para pacem. By this he meant that, if the different countries wanted to join in the contests and have good sport, they must begin by making friends with one another. There could not be good sport without a strong feeling of international friendship, and the promotion of that sentiment was the work which the International Committee

The vote of thanks having been agreed to, The Chairman said it was interesting to see the connection which Colonel Balck had suggested between some of the Scandinavian games and certain sports practised in the British Isles. He could not imagine anything which required more nerve and courage and coolness than the sport of ski-ing, involving the magnificent jumps which were made by the ski-runners. Such sports as ice-boat sailing and ski-running were impossible in England, but he believed that they greatly tended to promote nerve and judgment. He wished to thank Baron De Coubertin for bringing before the meeting the subject of the revival of the Olympian Games. He was sure that the meeting had spent a most pleasant hour and a half.

Miscellaneous.

COTTON INDUSTRY.

The following article on the Cotton Industry in the West Indies is taken from the Agricultural News (Barbados):

In spite of many adverse circumstances the cotton crop now being reaped, though small in quantity, is proving of excellent quality everywhere in the West Indies. In this connection it may be interesting to mention that the Secretary of the British Cotton Growing Association reports that a consignment of cotton just received from Barbados is valued at from 16d. to 17d. per lb., and is considered the best Sea Island cotton which has yet been imported from the West Indies.

The cotton ginneries at Barbados, Montserrat, Antigua and Nevis, are in full working, and it is expected that regular shipments of cotton, on a commercial scale, will take place during the next few weeks. The yield, as already stated, is not so large as was anticipated, owing to the unfavourable season and the attacks of the cotton worm. It is felt, however, that with the experience now gained, the

cotton worm and other difficulties should be successfully dealt with during the coming season.

The question of low freight for cotton is occupying a good deal of attention. It is probable that the present rates (65s. per ton weight) will have to be reduced, as there are indications that through shipment, vid New York to Liverpool or Manchester, may be possible at about 45s. per ton weight.

The great point in establishing the cotton industry is to obtain careful and intelligent action in cultivating the crop of 1905, and ensure that the utmost effort is made to obtain not only cotton of good quality, but in such quantity as to make the industry remunerative. The experience so far gained should prove of great service in this direction. The heavy rains and strong winds, experienced during the past season, cannot be provided against; but as regards better cultivation and the treatment of the cotton worm, there should be great improvement in all directions.

The first important matter to arrange for is the destruction of all old cotton plants at the end of the present crop so as to leave nothing for insects and other pests to feed upon to carry them over until the next crop. There should be no attempt to ratoon any areas in cotton this year. Those who do so will only have themselves to thank, if their plants are affected with disease and the crop is injured. Nothing can justify any attempt at carrying over a ratoon crop this year. It is hoped that no one will attempt anything of the kind. The risk is too great, and, besides, the yield of a ratoon crop from the present plants is likely to be so small as to be hardly worth the trouble.

The next point is carefully to select new land for the next planting. The soil should be good and deep, of a light loamy character, and in a sheltered and accessible situation. The land should be ploughed or forked and well broken up so as to form a mould. The locality should not be a wet one. A rainfall exceeding 80 inches per annum may be regarded as probably too heavy for profitable cotton growing.

The selection of good seed has been urged so often that it is hardly necessary to repeat recommendations under this head. None of the seed grown this year in the West Indies should be used for planting purposes. The Imperial Department of Agriculture is prepared to supply the best seed direct from the Sea Islands at cost price. Further, this seed will be disinfected beforehand.

Perhaps the most important point of all is to prepare for the attacks of the cotton worm. This attacks cotton everywhere. It is proved, however, that the treatment with Paris green and lime is absolutely trustworthy, if applied in time. For every acre planted in cotton there should be kept at hand, ready for use for the cotton worm, at a moment's notice, at least 3 lbs. of Paris green and 18 lbs. of slaked lime; also bags of coarse osnaburg for distributing the mixture, consisting of one part of Paris green to six parts of lime. Those who are prepared to

carry out fully these suggestions and give close attention to the cultivation and care of their cotton fields, need have little or no anxiety as to the future of the cotton industry in these colonies.

SWINEY PRIZE CUP.

The accompanying figure shows the modification of Maclise's design for the Prize Cup, which has been adapted to meet the circumstances of the presentation for this year, when two cups were prepared for the two recipients. As already announced in the Journal the Swiney Prize for the present year was awarded in January last to Sir Frederick Pollock, Bart., and Professor F. W. Maitland for their book on "The History of English Law before Edward the First," The design for the original cup was prepared by Maclise, and for the present occasion this has been slightly modified by Messrs. R. and S. Garrard and Co., to whom the preparation of the cup has always been entrusted. It is in the style of 16th century Renaissance, ornamented with decoration in low relief. The body of the cup is a tinely chased panel representing the "First Trial by Jury." The figure on the cover of the cup represents Justice.

This illustration has been kindly lent by the proprietors of the Graphic.

Correspondence.

STATISTICS OF THE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRIES.

It is a custom in Courts of Justice that the counsel for the defence should be allowed the last word. As, therefore, the defender of my own paper I may, perhaps, beg to be allowed a rejoinder to Mr. Burt's communication of May 30th. The point at issue is whether a comparison of the margin between exports and imports is a legitimate one if expressed in its food-purchasing equivalent. I have given for thirtyfive years for the United Kingdom the margin in currency and in its equivalent. I have pointed out that such currency margins have only existed since 1894 in the United States and since 1880 in Germany. Currency comparisons are of value when comparing recent years of various countries; but widely separated periods in which the purchasing value of gold may vary, require correction for this fluctuation. If I had taken, say, the prices of all commodities rather than food stuffs only, I should have laid myself open to the more serious criticism that the very factor of comparison employed included fluctuations in iron and coal prices. Had I, however, taken the index number of all prices for the United Kingdom I had not grievously erred in stating the British position. It would be an easy matter for Mr. Burt to prepare such a Table.

Contrasting only the margin between exports and imports for one country over a period of years, in urging the legitimacy of any comparison, I must remind Mr. Burt that in its final stage all international commerce is a barter of the products of one country for the products of another. British exports of manufactured goods are in the main bartered for food stuffs and raw material. German and American exports are bartered for goods of a different character, therefore, the factor which is a fair one in computing 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 suggest my measuring the volume of our external iron and steel commerce in its coal-purchasing value, when we do not barter steel plates for lignite, briquettes, or anthracite? What can be more irrelevant to the issue than a suggestion that the margin should be measured in rates and taxes?

Incompleteness I conceded in the paper itself. Mr. Burt states, "The internal consumption is known in regard to iron and steel and better known probably than in any other industry." He is alluding, I presume, to the annual statistical statements of an association of manufacturers. These are not generally accessible. The libraries of the Society of Arts, of the Royal Statistical Society, even of the Iron and

Steel Institute itself do not possess copies. Here is 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 "uncomplicated and undeceiving tonnages." I quoted several such in my paper, and was properly reproved by Mr. Bennett Brough, who gave figures which showed that the values put a different construction on such figures. It has also been an interesting point in the tariff controversy that export tonnages have been rarely used in propaganda. Rather have we had values in sterling quoted and requoted by those who in their fiscal zeal outrun their statistical discretion. Weights and volumes are well enough for the rawest of raw materials. But who would buy locomotives for aught but a scrap heap at a per ton rate? Or dynamos, or boilers, or sewing-machines? Yet locomotives, boilers, dynamos, and sewing-machines are among the exports which are largely dependent on the iron and steel and their allied trades, and among the productions which add to our internal wealth.

Finally, a review of our respective positions. I state that in regard to our iron and steel industries, a computation of the excess of exports over imports, when allowance is made for either the fall in food stuffs, or in all commodities, shows no retrogression in external trade. For internal trade we have only indirect evidences as to its prosperity. I appeal for direct evidence. On the other hand, Mr. Burt disputes my first premise, and failing to supply the evidence required regarding internal trade, advocates an experiment in tariff revision, forsooth, because other countries and colonies employ "protection." Neither into early economic history, when the United Kingdom was Protectionist, nor into the elements of political economy need I venture, which are really extraneous to the matter at issue.

W. POLLARD DIGBY. Trafalgar-buildings, Charing-cross, London, W.C. June 14th, 1904.

THE ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL PROGRESS AND CONDITION OF INDIA. Amongst the topics discussed in Mr. O'Conor's paper were (a) the apparent financial gain to the Indian Government through supersession of the automatic currency system and fixing an approximate gold-value to the rupee by legalised "regulation." But this is only the outside and surface of that transaction. Though the "cost of exchange" has been rubbed off the face of the budget, that very hard fact -the burden inseparable from large and permanent excess of exports--could not be extinguished by any currency manipulation. So that as regards India's international commerce the effect of artificially raising the value of the rupee may be traced in the increased

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 felt. 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 upkeep 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

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 railways 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.

W. MARTIN WOOD.

THE REPRESSION OF THE BRITISH
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 applications; (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 permitting 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 examiner. 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 decision is in no case final; inventors and attorneys who have an intelligent understanding of the American system never have to complain of thraldom. (3) The examiners are not opinionated in the sense meant. There are nearly forty primary examiners, each taking pride in the development of the art under his charge. They are men versed in science, mechanics, and law. They know that the extent of the field of knowledge is constantly enlarging, in a great measure due to American research and invention, and are willing and glad to learn from the inventors the facts which extend this field of knowledge. The examiners, or many of them, spend much of their annual leave visiting shops and mills to obtain more intimate and working knowledge of their art, thus coming in close touch with inventors, and always endeavour to grant them all the patent protection to which they are entitled. There is no reason why it should be otherwise. The United States Patent Office at all times contains several scores of examiners and assistant-examiners, who will eventually form a part, and a conspicuous part of the Patent Bar of the land. Many of their clients will be those whose applications they are now passing upon. Why, then, should they treat them harshly, or with aught than full and equal justice ? Looking at it from a selfish standport merely, it is absurd to say that a man will hamper his future career by making for himself a reputation for harshness and severity. And looking at the matter from a higher standpoint, it must be remembered that an examiner is an official who has sworn to do his duty. Every one of them is proud of the United States patent system, and of the inventors whom it fosters. Be the inventor rich or poor, influential or obscure, he is accorded equal courtesy. As a single instance, it may be stated that recently an inventor, a poor man, who thought his presence necessary, came from the far South-west at a cost he could ill afford. He was given a number of interviews and helped in every way, and finally went home happy in the assurance that his patent had been allowed. Had he been the richest manufacturer of the land he could have gotten no fairer treatment.

Where

applications maturing into patents is large. 40,000 applications are filed, from all sections of the world, and are carefully searched by the Patent Office as to the prior art of a half-dozen countries or more, it stands to reason that a considerable percentage of applications must be without patentable novelty. Yet it will be seen that three-fifths of the applications mature into patents.

Where an applicant replies promptly to the official actions, a patent inay usually be obtained in the course of a few months. Often the first action is the allowance of the application, only a month after filing. Unless a case be involved in interference proceedings, it need not be pending in the Office more than a year. A case pending more than a year is the exception rather than the rule, and the reason is very apt to be the delay on the part of the attorney. Το say that the inventor has to argue "with the examiner for years sometimes, before the latter will allow that the inventor has any patentable article at all" is to state something that very seldom, if ever, occurs and if it does occur there is no reason therefor. The inventor and the examiner may come to an issue with very little delay, and if dissatisfied, the inventor, for a fee of $10, may appeal, and will be heard within a month, and will get a very prompt decision. Mr. Abel's reference to an appeal to the Supreme Court is erroneous. Appeal lies from the Commissioner to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia but this is seldom taken except in an interference

case.

Regarding the form of claims, the examiner's sole desire (aside from the consideration of novelty) is to obtain "a plain and straightforward expression of the invention, that anyone could readily understand," Mr. Abel's statement to the contrary, notwithstanding. Large latitude is left to the inventor. In applications filed by American attorneys and particularly by skilled attorneys, there is very little difficulty with the form of claims. In order that there may be certainty as to their scope, it is required that each element be definitely and directly included, and that the claim be not, what may be termed, rambling. Further than this the examiner seldom goes, and as before stated, any ruling of the examiner is subject to revision on petition to the commissioner.

Four alleged rules are laid down by Mr. Abel as follows, which will be separately considered:

Firstly,-You cannot have a patent for a method of operating unless this can be expressed entirely without reference to apparatus or machinery.

Secondly, -You must not, in a claim for construction of apparatus or machinery, introduce any description of the manner in which it operates— your claim must be limited to the enumeration of the cranks, levers, cams, &c., that constitute your machine.

Thirdly,-You cannot in one and the same patent include a method of operation and the machine or apparatus by which that method of operating is carried out.