with such additional reasons as my own experience had placed at my command. s Deeming it unnecessary to repeat the reasons in favor of the proposition, which I again submit, I would respectfully refer to the last report of my predecessor previous to his retiring from this office, and to my own of the last year, for all the information which is deemed necessary to enable Congress to come to a correct conclusion in relation to the subject. But I would again refer to the able and interesting reports of the examiners attached to the reports of the Commissioner for the last two years, and to this report, for proof of the talents and scientific qualifications requisite to enable the incumbents to fill those laborious and responsible desks with credit to themselves and usefulness to the country. The remark may be safely hazarded, that there are but very few offices in the government which require more ability for sound and nice discrimination, more extensive and varied acquirements, and, it may be added, more inflexible integrity of character, than the office of examiner of patents. The revenues of the Patent Office are ample for the proposed increase of force and salaries in the examining corps; and the interests of the public, as well as of the inventors, require that it should be made. In my last annual report I had the honor to submit to Congress a propo. sition for certain modifications of the existing patent law, which I deemed important and necessary for the protection of the inventor, as well as the public. A bill, embodying most of the modifications suggested, was reported in each House, by the committees having the matter in charge; but in consequence of the great amount of business pressing upon Congress at the last session, it failed to become a law. The bill provided for two important. and essential changes in the existing law in relation to patents. One of those provisions was, that in all suits brought by the patentee for infringements of his invention, the letters patent securing his invention should be received by the courts trying the same as conclusive evidence of his right to recover damages, until they were set aside by the institution and prosecution to final judgment of a process for their repeal. The other was a provision for the institution of a process for the repeal of letters patent which had been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or upon false suggestion, or which were void, in whole or in part, for want of novelty, or other cause. The very inadequate protection afforded to the patentee by the present law, seems to me. to furnish sufficient reason for the proposed modification. After the rigorous and searching ordeal through which every invention passes at the Patent Office, it certainly seems reasonable that the letters patent, under the seal of one of the offices of the government of the United States, should be received in courts of justice as conclusive evidence of the title of the patentee to his invention, and his right to recover, until his patent shall have been revoked and annulled for good and sufficient cause, by a tribunal competent to investigate the matter. But the present law extends no such protection to the patentee. At present his letters patent are only presumptive evidence of the novelty of his invention, and of his right to recover. Consequently, the validity of his patent may be, and for the purposes of embarrassment often is, put in issue in suits for infringement, and he is compelled to prove the novelty of his invention over and over again, as often as the depredator upon. his rights, whom he seeks to punish, is disposed to put him to that trouble. Many instances of this wanton aggression upon the rights of the meritorious inventor have come to the knowledge of the undersigned since he has had the honor to be at the head of the Patent Office. And many of these instances of aggression proceed from wealthy and powerful companies and corporations, and the subjects of them are the inventors of the most useful and valuable machines and improvements. The more valuable the invention, the more liable is it to piracy and infringement. These wealthy and powerful bodies know well the benefit to them of the law's delay, and its ruinous expense to the single handed individual who dares to resist their unlawful and unjust invasion of his rights; and hence, in the end they hope to win, either by the defeat of the patentee by means of some trifling defect in his title deed, or his inability to procure the necessary evidence to substantiate his right, or by a compromise, in which he will be forced to sacrifice a portion of his claims in order to relieve him. self from the embarrassment and expense of the unequal contest. As the law now stands, the great burden of the controversy falls upon the patentee, and not upon the wanton violator of his rights, as it should. In this view of the matter, I think all candid men will agree that when a patentee has established, in the judgment of the office or tribunal whose duty it is to pass upon his claims in the first instance, a right to letters patent of the United States, that document should be his shield and protection until it is shown by others, who dispute his title, that he has no right to it. I am aware that there is a prejudice existing in the minds of a portion of the community (small I believe it is) against the claims of inventors. It is contended by some that patents securing ex:lusive rights to the discoverers of new machines or processes of manufacture are monopolies, operating to the detriment of the best interests of the community, and existing against the true policy of all just governments; and, therefore, are to be regarded with suspicion, construed with great strictness, and defeated if possible. I am fully persuaded that, on a little reflection, such a view of the rights of inventors will disappear from the minds of candid and reasonable men. What are the grounds on which all civilized and enlightened governments grant to persons making valuable discoveries in the arts and manufactures a limited monopoly of the benefits of their inventions? The main ground is to encourage discovery and invention—those great agents of social improvement—by securing to those who make them the profits which result from them, in order to enable them to remunerate themselves for their toils and expenditures, and to induce others to explore the vast and limitless field of invention. Every new discovery in science and art contributes to the wealth, convenience, and comfort of individuals, and to the improvement of society. Some of the inventions of the last few centuries have burst upon the world with the brilliancy of the morning sun, changing the whole aspect of society, and conferring incalculable benefits upon the human race. I need mention only the art of printing, the discovery of gunpowder, the steam engine, the cotton gin, the spinning jenny, the power loom, the steamboat, the railroad, and the magnetic telegraph. These great discoveries in scienco and art have revolutionized the condition of the civilized world, and their influence at this moment is probably more potent and more sensibly felt than ever before. I mention these great discoveries as striking instances of the effect of the labors of the inventor upon society and civilization. There are others of less note, producing their due influence upon the condition and welfare of the world. Even the most humble discovery contributes its due proportion to relieve the human family of its burdens, and administer to its comforts, and, to accelerate and aggrandize its unceasing and triumphant progress in the improvement of its condition, and the expansion and persection of its lofty nature and destiny. Therefore, there is ample reason why society should reward and encourage that class of its benefactors whose claims I am now considering, by securing to them, for a limited term, the exclusive enjoyment of the fruits of their genius and labors. But it cannot be denied that, upon the principles of abstract justice, the inventor has a complete and unquestionable claim to the fruits of his discoveries until his labors and sacrifices are adequately remunerated. Many valuable and profitable discoveries in the arts are the result of a sudden and lucky conception in a happy moment; but most of them are the fruits of days and years of incessant toil, anxious and harassing thought, and great pecuniary sacrifices. This toil, this mental effort, and these pecuniary sacrifices, establish a title to the product which is their offspring, as sacred and irrefragable in the eye of justice as the title to his farm, his workshop, or his merchandise, which a man has acquired by his labor, skill, and economy. So clear and convincing is this view of the right of the inventor to the fruits of his genius and labor, that argument in its support would seem to take from its strength. Yet the reasons are equally strong that the inventor’s exclusive enjoyment of his discoveries hould not be perpetual, but should be permitted only for a limited period. All inventions, great and small, generally have their period of birth, growth, maturity, and perfection, if the latter term be allowable. And if one mind conceives and gives birth to the first idea, many assist in its development and expansion. Probably no piece of mechanism was ever made which was perfect in all its parts at its first creation. The steam engine is an interesting and beautiful illustration of the gradual progress of an invention, from its first conception in the mind of the inventor to its present wonderful state of perfection and efficiency. It first appeared in a rude form, unwieldy and dangerous to those who dared to operate it —a thing designed more for experiment than utility; and now, after passing through nearly two centuries of improvement, and taxing the highest intellectual energies of thousands of ingenious and skilful men, it appears to us with a perfection, in the nice and delicate adjustment of its machinery, which astonishes and delights us, and an efficiency and power of action which enable it to confer the greatest and most lasting benefits upon mankind. The history of this wonderful engine and instrument of civilization shows as clearly and conclusively that the claims of the inventor to the fruits of his genius should not be perpetual, as it does that he should be permitted to enjoy them until he is adequately remunerated for his labor and expenditures. For, if his right to his invention were perpetual and exclusive, no other person could improve it, because he could not use his

improvement with the original invention, and therefore not at all. This would immeasurably retard, if not wholly prevent, all improvement of original inventions, and would result in incalculable injury and mischief to society. Hence, while admitting the unquestionable justice of the claim of the inventor to the fruits of his genius for a period of time sufficient to enable him to remunerate himself adequately for his toils and expenses, it is absolutely necessary, for the progress of improvement and the welfare of society, that his exclusive right should then cease, and his invention become the common property of the public. Others will then have an opportunity to remedy the defects of, and to improve and perfect, his original creations. And, in accordance with this view of the subject, the constitution of the United States authorizes Congress to enact laws for the promotion of the useful arts and the protection of the inventor in the enjoyment of the fruits of his genius and skill for a certain period, the duration of which is limited to fourteen years; at the end of which time, in consideration of such protection, his invention, and the secret of it, shall become the property df the public. I have been thus particular in setting forth the general principles of the patent law, because, as before remarked, a prejudice prevails to some extent in the community against the justice of the claims of the inventor to temporary protection in the enjoyment of the fruits of his labors. I am, however, happy to see that juster sentiments are growing more prevalent in relation to the rights of that valuable and meritorious class of citizens. During the past year courts of justice have displayed a more earnest desire to give protection to the inventor, as evinced by the liberal construction which they have given to the present imperfect patent law, whenever questions relating to patents have come before them for adjudiCatlon. The bills reported by the respective committees of the two houses contained other provisions less important than the two which I have been considering, deemed, however, to be necessary modifications and improvements of the existing law in relation to patents; but as they were particularly explained in my former report, it is unnecessary further to consider thein. In connexion with the subject of the amendment of the existing patent law, I would respectfully suggest the expediency of making some new provision in reference to the applications of the citizens and subjects of other countries for letters patent in the United States. By the existing law a subject of Great Britain is required to pay into the treasury a duty of $500 before his application can be examined. The citizens and subjects of all other foreign countries are each required to pay into the treasury a duty of $300 on their respective applications. These duties were designed to bear some proportion to the duties required of American citizens making applications for patents in other countries, and on that ground may, perhaps, be justified and defended. The effect of this provision is unquestionably to prevent the introduction into this country, of many useful and valuable discoveries, which would etherwise be patented and introduced. Similar high duties have the effect to exclude American inventions from other countries. Thus all countries are injured by this system of taxing genius for the exertion of its powers, in order to obtain comparatively a very small and trifling amount of revenue. It affords no protection to the American inventor to keep out the discoveries of his foreign emulator (not rival) in the arts, by taxing the emanations of his genius with high duties, while the country would derive much benefit from their introduction. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted whether it would not be expedient, if Congress should make the amendments to the patent law already proposed, also to provide contingently for the reduction of the duties required on application for patents by the citizens or subjects of foreign governments to thirty dollars, whenever it shall appear that corresponding reductions have been made, by those governments, of the duties required of American citizens. I have reason to believe that the proposition would be received with favor by some, if not all, of the European governments. As constant inquiry is made, by citizens residing in all parts of the Union, for information in relation to the laws of foreign governments respecting the granting of patents, I have, for the accommodation and convenience of such persons, caused abstracts to be made of the legislative provisions and ordinances of all foreign governments of which this office is in possession, which are hereto annexed, marked F. The law providing for the admission of Texas into the Union failed to make provision for the transfer to this office of the records, models, and drawings of the patent office of Texas. Nor has there yet been made by Congress any provision by which patents granted in Texas, before the admission of that State into the Union, shall be valid in the United States. Under the new relations of that State to the Union, it would appear to be necessary for the public convenience, and the protection of those citizens of Texas who obtained patents under the government of that State when existing as an independent republic, that the contents of the patent office of Texas should be transferred to this office, and that such legal provision

should be made by Congress as may appear to be necessary to secure the

validity of all patents granted under the authority of that State prior to its annexation to this republic. Congress, at its last session, having declined to make the usual appropriation for the annual agricultural report made by this office, I regarded the act as an instruction to me not to prepare a report of that character for the year just past, and accordingly none has been prepared, and none will, of course, be made to Congress at its present session. Whether or not such a report as this office has been required to make for some years past upon the state of the crops, the amount of agricultural products, and the discoveries and improvements in the science and practice of agriculture, is of any value to Congress or to the country, it is not for the undersigned to affirm. Yet it is respectfully submitted that from no other source could so much accurate and valuable information in relation to the condition and progress of agriculture be obtained, as from the reports of this office upon that subject; of course, not referring to the report of last year. The remark, I am confident, may be safely hazarded, that from no other source could such accurate estimates of the amount of agricultural production of each year be obtained as from the reports of this office; as the statement of a few facts, showing the ground on which those estimates were made, will clearly prove.