JOHN R. HARRINGTON.

DECEMBER 16, 1890.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed.

Mr. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey, from the Committee on Patents, submitted the following

ADVERSE REPORT:

[To accompany H. R. 4743.]

The Committee on Patents, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4743) for the relief of John R. Harrington, would respectfully report:

That the committee at the first session of the present Congress adopted the general policy of reporting favorably only such bills for the extension or renewal of letters patent as applied to cases where the patentee had been prevented from receiving the full benefit of his invention because of some fault or remissness of some official of the Government.

This case not falling within this category, your committee would recommend that the bill do not pass. The annexed paper will explain the case.

PETITION OF JOHN R. HARRINGTON.

To the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled:

Your petitioner respectfully represents that he is the inventor of a carpet lining, and of a machine for producing the same; that the original patent is dated April 1, 1856; that the reissues thereof were once extended by the Commissioner of Patents, namely for seven years, from August 14, 1876; that said carpet lining is very valuable to the public by reason of its prolonging the wear of carpets to the extent of about 50 per cent. of their value, besides adding largely to the comfort, warmth, etc., of rooms in which it is laid.

Your petitioner further represents that by reason of his want of means and other matters not within his control, and also the loss of his eyesight, being for about twenty-one years last past totally blind, he has failed to obtain from the original term and the first extended term a reasonable compensation therefor.

Your petitioner therefore prays that he may be allowed a renewal and extension of the said reissued letters patent for the term of seven years, from and after the date of the passage of the act extending same.

And your petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray. December 24, 1889.

Dated Brooklyn, N. Y.,

his JOHN R. X HARRINGTON.

Witness:

J. C. WARD.

mark.

[House Report No. 2592, Forty-eighth Congress, second session.]

The Committee on Patents, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 6486) for the relief of John R. Harrington, submit the following report:

That the applicant is an old man and entirely blind, and has been so during the greater portion of the lifetime of the patents, and for this reason he failed to realize any adequate compensation for his invention and expenses.

The invention consists in the improvement of carpet lining, and is a foundation one, and of great merit. It appears that the most influential dealers in the carpet trade in all parts of the United States, have petitioned for renewal of the patents to the said John R. Harrington, and that the manufacturers are in favor of the same. No opposition appears to be made to the granting of the relief prayed for by the applicant. The committee are confident from all the evidence that the failure to obtain compensation is not from any neglect or default of the applicant.

The committee therefore recommend the passage of the accompanying bill.

[House Report No. 645, Forty-ninth Congress, first session.]

The Committee on Patents, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4594) for the relief of John R. Harrington, submit the following report:

The committee adopts the House report No. 2592, Forty-eighth Congress, second session, as follows:

"That the applicant is an old man and entirely blind, and has been so during the greater portion of the lifetime of the patents, and for this reason he failed to realize any adequate compensation for his invention and expenses.

The invention consists in the improvement of carpet lining, and is a foundation one, and of great merit. It appears that the most influential dealers in the carpet trade in all parts of the United States have petitioned for renewal of the patents to the said John R. Harrington, and that the manufacturers are in favor of the same. "No opposition appears to be made to the granting of the relief prayed for by the applicant. The cominittee are confident from all the evidence that the failure to obtain compensation is not from any neglect or default of the applicant."

The committee recommend an amendment to the bill by striking out all of section 1, after the word "act," in line 11, and inserting as follows:

"And the Commissioner of Patents is hereby authorized and empowered to renew and extend to said John R. Harrington each of said patents for the term of seven years from and after his decision thereon, with the same force and effect as if each of said patents had been originally granted for the term of seven years from the date of his decision thereon, if, in his judgment, the same should be renewed and extended." The committee recommend the passage of the accompanying bill as amended.

To the honorable the Committee on Patents of the House of Representatives, Fifty-first Congress :

In the matter of a "bill for the relief of John R. Harrington," numbered H. R. 4743, and now pending before said committee.

BRIEF IN BEHALF OF THE REMONSTRANTS AGAINST THE PASSAGE OF SAID BILL.

In behalf of said remonstrants I respectfully ask leave to submit the following statement of facts and reasons why the said bill should not be favorably reported upon by said committee or passed:

The bill contemplates the extension of reissued letters patent, numbered 2415 and 2416, cach dated December 11, 1866, for improvements in carpet lining and means for producing the same, which letters patent were granted to John R. Harrington. Briefly stated the history of these patents is as follows:

As early as July 16, 1855, said Harrington filed in the Patent Office his caveat, claiming the substance of the inventions in question.

April 1, 1856, letters patent No. 14585 were issued to him for improvements in "machines for making carpet lining," for fourteen years from date, thus expiring on April 1, 1870. A copy of the patent head, marked A*, and of the drawing, marked B*, is hereto annexed; the specifications are not annexed, as they are out of print, and are substantially the same as those, hereafter annexed, of the reissues of the same patent. Not furnished.

December 11, 1866, there was a reissue of said patent in two divisions, as follows: Reissued letters patent for improved carpet lining, dated December 11, 1866, for fourteen years from April 1, 1856, and numbered 2415 (copy of the patent head is annexed and marked C, and of the drawing, marked D, and of the specifications, marked E).

Reissued letters patent for an "improved machine for making carpet lining," dated December 11, 1866, for fourteen years from April 1, 1856, and numbered 2416 (copy of the patent head is annexed and marked F,* and of the drawing, marked G,* and of the specifications, marked H).

These reissues expiring, as in the case of the original patent, on April 1, 1870. August 14, 1876, an act entitled "An act for the relief of John R. Harrington" was passed by Congress authorizing the Commissioner of Patents to extend said reissued patents, and accordingly certificates of extension of both said reissued patents (Nos. 2415 and 2416) were issued of date November 15, 1876, for seven years from August 14, 1876 (the date of passage of the act). A copy of the said certificate of extension of No. 2415 is hereto annexed and marked I,* and of said certificate of extension of No. 2416 and marked J.*

The following is a summary of the dates:

Apr. 1,1856. Original letters patent.

Dec. 11, 1866. Reissue of same in two divisions.

Apr. 1, 1870. Said patents expired.

Aug. 14, 1876. Act of Congress authorizing extension.

Aug. 14, 1876. Extension commenced, as granted by Commissioner.

Ang. 14, 1883. Extension expired.

The patent having once expired for over seven years, the patentee obtained an extension from Congress, and, it now having for a second time expired for over six years, he again seeks a second extension.

I submit that it would be, if not unprecedented, as I think it is, most extraordinary and in the highest degree unjust under such circumstances to permit the patents to be for a second time extended by special act of Congress.

In the first place, it is not in fact an "extens on" that is asked for by the former patentee, it is the granting of a new patent; it should be so considered. If it was the granting of an existing patent on an invention which had not become public prɔp. erty, the case would be different. But the patentee now asks that an article should be withdrawn from public manufacture and use and placed under his exclusive control and at his mercy, which for over six years has become common and public property; which the public have understood that they were at liberty to freely manufac ture, sell, and buy; in the manufacture of which large sums of money have been invested and manufacturing "plants" established, in the belief that the manufacture and sale was free to all.

The policy of the patent law is against such an extension. An inventor before applying for his patent can not make any public sale of his invention, because it becomes then common property; how much stronger is the case, where an invention for over thirteen years in all had been public property, freely made and used in vast quantities all through the United States.

The power of Congress to extend patents is an extraordinary one, only used in cases of extreme hardship and injustice, and especially where the injustice was caused by Government officers, and not granted where it would operate to the injury of vested business interests or of consumers.

It is never used to enable an inventor to take to himself the monopoly of great business interests, which have grown up in the belief that he had no claim upon them. If this bill passed, the patentee might say to all these large business houses: "Stop your business, lose your plants, or pay me whatever I demand." In other words, hold manufacturer, merchant, and consumer entirely at his mercy.

The inventor, after a lapse of the patents for seven years, once invoked and received this extraordinary assistance from Congress; he has no right, after the lapse of another six years, to again invoke this assistance thirty-four years after his original patent was granted.

I submit that this claim of his is the most extraordinary one in regard to extension of patents ever brought before Congress, and unprecedented.

If such a principle is recognized by Congresss as the granting of a new patent for articles, which for many years have become public property, and as such manufactured and sold, what security can persons have for entering into business in regard to articles formerly patented? It requires no further argument or illustration to show how extremely dangerous such a doctrine would be, and how difficult it would be to draw the line as to whether an extension could be granted five or fifty or a hundred years after the expiration of a patent.

Very large business interests are involved in this question, which interests by an extension might be put at the mercy of the patentee, and either extinguished or compelled to bear onerous burdens, injurious to manufacturer, dealer, and consumer.

*Not furnished.

There are at least eight carpet lining factories in this country, two in Walpole, Mass., one in Chicago, one in New York, three in Boston, one in Vermont, and there is also one in Canada. I will not delay the committee by argument as to the probable inability of factories in this country, under the burden of a patent, competing with factories in Canada, free from that burden.

In 1889 these factories in the United States manufactured from 65,000 to 75,000 bales of carpet lining, having on an average 200 yards to a bale, making at least 13,000,000 yards. On this enormous business the patentee asks Congress to impose a tax, not for revenue or otherwise for the country's benefit, but for his sole advantage.

The signers of the remonstrances against this extension manufactured in 1889 more than 95 per cent, of all the lining made in this country in that year. These factories represent a business of more than $500,000.

One establishment alone (the Union Carpet Lining Company of Boston) have a capital, invested in their manufacture and their business, of over $150,000.

These factories have carried on business, made their investments, and some of them established their "plants" on the understanding that the articles were free from patents, and that they could not be subjected to royalties or other burdens. Prices have become adjusted accordingly.

As a result prices have been reduced more than half, and as a further result of this diminution of price, these articles have become of common use and necessity, and where many formerly used old newspapers or similar inferior material, now every one who has a carpet feels that he must have a manufactured carpet lining.

The people would not patiently submit to having prices all through the country raised for the benefit of one man. This would be returning to the ancient English doctrine of monopolies for the benefit of an individual, on salt or articles of common and almost universal use, and therefore free to all to manufacture or sell-a doctrine now odious in even the most despotic countries.

I respectfully call your attention to the weight of the remonstrances against the proposed extension, representing as they do the largest houses in the country, interested in the matter. These remonstrants employ in their business from fifty to seventy-five millions of capital. Some of the individual remonstrances represent more than five millions of capital.

Among the others, I beg to call your attention especially to the great carpet houses of W. & J. Sloane, of New York, Marshall, Field & Co., of Chicago, E. S. Higgins & Co., of New York, John & James Dobson, of Philadelphia, Jordan, Marsh & Co., of Boston, D. N. & E. Walter & Co., of San Francisco, Hilton, Hughes & Denning, of New York, John H. Pray, Sons & Co., of Boston, Joel Goldthwait & Co., of Boston, and also to the Union Carpet Lining Company, of Boston, the largest manufacturers of carpet lining in the country, and J. P. & J. G. Ray, of Rhode Island, also manufacturers of the lining. It is no exaggeration to say that the whole carpet and carpet lining trade of the country is opposed to this extension.

I assume that your committee will not in the investigation of this question reach the point of whether the patentee has received adequate compensation, and that for the above and other reasons, which will occur to the committee, under no circumstances will an extension of this extraordinary nature be granted.

Aside, however, from the above I submit that the former patentee could not, if obliged to disclose all that he has received on account of his invention, and how he has parted with his interests in the past, and in and to the extension, if it should be granted, make out a case to entitle him to the legislation which he seeks.

The American Carpet Lining Company alone (a corporation formerly in the business) paid to said Harrington from March 1, 1877, to August 14, 1883, about $13,000. This can be established by affidavits, which, with other evidence, I shall ask the privilege of submitting, if the committee shall decide to give a hearing, or that the case warrants their assuming the labor of investigating accounts. Before this he had also received compensation, probably at the rate of $2,000 per year for several years, but the exact amounts I can not state, although Harrington and other witnesses, if before the committee, could state the amounts particularly. It may be suflicient to state that Harrington has received at different times compensation amounting in the aggregate to a large sum for the use of his inventions.

The extension, if granted, will inure largely to the benefit of others than the inventor. He has heretofore made agreements by which he has granted to others the principal portion of the benefits of an extension, if it should be granted by former Congresses, and I submit with confidence that a hearing before the committee and an examination before them of Harrington and others will disclose that this extension, if granted, will be for the benefit principally of other parties than Harrington, and that he will share in such benefits in very small proportion.

The patents in question were always of doubtful validity; there was much litigation in regard to them, and their validity was not established by any decision of court; and the patentee and those interested in the patents preferred to take smaller