Notes transcribed from print-out from microfilm
made by P.J. Federico before the original volume was lost
entitled Patent Office Correspondence 1814-36
Call number T223 D7P29 1988 NMAH
Smithsonian National Museum of American History Library
Notes of Letter Book
Patent Office to Department of State
Department of State to Patent Office
-----
page 1
21 Nov 1822 William Thornton to John Quincy Adams
Department of State
Patent Office 21st Nov. 1822
Sir
In obedience to the resolution of Congress of the 16th of April last, requiring information through you "whether any of the officers in the Department of State are engaged in other pursuits or professions in no wise relating to the public service" I have the honor to observe, that when first commissioned by President Washington, 28 years ago, I had a salary of $1600, and being member of the Board of Commissioners, I could visit my farm occasionally, for days or even weeks, without injury to the public service, but since that board was dissolved, my duties as Superintendent of the Patent Office became so urgent as to induce one of your predecessors to engage that my salary should be $2000 per annum, which, however, I never received but one year. Those duties have constantly been increasing, till they require such incessant attention that I have not been able to visit my farm above twice a year for a few hours each time; and instead of my farm aiding now in supporting me, I am obliged to support my farm, and I cannot resort to my medical profession, nor to any other, because it would interfere with my public duties, from which I have scarcely absented myself for two or three days during several years past.
As I am confident that the justice of Congress dictated this inquiry, I am in hopes that the result may tend to the benefit of those who have honestly performed their duties, and that my salary will not be paid according to the inverse ratio of my duties, but that I may be paid what was promised for my services, and which in honor ought to be paid
I am sir with the highest respect and consideration etc.
William Thornton
Honorable John Quincy Adams
Secretary of State of the United States
-----
page 2
23 Nov 1822 William Elliot to John Quincy Adams
Department of State (Patent Office)
November 23, 1822
Sir
In answer to your letter, addressed to Doctor Thornton, requiring information of the clerks and messengers in this office, respecting any employment they may have except their duties in office. I can state for myself, that I have no other business at present. Formerly, out of office hours, I gave lessons to young officers in the Navy, and to others, in mathematics, but which I did not consider any breach of duty, nor any injury to the public service. However, I have done very little in this during the present year, and will altogether discontinue it if required.
I am very respectfully, your obedient servant
Wm. Elliot
To the Hon. John Q. Adams
Secretary of State of the U. States
-----
page 2
23 Nov 1822 Robert Fenwick
Department of State
Patent Office Nov 23, 1822
Sir
I am employed as a messenger in the Patent Office, and have been requested to state to you whether I have any other employment. I have not.
I am very respectfully your obedient servant
R. W. Fenwick
To the Hon. John Q. Adams
Secretary of State of the U. States
-----
page 2-3
19 Nov 1822 Josias King to John Quincy Adams.
Only outside employment is as a notary public without business
-----
page 3
20 Nov 1822 Fontaine Maury, Th. L. Thurston, George E. Ironside, Linneus Smith John Bailey, and John Morton Baker, report that they are State Department employees without outside employment
-----
page 3
21 Nov 1822 Andrew T. McCormick reports that he is a State Department employee without outside employment.
-----
page 4
20 Nov 1822 R. Forrest reports that he is a State Department employee without outside employment. He does own a farm in the vicinity of the city.
-----
page 4
20 Nov 1822 Daniel Brent reports that he is Chief Clerk of the State Department without outside employment. He does own a farm in the vicinity of the city.
-----
[NOTE: Obviously this book started out being used for general purposes, and only at this point became a book of Patent Office records. KWD]
-----
pages 4-10 5 Sept 1825 James Ph. Puglia to Henry Clay
Sir,
On the 15th of August last I had the honor of sending to you a representation, with accompanying papers, relative to a patent obtained last year by a certain Mr. Nathaniel Sylvester; and as by Doctor Thornton's letter of the 18th I was informed that the same remained in his possession on account of your absence, I hope the gentleman will have had, 'ere now, the goodness of laying the whole of them before you, agreeably to my request of the 22d same month. Sometime having already elapsed without hearing of any result,I conjecture that said papers lay, perhaps on the table for consideration; but conceiving that you might probably be inclined to set them aside, under the general impression that the section 10th of the law of February 21st 1793 exclusively provides for redress in similar cases, I find myself unavoidably obliged to trouble you once more on the subject, by showing that, if I claim the single notice of your department it is, in my opinion, a correct step and the only legal one that my case can admit. This being the principal point which I propose to demonstrate, I shall with your leave preface it with some explanatory remarks, rendered indispensable by my circumstances. But before I begin, I respectfully pray you, sir, to bear constantly in mind, that the frankness of my sentiments is never to be considered, in any of its expressions, as divested of that sincere veneration, which the high dignity of your station and of government, justly claims from very free man; and above all, that the arguments I propose to offer, are by no means intended as established principles, but reasonable positions submitted for candid examination.
If Doctor William Thornton, the Director or Superintendent of you Patent Office is positive in his letters to me, I am enabled to assert upon his own authority:
1. That he, in his said capacity, did not apprise Mr. Sylvester of my patent and publication,
2. That the personages appointed by the standing law to solemnize a national patent, granted in 1824 that of Sylvester without paying any regard to the exclusive right warranted to me in 1822. [fn.: (as to 1 & 2) Doctor Thornton's letter to J. Ph. Puglia dated August 9th 1825]
3. That if a patent is demanded, it will be issued, from that Office, though it is even known that it interferes with a previous one. [fn.: Doctor Thornton's letter to J. Ph. Puglia dated August 18th 1825]
By the first of these sentences, I cannot but perceive a material forgetfulness, if not ignorance, of the Office's records on the part of that gentleman, as well as a kind of indifference at the regularity thereof. By the 2nd it appears to me, that your entire confidence in the knowledge and vigilance of the incumbent, has been eventually disappointed. And by the 3d, I have reason to lament the evident facility with which patents are granted, whereby the original inventor, launching their discoveries to the public with a bona fide reliance on the encouraging law of Congress find themselves unexpectedly exposed to the surreption[?] of artful adventurers; to dilatory and expensive litigations, and to the distressing waste of their means and time in prosecuting the offender. Such being my actual circumstances, I am kindly consoled by the perspicacious Doctor with the following phrase in his last letter to me of the 18th August last: "But you will find that such a patent may be set aside by the 10th section of the law by a speedy process." How speedy said process may be, I do not see that it regards at all whether I have or have not the means to undertake it; and whether I must forsake, on its account, the daily profession which alone affords me a frugal subsistence.
But the more I meditate on this unpleasant consolation, the more I think it repugnant to the feelings of an old citizen who sincerely loves and reverences the authority of his country. If the nation suffers the privileges solemnly granted through her sovereign will, to any living person, to be brought in question and annulled by a court of justice, I shall never be the mover of the suit. I consider, Sir:
1. That Mr. Sylvester acts under a national authority, which my moral and social duties forbid me to oppose,
2. That he, therefore, is not answerable to me, but solely to the high power, which partially protects him.
Nor can I, with any sense of equity, denigrate his active and industrious influence, already acquired, as I understand, throughout the union, because the credit of a rational being is generally reputed, by sensible souls as more valuable than life itself. Besides, this uncharitable measure would apparently prove an antidote both dilatory and useless after all, because the heavy expenses of publications etc. calculated to counteract in every quarter the impression made by him, would by far exceed my pecuniary means, in consequence of which my insufficiency would bid me to sink under his evident oppression, and leave the happy alien to prey on my interest and comfort as he pleases.
But, Sir, on turning the leaf of this desponding detail, a sudden inspiration (not from a gentleman of the law, because for want of means I am not in the habit of consulting any, but one of those that sometimes awaken my mind) encourages me to view my present case as partaking of such a singular turn, as to be, in statuque[?], exempt from the cognizance and decision of the district or any other court of the U.S. Dispensing with the auxiliary doctrines of Grotius, Vattel, Reffendorf[?] and such other celebrated civilians, guided by simple common sense, I submit the following arguments, which I sincerely take to be correct:
1. The above mentioned section 10th of the law provides a redress, through the district court, against patents surreptitiously obtained by citizens, but in my present case the surreption[?] comes from a national favorite, who is not a citizen of the U.S.
2. The very purport of the late act of May 26th 1824 evidently shows, that it was never intended by the statute, nor expected by the judiciary power.
3. Should it be insisted upon, that my redress is only to be obtained by the usual process through the district court of the United States, then, as the prosecution should necessarily arise from the retrospective effect of said late act, the same would exhibit the symptoms of an ex post facto law, incompatible with Section X 1 of the Federal Constitution.
4. The decisive predilection manifested by the Government [fn.: Under this term are to be understood the Legislative and Executive Powers, both being the Authors of the Patent in question.] to said Alien, wears the clear appearance of its grant portending to be a new sovereign act on national responsibility and cognizable by none but itself.
5. Hence it follows that government, if unwilling to grant me a relief at his hand, and generously disposed to see my grievance impartially redressed, by letting the extent of its responsibility to be determined by a national jury, I reasonably expect that it will probably think on the expedient of passing an act, whereby, waiving its eminent domain, I may be authorized to issue process against the same, because the Supreme Court; and in that case, unable to employ counsel, I cannot avoid claiming the honor of being there admitted as attorney pro persona.
When I reflect, sir, on the prominent bearings of my present case, my affliction leads me to lament the issuing of Sylvester's patent and its concomitant incongruity, as a deed consummated by mere power unsupported by any right, and in this very manner I consider myself to have been unexpectedly divested of my lawful property, for the purpose of bestowing the same on the fortunate Englishman who on stepping on this liberal land, ignorant (as I charitably suppose him to have been) of American discoveries, boldly claimed the attention of Government, as the inventor of a previous invention.
The fifth act of the amendments to the Federal Constitution positively ordains that "private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation." Can then be presumed, that such a sublime charger of this grand political compact, did ever think it probable that our government, acting (as it is solemnly bound to do) under its authority, should at a future time take the property of an old citizen, not for the use or benefit of the public, but solely to regale with it a foreigner just arrived? And will any honest civilian pretend to assert that the unfortunate sufferer must undergo the ordeal of a judiciary power, when the very Constitution that created it did not foresee, and consequently intend to place the fact in question under its jurisdiction.
But to prove conclusively that in the case under consideration, I have nothing to do with Mr. Sylvester nor any court whatever,give me leave to appeal to plain moral equity. The honorable laws of this virtuous luminary, being founded in nature, are immutable, and can suffer no alteration but what may be attempted by daring force and oppression. One of the brightest axioms that adorn its sanctuary, is that "the author of a damage is bound to repair the same, as self convicted by the fact." The question and answer broadly hinted by this doctrine are so obvious and natural as to entitle me, for the sake of brevity, to declare that I hold and look upon our government as my sole and real debtor for all damages.
By this last conclusion, nothing remains for me to do but follow the universally recognized rules of commerce, whereby mariner and merchants make a formal abandonment to the underwriters or who ever it may concern, of their wrecked ship or goods as unworthy of their further pursuits; and accordingly, as the act of May 26th and the patent issued in favor of Mr. Nathaniel Sylvester on the 12th July 1824, appear evidently to me to have superseded my patent of August 13th, 1822, the same, not deserving my further attention, is hereby solemnly renounced and abandoned for the account of Government, entertaining the confident expectation that its justice, it dignity and its known liberality, will not withhold from me an equitable compensation therefor.
In closing my actual representation, permit me, sir, to call again on your superior penetration and generally admired urbanity, inviting you with the utmost deference to favor me with the open display of my objection you might conceive against my exposition of the 15th of August last, or the contents of the present. Anxiously wishing to be corrected if wrong, but to be righted if right, I beg you to consider me as an honest logician, who sincerely looks for truth and scrupulously follows it in the full extent of his mental faculties; hence rather diffident than positive, reason alone will with me maintain or reject my greatest interest. Under this candid assurance, I do solemnly protest and promise to retrace my steps and silently quash my pretensions, whenever I can be made sensible that the ground I have assumed is materially defective and untenable. To this reasonable object my fervent prayers are directed, and considering the ample stock of information which you possess to ascertain the fact, I do anticipate to myself the gratification of receiving your respectable sentiments thereon.
But if unheeded and left to my insulated reflections, it is evident that no other resource is left to me but that of troubling the attention of Congress at their next session. Unwillingly, indeed, I shall yield to the necessity of such a measure, still I will not so much regret it, as the dread that the nature of my case may afford matter of detraction to ill disposed editors and scribblers, who eagerly seize every opportunity for scandalously inveighing against the most liberal of earthly governments.
Conscious, Sir, that the probably crowd of national affairs under your serious consideration must view a private application like this as a disagreeable diversion, I do devoutly beseech you to forebear the liberty I have taken, as I propose to be the last, unless you condescend to reason with me, and your observations require from me further illustrations.
With the most sincere and profound respect, I have the honor to be, sir, your most obedient and very humble servant
James Ph. Puglia
Professor of foreign languages
Mount Airy's College
Germantown, Philadelphia County
September 5th 1825
-----
pages 11-12
23 Nov 1825 Elliot to Daniel Brent suggesting changes in patent law:
1. Meaning of word application should be clarified; does it mean application for patent or application of patent to use?
2. When patent exceeds a thousand words patentee should be charged a larger fee.
3. Caveats should be provided for, to allow time for perfecting invention and prevent workmen from stealing it.
4. Money received for patents should be deposited in a bank immediately by a clerk in the State Department to relieve Patent Office of responsibility. "As respects myself I am particularly desirous this course should be immediately pursued, for a present I am often made responsible for money without any adequate guard by which I may be protected from imposition.
-----
page 12
12 Dec 1825 Thornton to Clay soliciting increase of salary. Speaks of search necessary to "guard with incessant and watchful attention against ingenious projectors, who seek by various means to reinstate themselves in those patents that are expiring, or that have become public property.
-----
page 13-14
23 Feb 1826 Elliot to Brent. Robert Fenwick, besides the usual business of a messenger in a public office, copies in a book most of the letters written to correspondents. He uniformly conducts himself in this Office, obligingly, and with fidelity and industry.
-----
page 14-15
12 Nov 1821 William Thornton to Robert Smith, former Secretary of State
Asks him to confirm that he ordered that Thornton should receive $2000 per annum, the papers having been lost by Congress. Smith does so on 17 Nov 1821, but does not recall the contents of the memorandum of June 16, 1810. Thornton sends papers to present Secy of State to forward to President 8 May 1826.
City of Washington 12th November 1821
Dear Sir,
While you were the Secretary of State, I had the honor of submitting to your consideration the duties of my office, and you being convinced that they were not ordinary duties, thought it proper to give me such a compensation as you deemed compatible with the public good, and stated in a written memorandum dated the 16 day of June 1810, that my salary should be at the rate of $2000 per annum, from the 1st day of July following, and I received at that rate for some quarters, but the duties of the Department of State required afterwards some additional clerks, this salary was not paid to me regularly. Your predecessor, Mr. Madison, had occasionally given me at this rate, but my salary had not been fixed till you were so good as to determine it. In consequence of no due appropriations I addressed the Congress, and the appropriation in my favor passed both Houses, but not in the same session, therefore was not enacted; at last my papers which contained the written agreement, with which you were so good as to honor me and a letter from President Monroe, when Secretary of State, also from Mr. Rush, when retiring from that office, and from Mr. Secretary Adams, all concurring with you, and recommending the measure, were, at the last session of Congress, mislaid or lost in the Senate, and I am now without the aid of these important papers. Therefore, though I with great reluctance trouble with old affairs, I am under the necessity of soliciting a certificate that you honored me with such a paper; for I must apply to Congress again on this subject, and try to obtain what may be considered as some compensation for the total, and never-ceasing dedication of my time and labor to an office which requires great attention; and which precludes me now retiring occasionally into the country for relaxation, and from engaging in any other beneficial employment.
By favoring me with such a certificate you will very much oblige me.
I am, dear sir, with the highest respect and consideration, your sincere friend.
William Thornton
Honorable Robert Smith
Washington County, District of Columbia
Personally appeared William Thornton, who made solemn affirmation as to the truth of the foregoing statement.
Affirmed this 15th Nov 1821 before
Enoch Reynolds, J.P.
----
William Thornton Esq
Sir
I cannot allow myself to entertain any doubt as to the correctness of your statement in the foregoing letters to one. It is confirmed by the accompanying statements. I have, however, greatly to regret that my memory does not enable me to state with requisite accuracy the terms and conditions of the written memorandum dated June 16, 1810. But will not Congress receive, as equivalent to the original, your affidavit of the contents of the lost papers, and especially as the loss is not imputable to you.
With respect, etc. etc.
R. Smith
Baltimore, Nov 17, 1821
-----
page 16
8 May 1826 Thornton to President.
Suggest changes in patent laws, asks increase in salary, franking privileges.
-----
page 17-18
8 Mar 1826 Thornton to Congress
Asks franking privilege.
-----
page 18
16 June 1826 Thornton to Daniel Brent
"If the Hon. Secy of State has ordered the arrangement you mention respecting the patent fees I am satisfied, otherwise I will not permit Mr. Elliot or any other gentleman to make the arrangement of my office. I feel sufficiently the degraded state in which the late Secretary placed me by directing all the letters of my office to be opened by others to permit any direct encroachments on my station without repelling them. I served under Mr. Madison, Mr. Monroe and Mr. Rush, no letter directed to my office was ever opened by any of them nor was there ever a dollar missing. I have no objection to the arrangement, but any regulations respecting my office shall never be made by other than myself, except the Secretary of State, to whom only I am amenable. I mean not in any respect to reflect on you, for you have always acted toward me with the utmost politeness."
-----
page 18-19
16 June 1826 Thornton to Brent.
Drawings of this office cannot be reduced or enlarged without a pantagraph which will cost $40. Thornton will order one from Pishey Thompson and send his account to the State Department.
-----
page 19
1 Aug 1826 Thornton to Brent.
"I am truly sorry that you have sent us coal that will not burn. Last year we were without fires half our time and have most of the coal remaining still. I was in hopes after what I said that we might have been permitted to lay in our own coal. I beg that this small coal fit only for blacksmiths may be taken back because we cannot use it."
-----
page 19
18 Aug 1826 Thornton to Brent.
Vol 6 of Dobson's Encyclopedia was loaned to Mr. Colvin while in State Dept and never returned. Last volumes of set were never received. Please order them from Mr. Dobson.
-----
page 19-22
28 Nov 1826 William Thornton to Henry Clay
Department of State
Patent Office 28th November 1826
Sir
I consider it not only a duty to my family and myself, but to those gentlemen who are in my office, and consequently to the public through an attention to them, to give a candid statement of the clerks required in the Patent Office, necessary to perform the current business, and to submit with great deference whether the Superintendent and the several clerks are not entitled to be considered by the government in the same light as the persons employed in the secondary branches of the various departments of the government, and to be provided for with as much liberality, for it will be universally admitted that the duties require at least as much learning, ability and attention as any of these.
It will require two clerks to copy specifications of patents, to endorse and arrange the papers and answer the numerous inquiries, assist in answering and recording letters respecting inventions and interferences etc. (that is, one in addition to the present clerk.)
It will require two clerks to record the patents handsomely in books, to arrange the drawings, and to make out a proper index, etc.
It may frequently happen that the papers sent to this office are incorrectly written; it therefore requires men of intelligence and good education to perform the duties of copying, recording, etc.
As this office is a section of the Department of State, and the high duties thereof were performed by a board, consisting of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War and the Attorney General of the United States, it cannot be considered as an office of small importance, especially as its duties have increased at least six fold, and as the census increases must of course become more and more difficult, because the numerous inventions and improvements have always been referred back, to what has been done; so that the labours are not increasing merely by numbers, but in a compound ratio; which is not the case with any other office, where the business is a matter of mere routine, and the labours finish with the day, and are not subject to an eternal recurrence, requiring a continual stretch of memory and an attention to all the arts and sciences not only known, but in progression; increasing the correspondence of the superintendent accordingly.
This office stands in the same relation to the Department of State, that the General Land Office does to the Treasury Department, and that the offices of the auditors and the Pension Office do to the various department of which they are branches; and as the duties enumerated require at least as much talent and industry as any of the above it would be but reasonable that those who are employed should receive the same compensation that these officers have enjoyed under the Classification Law of 1818. [fn.: See an act to fix the Compensation of Clerks etc. in the different offices, Vol --- Ch 369, p 318, Laws of the United States.] If this be admitted by the Honorable Secretary of State, through whom a very extensive correspondence is daily passing, it is hoped that the labours of this branch of his department will claim his official attention, and that so important an office will not fail to engage his support. It was deemed worthy of the attention of President Madison, who, as an enlightened scientific gentleman and statesman, few have ever equalled. [fn.: See his message to Congress on retiring from office.]
According to the salaries of the various auditors, Commissioners of the Land Office, and those under them, the provision for the Patent Office would require
For the Superintendent $3000 per annum, with the liberty of franking and receiving letters free from postage.
For the Senior clerk from 1400 to 1700 dollars per annum
For three other clerks from 1000 to 1150 dollars per annum
For messenger 700 dollars per annum
For machinist 700 dollars per annum
I will here remark that the above statement relates only to carrying on the current business of the office, and should it be required to bring up the recording to the present time, it will require additional temporary aid.
This office has never enjoyed its proper rank, it is an office which has done much to encourage and perfect the useful and liberal arts of this country and from which a considerable revenue has been derived. It has produced during the last seven years, at the small rate of $30 a patent $42,000, and I will beg leave to suggest that a suitable building be erected for the office and models in a convenient place out of the money received from patents. I have no doubt that from the commencement of the system of issuing patents -- between $50,000 and $60,000 at least, have been received in the Treasury, after deducting every expense relative to the Patent Office.
I have the honor to be, Sir, with the highest respect and consideration yours etc.
William Thornton
Hon. Henry Clay, Secretary of State of the U.S.
-----
page 22
12 Dec 1826 Thornton to Brent.
Asks Secretary to purchase Mechanics' Magazine. Cost $3.
-----
page 22-23
7 Mar 1827 Thornton to Clay.
Mr. Little was engaged by authority of the late Secretary of State in recording patents subject to approval of Congress. Passed House but was introduced too late into Senate. Suggests that Patent Law of 1793 would authorize his continued employment without further action.
-----
page 23
9 Mar 1827 Robert Little to Brent.
Asks Secretary to continue his services or at least pay him for what he has done out of the contingent fund.
-----
page 23-26
5 Mar 1827 Robert Little forwards to Henry Clay a copy of the Report of Committee of the House to which was referred the Report of the Secretary of State of Jan 13, 1827 relating to Patent Office. None of the patents have been recorded as the law requires from 1802-1825. The amount of money received into the Treasury for fees on Letters Patent from 1793 to 1826 is $135,690; and the disbursements during the same time was only $63,757.
-----
page 27
22 Mar 1827 Wm. R. McCall to Henry Clay offering a share in an invention for money to prosecute a patent application.
-----
page 27
14 May 1827 Thornton to Brent respecting application of Mr. Sealy for a patent for ornamenting cider and beer pumps with ornaments of glass instead of metal which Thornton has refused to patent, being contrary to law. Provision for appeal to Attorney General through Secretary.
-----
page 28
28 Aug 1827 Thornton to Clay
Mr. John M. Benham has appealed to the Secretary of State because Thornton refused to include in Benham's patent what Thornton knew to be commonly known principles.
-----
page 29
11 Sept 1827 Thornton to Clay
Mr. Wood is appealing to Secretary of State for patent which will invade the common rights.
-----
page 29
18 Feb 1828 Thornton to Clay
Extract "I am still confined to my bed by sickness and very much lament that it prevents me from attending my office; never the less my official duties are not neglected as far as my ability permits and I receive daily the letters and papers relative thereto which I examine and direct what ... is to be done. I have not been so long from my office for these twenty years except from sickness and am in hopes that I am getting better tho at present nearly a skeleton." Recommends increase of salary for his two clerks, Elliot and McIntyre "who are engaged in executing the duties of the office have been exceedingly attentive thereto; they work incessantly but are incapable of going through the accumulating mass and keeping up with the applications. Solicits increase for messenger. Leaves consideration of his own salary to Congress. [Lengthy letter, mostly repetitious of what he has said many times before.]
[Thornton died Mar 28, 1828]
-----
page 31-32
25 Feb 1828 Elliot to Brent.
Asks additional clerk to perform current work of the office which is suffering due to Thornton's illness.
-----
page 32-33
5 Mar 1828 Elliot for Thornton who is still sick to Clay respecting permission granted to Broome to copy drawings and papers for "The Polymathist".
-----
page 33
31 March 1828 Elliot to Clay.
Solicits Thornton's place or if not to receive it asks that the person appointed shall be of such rank and character in society that I shall feel a pride and honor in serving under him. Suggest as office of Superintendent is purely courtesy it be not filled until law provides for it. "Mr. Alex McIntyre who lost his situation as clerk in the Bank of the Metropolis because he acted as honour and principle dictated in a case wherein the character of Mr. Adams was most shamefully assailed by Mr. Kerr, the cashier of that bank." Suggests that only an additional clerk be sent to the Patent Office, leaving it in status quo.
-----
page 34-35
7 Aug 1828 Jones to Brent.
Will not make further use of circular issued from office. Was not meant to be critical of the former proceedings of this office. Was approved by the Secretary before a single copy was issued, and approval was communicated to him verbally by Mr. S.A. Elliot, copyist.
-----
page 35
11 Aug 1828 Jones to Brent.
The Treasurer of the U.S. has objected to the routine heretofore followed in making payments from this office into the Treasury and the cashier of the Bank of the U.S. has declined to give individual certificates required by the Treasurer. Result is that patents cannot be issued and several individuals who have deposited their money are seriously incommoded. What to do?
-----
page 36
24 Oct 1828 Jones to Brent.
Replying to Brent's of Oct 22. Before the arrival of your favour Mr. Elliot was in possession of written directions to open all letters addressed to the Office. He would have received a verbal request to that effect had not his early departure on Saturday deprived me of the opportunity of making it, not that I deemed this necessary as it has been heretofore the practice, both for my predecessor and myself. My absence was not intended to exceed half the time mentioned by Mr. Elliot.
-----
Page 36
3 Mar 1829 Jones to Clay.
Recommends Charles Bulfinch, Jr. as clerk. O.K.d by Clay if there is any provision in the law.
-----
page 37
10 Mar 1829 Elliot to Hon. James A. Hamilton, acting as Secy of State transmitting the following.
-----
page 37-38
10 Mar 1829 William Elliot to Martin Van Buren
Dept of State, Patent Office
March 10, 1829
To the Hon. Martin Van Buren
Secretary of State of the United States
Sir
I have for many years been employed as a clerk in the Patent Office; and, I trust, have always conducted myself as becomes my situation.
On the death of the late Doctor Thornton, I naturally looked forward to be his successor; and I was supported in that expectation by the Doctor and most of the officers of the General Government.
But as I was poor and not willing to expose my family to want I thought it best to put up with this evil rather than venture on those that were unknown, and therefore concluded to serve his successor, with all the ability I possessed. However I cannot silently see any abuses in office without entering my protest. And I therefore solemnly declare, and stand ready to prove, that the duties of the Patent Office have not been fulfilled by the present Superintendent neither agreeable to law nor the usage of office.
I have the honor to be most respectfully, your obedient servant,
William Elliot
-----
page 38-40
28 Apr 1829 William Elliot to Martin Van Buren
Dept of State, Patent Office
April 28, 1829
To the Honorable Mr. Van Buren
Secy of State of the U. States
Sir,
When the case of Doctor Jones, Superintendent of the Patent Office, shall be examined, I respectfully suggest that the following persons be summoned, and the subjoined questions put to them.
Questions to be put to Mr. Alexander McIntire, Clerk in the Patent Office
Do you know that Dr. Jones ever made out specifications of patents for patentees, in office hours, and charged for the same?
Did you ever know him to issue patents out of their regular chronological order, and contrary to the rules of the office?
Do you know anything of his taking papers from the files of the office, and not returning them immediately, creating much difficulty in the necessary searches?
Do you remember that Mr. Elliot informed him (soon after he came into office) that there were no perquisites in this office?
Do you remember anything respecting two dollars received from Mrs. Thornton for extra compensation to the late Dr. Thornton, and whether this money was ever returned to the person sending it?
Are the drawings which are now made for the office as good as formerly, and who is it that makes them, and receives the pay for this?
Are you aware that Dr. Jones has a considerable sum of money now in his desk, which ought to have been deposited in bank to the order of the persons sending it?
In what manner does Doctor Jones conduct the business of the office? and what duties does he himself perform?
Do you know anything of a work called the Franklin Journal, of which the Doctor is the editor, have you observed any specifications of patents patented in the office published in it, complete or in substance?
Questions to Mr. Jonas Keller, Machinist of the Patent Office
Since Dr. Jones came into office, have the models been regularly labelled and deposited in the model room, as formerly?
Has the Doctor ever taken any models out of the room, which he has not returned?
Have you ever known him interfere with patentees respecting making drawings, etc.
Questions to be put to Mr. Robert Fenwick, messenger of the Patent Office
Do you know anything respecting Dr. Jones' taking the papers from the files of the office, for his own private use?
Do you know anything of his having received money from patentees for making out specifications for them?
Do you know anything of his contracting for making drawings for the office? and by whom are these drawings made? and to whom is the money paid?
Do you know anything of his franking packages to Philadelphia, not relating to the business of the office; and of his receiving packages from the same place, under the same circumstances?
As you copied the letters formerly, and do so still, have you not remarked that little or no money (till within a month) received for extra compensation, has been returned, though in the time of Dr. Thornton considerable was returned?
Do you know anything of Dr. J's taking the keys of the office and coming in the evening, tho' absent most of the day and do you suppose he did anything but his own private business in the evening visits, and is this not contrary to the former customs of the office?
I have the honor to be your obedient and humble servant.
Wm. Elliot
-----
page 40
Charges of Elliot against Jones.
Charge 1st: Not conducting the benefits of the office according to law
Specification 1. Ever since he came into office he has taken from the files most of the new specifications, copied them, or made extracts, and published them in a work called the Franklin Journal (of which he is editor) without making any account to the Treasury for the copying fee. Also has franked all the packages for that work from this place to Philadelphia, thus abusing the franking privilege of the Patent Office.
Specification 2d He has issued patents without proper drawings; and in some instances without drawings, which may be seen by consulting the files of the office.
Specification 3d He has received money from patentees for making out their papers and drawing. This can be proved by Mr. McIntire, Robt Fenwick, and Chs Keller.
Charge 2d He has not conducted the business of the office for the public benefit, nor agreeable to former custom.
Specification 1st Instead of opening the packages, as formerly in the clerks room, and having the papers properly endorsed, placed on file, and returning any money that might have been enclosed as presents, they are now opened in his own room, without witnesses, the papers are filed where the clerks have no access, and little or no money has been returned, which was sent as presents, as will appear by the letter book. The models also have not been labelled and put in the model room, but retained in his own; thus the public have no benefit from viewing the new inventions.
Specification 2d He has suffered the correspondence of the office to fall behind and has required the aid of a clerk to bring it up, though formerly it was all entered by Dr. Thornton, as well as writing the heads of the patents, which the present superintendent leaves to a clerk.
Specification 3d He has delayed the issuing of patents unnecessarily by keeping the papers in his room till they amounted to 15 or 20 patents, though at the same time had nothing to do for three or four days.Specification 4th Though there has been little or no more business in the office during the present than in the last year at this season (when Dr. Thornton was sick) yet the business is much more behind, on account of its not being properly conducted.
-----
page 41
6 April 1829 Thomas P. Jones to Daniel Brent
Washington April 6th 1829
Daniel Brent, Esq.
Department of State
Sir,
I am informed, from a source entitled to credit, that you some time since, when at the house of Mr. Wm. Elliot, remarked to him that you understood there was a money changer in the Patent Office, and that it was his duty if there were any malpractices in the office to make them known to the government, he being the oldest clerk then. You will, sir, perceive the propriety of my asking you whether the information given to me be correct; and if it is whether you had any allusion to me, and upon what circumstance such an allusion was founded. I need not, sir, urge upon you, as a gentleman, the necessity of a prompt and distinct answer to these inquiries.
I am very respectfully, your obedt sert,
(signed)
Thos. P. Jones.
-----
page 43
6 Apr 1829 Daniel Brent to Thomas P. Jones
Washington 6 Apr 1829
Thomas P. Jones, Esq.
Patent Office
Sir,
In answer to the inquiries which you have made of me, in your letter of this date, I have no time in stating, that I have no recollection whatever of the conversation to which you refer, at Mr. Wm. Elliot's, or elsewhere, in which you have been informed, I remarked "to Mr. Elliot, that I had understood there was a money changer in the Patent Office, and that it was his duty, if there were any malpractice in the office to make them known to be government, he being the oldest clerk there".
Having understood however upon authority highly respectable that upon one occasion you had give money to a petitioner for receivable at the Treasury, for money not so receivable, at a premium for yourself to enable him to pay for his patent, it is possible I may have mentioned the circumstance to Mr. Elliot, as an improper innovation, in my judgment, upon the practice in the office, which required to be made known to the head of the Department.
I am respectfully your obedt sert,
(signed) Daniel Brent
-----
page 43
7 Apr 1829 Thomas P. Jones to Daniel Brent
Patent Office, April 7th 1829
Danl Brent, Esqr
Department of State
Sir,
I have this moment received your note of yesterday, in reply to mine of the same date and regret that I am compelled again to trouble you upon the same subject.
It will be necessary sir, in your own justification, to furnish the "authority, highly respectable," which warranted you in propagating a report to my disadvantage; as I do hereby declare that the allegation was altogether unfounded and false.
I am very respectfully, your obedt sert,
(signed)
Thos. P. Jones
-----
page 43-45
10 Apr 1829 William Elliot to Martin Van Buren
Dept of State, Patent Office
April 10th 1829
To the Hon Van Buren
Secy of State of the United States
Sir,
At the time when I have charged a public officer with malpractice in office, I find myself most falsely and shamefully abused in the U.S. Telegraph last evening, but this is a stale trick to accuse the accuser; to start new objects to draw off the attention.
As the President and yourself may probably read this attack on my character, I deem it proper to state the whole truth of the allegations, that you may form a correct opinion of my character.
It is stated in the paper above referred to that I am "one of the most clamorous office seekers," that I was connected with the late newspaper called "We the People"; and that I said that General Jackson ought to have been hanged for the murder of six militia men. The whole is without the least foundation in truth.
You know I have solicited no new office under you. I am desirous to see the Patent Office, in which I have spent so many of my best years, prosper, and become an honour to the nation and a lasting benefit to the public, and on this account, I have preferred certain charges of abuses in office which I hope will be properly investigated. I cannot but feel an interest in an office, of which I have been one of the chief means of raising; for out of the 75 or 76,000 dolls now in the public treasury to the credit of the Patent Office, over and above all expenses, at least 50,000 dolls were earned by my unaided hand. And I do not think it would have been very unreasonable to have received some preference in office, the chief duties of which I had performed for so many years. But I have received no advancement whatever, neither in rank, nor pay, and remain at this day, with the same salary as paid me by Congress in 1818.
With regard to having said that General Jackson ought to have been hung for the murder of the six militia men, it is a falsehood too glaring to need refutation. For I, as well as all the nation know, that the militia men were ordered into service by Governor Blount (whether legally or illegally I shall not say); that they left their service before the expiration of that term; were tried by a court martial for desertion; were condemned to be shot; and that General Jackson merely confirmed the sentence of the court: therefore such a remark as that attributed to me was irrational and void of common sense; this information is utterly false.
With regard to the romantic stories and misrepresentation of Mr. Faux, the English Traveller, I have nothing to do; he wrote his book, no doubt to sell, and attempted to please the palate of his countrymen. I am no more answerable for what he has said, than Mrs. Royall in her Black Book, lately published.
I wrote a refutation of all the charges made against me in the article referred to, and sent this (this day) to the U.S. Telegraph for publication, but it was refused, without any explanation.
I have to beg the favour of you sir, that in case the President should ever refer to this subject in your presence, you will shew him this letter or represent what I have written.
I have the honor to be your obedient servant,
William Elliot
-----
page 45-47
6 Apr 1829 Elliot to Secy? Sends additional charge against Jones by hand of his relative George Lewis. Jones appointed Bulfinch without authority and increased Mr. McIntyre's salary.
-----
Page 47-52
14 May 1829 Thomas P. Jones to Martin Van Buren.
Department of State Patent Office
May 14, 1829
The Hon. Martin Van Buren
Secretary of State of the United States
Sir,
A copy of the charges and specifications preferred against me by Mr. Elliot, has, agreeably to your order, been forwarded to me by Mr. Brent, and I have now the honor to present to you such remarks upon them, as their nature appears to me to demand.
"Charge 1st -- Not conducting the business of the office according to law."
"Specification 1st -- Ever since he has been in the office he has taken from the files most of the new specifications, copied them, or made abstracts and published them in a work called the Franklin Journal (of which he is editor) without making any account to the Treasury for the copying fees. Also has franked all the packages for that work from this place to Philadelphia thus abusing the franking privilege of the Patent Office."
Answer. I have rendered an acceptable service to patentees, and to the public, by making known, more fully than had heretofore been done, the nature of the things patented, and the claims of the patentees. To show, in part, what has been done by me in this particular, I enclose the last number of the Journal in question. The monthly list of patents for January last, will be found between the pages 254 and 268 [?].
Persons applying to this office for official copies of specifications or other papers are subjected to a charge of 20 cents for every hundred words, such papers are written by Mr. Seth A. Elliot, who receives the fees for his labor. I have never employed any clerk in the office to write a line for me, although Mr. Seth Elliot has frequently offered to do so, nor have I ever myself written a line of any description for my Journal, during the hours of business of the Office.
I am not aware that, by sending copy to my printer, I have abused any franking privilege, but I know that had Mr. Elliot been the keeper of my conscience, as regards this privilege, I should have covered his private correspondence, and thus escaped being repeatedly heated with endiness [?] by him for refusing to do so. My compliance with his wishes in this respect would have served to give some point to this specification.
"Specification 2nd -- He has issued patents without proper drawings, and in some instances without drawings, which may be seen by consulting the files of the office."
Answer. Respecting what are proper drawings, I must, necessarily be the judge. The worst which I have passed have been accepted under the advice of Mr. Elliot, who has observed that in some sections of the country, good drawings could not be obtained. I have no interest in passing such as are insufficient, and certainly those which have been deposited during my incumbency will not suffer in a comparison with the drawings received in any period during the existence of the office.
Many patents do not require drawings, and such have, of course, been issued without them. Upon this point I have been especially careful, but if, by my inadvertency, I have ever passed without drawings papers which have required them, Mr. Elliot, who has been so fine in reprehending my whole course, has violated his duty to the public and to me, by not having called my attention to the fact.
"Specification 3rd -- He has received money from patentees for making out their papers and drawings. This can be proved by Mr. McIntire, Robert Fenwick and Chas. Keller"
Answer. Whatever I have done needed no other witness than myself. I may have written half a dozen specifications for persons who, because they had special confidence in my ability for the task, have urged me to do so; but whenever I have done it, it has been in my own house, and at night. I have uniformly wished to avoid it, not because I thought it was, in the slightest degree, improper, but mainly because I have not had time to devote to business of this kind. I have written in my office some specifications for unlettered and indigent persons, but for those have never received a cent. Mr. Elliot, when I came into office, was in the habit of referring applicants to his son, John, then a minor and unacquainted with the principles of mechanics, who made out their specifications and other papers. With this practice I have interfered, but not to my own profit.
Drawings furnished at the request of patentees are made by persons unconnected with the office. In obtaining these I have consulted the interest of the applicant only, and have procured them wherever I could get them best done at the lowest price. This is a necessary part of my duty, but it is an unpleasant part, and one from which I should very gladly be relieved.
"Charge 2nd -- He has not conducted the business of the office for the public benefit, nor agreeably to former custom."
"Specification 1st -- Instead of opening the packages as formerly in the clerks room and having the papers properly endorsed, placed on file and returning any money that might have been enclosed as presents they are now opened in his own room, without witness. The papers are filed where the clerks have no access, and little or no money has been returned, which was sent as presents, as will appear by the letter book. The models also have not been labelled and put in the model room, but retained in his own. Thus the public have no benefit from viewing the new inventions."
Answer. Mr. Elliot has repeatedly observed that the [?] transactions of this office have been managed by me with more [?] and earnestness than had been previously known in it. No disputes, or miscarriage or difficulty of any kind, has occurred in this part of the business of the office. I have yet to learn that it is my duty to open letters in the presence of my clerks, in order to keep me honest, or to preserve my character from suspicion. All letters received since I have been in office, are placed on file, which was not the practice previously. The replies to them also, are, of course, upon record. I have no answer to make to the despicable insinuation contained in the foregoing specification. Let the man appear who will attempt to bring a charge of corruption home to me, and I am ready to meet him. That less money than formerly is now sent as presents is highly probable -- this, however, is a question which I am not desirous to agitate.
Wm. Elliot complained that Mr. Keller had neglected to keep a list of the models deposited in the model room. To correct this, I have detained a number of them in my own room, until they could be properly labelled and entered; which has been done as soon as more important business admitted. Had I space in my room I should still keep many [of] these until they could be placed in a secure and suitable situation, as they are now exposed to injury, but not displayed, when taken to the model room.
"Specification 2. He has suffered the correspondence of the office to fall behind, and has required the aid of a clerk to bring it up, though it was formerly all done by Dr. Thornton, as well as the writing the heads of the patents, which the Superintendent leaves to a clerk."
Answer. A more gross and extended tissue of misrepresentation than is contained in the specification, could not be woven into a paragraph of the same length. I will not invade the sanctuary of the dead to imagine what my predecessor did, or neglected to do. Mr. Elliot, however, has repeatedly informed me that he always examined the papers for Dr. Thornton, and indicated to him, the points to be embraced in the replies to them. During more than a year I have not had three days aid from a clerk on conducting the correspondence of the office. The books will tell what that correspondence was formerly, and a comparison of that with what it now is, both in amount and in tenor, would be most welcome to me. There never has been an accumulation of the correspondence for a period of three days, excepting during the most busy part of the session, and then, nothing of importance was neglected.
I never knew, until now, that the heads of patents were formerly written by the Superintendent, and why they should have been I have yet to learn. This writing, however, has not amounted to six lines a day.
"Specification 3rd -- He has delayed issuing of patents unnecessarily by keeping the papers in his room until they amounted to 15 or 20 patents, though at the same time [ ] had nothing to do for three or four days."
Answer. If Mr. Elliot has been idle for a moment while at the office, he has been so through his own perverseness, and with a view to reflect discredit upon me. I have not be absent from my office two days in six months; have been several times every day in the clerk's room; have sent in specifications by the messenger whenever they were wanted, and never suspected until now the facts set forth by Mr. Elliot in this specification.
"Specification 4th -- Though there has been little or no more business in the office during the present than in the last year at this season (when Dr. Thornton was sick) yet the business is much more behind, on account of its not being properly conducted.
Answer. The foregoing specification is altogether false. The clerks have been constantly supplied with specifications to copy, and the business of the office has been promptly attended to, as the letters during the whole period will testify. There are not, at the present, three patents in waiting, excepting from defective applications, or for want of the signature of the Attorney General.
For the correctness of the foregoing statements made by me, I refer you sir to every person now employed in my office, including the son of the complainant. I will not detain you with any further animadversions [?], but I, most earnestly though very respectfully, request a speedy termination of this unpleasant business.
All the value both of the emoluments and the honours of office will have passed away, in my estimation, if my character form no defence against intrigue and slander.
The correspondence of this office will supply ample testimonials of the entire satisfaction of those who have done business with me in it; and were I to retire tomorrow, I should do so with the credit, as well as the consciousness, of having performed my official duties with zeal and with fidelity.
I am sir, with the greatest respect and consideration, your obedient servant,
Thos. P. Jones, Superintendent
-----
page 52-53
May 1829 Seth Elliot is continued as copyist to do extra copying. To pay his fees into the Treasury and receive the same therefrom.
-----
page 53
24 June 1829 John T. Temple to Van Buren. Has drawn up best arrangement he can of duties to be performed in the office.
-----
page 53-54
23 June 1829 Patent Office. Duties
First clerk's duties. 1. Assist superintendent as in correspondence, etc. 2. Make all entries in the alphabet and general index books. 3. Examine papers and specifications previous to be taken from the office. 4. Examine patents, enter them and send them off. 5. Enter all models received in the register of models. 6. Transact business in absence of Superintendent. 7. Fill up and send off bonds for delivering of models. 8. To assist when time in copying specifications. Etc. etc. Also second clerk's duties, third clerk's duties, messenger's duties and machinist's duties. "I approve of the preceding M. Van Buren Washington July 3d 1829"
-----
page 54
7 Jul 1829 Letter signed by Craig. Makes recommendations concerning proposed observatory.
-----
page 55
1 Jan 1830 John D. Craig to Martin Van Buren
Dept of State
Patent Office
Jan 1, 1830
Sir
In winding up and reviewing the labours of the last year in this office, I find that Mr. Bulfinch placed in this office by Mr. Clay, has, in ten months, recorded 109 patents; which, at $800 per ann is equal to $6.11 cents each. At this rate the number (447) issued within the year, would cost $2,730.
I am satisfied that to record one patent per day, at an average, would be a very moderate task for an ordinary clerk, which would amount to 260 in ten months instead of 109.
I have thought it my duty to submit this statement to you, sir, and will be ever ready to act agreeably to your judgment in all such matters.
With sentiments of esteem and respect, yours respectfully,
John D. Craig
Hon. Martin Van Buren
Secy of State
-----
pages 56 - 63
Documents printed in House Document 38 relating to alleged shortages in Thornton's accounts.
-----
page 63
3 Apr 1830 Craig to Van Buren Objects to issuing a patent for composition of matter as insisted upon by Hon. Wm. L. Starrs without the required specimens of the ingredients sufficient in quantity for experiment.
-----
page 63-64
3 Apr 1830 McIntire and William P. Elliot to Craig It is the usage of the office to require specimens of compositions of matter.
-----
page 64
29 Apr 1830 Craig to Van Buren Objects to issuing patents to foreigners without models, because it interferes with applicants' ability to search prior art.
-----
page 65
ca. 1 Jan 1831 Accounts of money received by William P. Elliot for copying and drawings. $527.44 during 1830.
-----
page 67
1 Jan 1831 Craig to Van Buren.
Accounts similar to the enclosed (above) from the copying clerk, were formerly given to Mr. Waddell, who it is understood declines receiving any more of them and I am at a loss to know how to dispose of it.
-----
page 67-68
28 Mar 1831 Craig to Secretary of State.
In compliance with the request of the Secretary of State in case of Lee vs. the Patent Office. The same channels of information are open to him that all others have. By paying the legal fee he can obtain copies of any patented papers or by visiting the office can peruse in the room in which they are deposited the original papers to any patent that has been granted. But to give every applicant on demand an account of (the state of the art) would require weeks and unlimited staff. (Lee interested in steam boilers.) Should not be allowed to consult unpatented papers. The superintendent is well aware that great pains have been and still are taken in a certain quarter to excite prejudice against him but careless and fearless of all such attempts he will persevere in the faithful and important discharge of his duties.
-----
page 69
2 Apr 1831 Craig to Secretary of State through Brent.
Dr. Jones was not refused permission to examine the papers of Mr. Lee after the presentation of an order authorizing him to do so nor was it intended to refuse him the privilege of examining any patented papers, in the room where they are filed and in the presence of the clerk having charge of them. But according to the long established rule and inviolable usage of the office, the liberty was withheld to examine unpatented papers (except as in the case of Mr. Lee, an order from the owner of the papers, to do so was presented) or to take patented papers out of the office for comparison or examination.
-----
page 69-72
28 May 1831 Craig to Livingston
Patent Office, May 28, 1831
Sir,
That you may have a correct knowledge of the present state of this office, I take the liberty of sending herewith a copy of the Report, submitted to Congress, during the last session, but not acted on.
Very respectfully, John D. Craig
Hon. Edward Livingston
Secretary of State
--------------
Patent Office, Jan 1, 1831
Sir:
Agreeably to your request, I have the honor to submit for the use of the Government, the following Report.
The number of patents issued during the last year,
was five hundred and forty two, and the corresponding
amount of fees paid into the Treasury $16,320
The whole current expenses of the Office, during
the said time, for clerk hire and contingencies, was 6,500
Leaving a balance in favour of the Revenue of 9,821
The appropriation granted at the last session of
Congress to complete the fixtures of the Office, was 4,600
This object has so far as practicable been
accomplished; the amount expended being 5,530.43
Leaving an unexpended balance of 1,069.58
which has been paid into the Treasury
It was contemplated to expend two hundred dollars of said appropriation in fitting up for a machine shop the second story of the Engine House, adjoining the Office, but on examining the Act of Congress authorizing the building of that House, it appears to have been intended exclusively for the Engine, its apparatus, and the meetings of the Fire Engine Company. A machine shop for the Office is indispensably necessary, and none for the purpose could be more appropriate than the house mentioned; though badly situated[?] for its present use. Should Congress see proper to authorize the building of an Engine House, on the northwest corner of the lot belonging to the General Post Office, similar to that near the Capitol, and assign the old one to this Office, it is believed the arrangement would be highly advantageous.
The whole number of patents issued by this Office since its organization, is 6371, of which no more than 900 are yet recorded; though the law expressly dictated that "all patents issued shall be recorded in a book kept for that purpose," and many of the original papers are so much worn, and the ink so much faded, that ere long they will be illegible.
To record three hundred of these per annum would be sufficient employment for a good copying clerk. Consequently it would be require ten clerks for two years to record the unrecorded patents now in the Office; and it would require two in addition to the present number to keep up the current business of the office, and record agreeably to the existing laws the patents as they are issued.
Should Congress in its wisdom think proper to appropriate means for accomplishing these objects, it is respectfully suggested whether, instead of allowing the recording clerks an annual salary, it would not be preferable to pay each of them monthly, at a fixed rate, in proportion to the quantity he had correctly recorded. This method, it is believed, would tend to excite industry; accomplish the business with the same number of clerks in much less time; be less expensive, and render to every one employed according to his performance.
Among the patents issued from 1816 to June 1829, there are 249 the drawings belonging to which were not to be found in the office, at the last mentioned date. This circumstance places the Superintendent in a very disagreeable situation, when copies of any such are called for; and affords a strong argument in favor of making it penal to take from the Office either papers, drawings or models belonging to it.
In the Report from this Office, submitted to Congress during the last Session, it was respectfully suggested whether an increase of the Treasury fee for obtaining patents, would not be advantageous to the community at large, and also to the individuals whose discoveries or improvements are really entitled to encouragement and protection and daily experience tends to confirm the same opinion.
Patents are frequently demanded, and cannot be refused, for alleged discoveries or improvements that have not the shadow of claim to originality, yet the citizens in general prefer submitting to the imposition, rather than undertake to vindicate their common right, by an appeal to a judicial tribunal. It is believed that augmenting the Treasury fee, would in a great measure remove this evil; and afford additional security to patentees who merit protection.
It is also respectfully submitted, whether it would not be advantageous to publish annually a list of such patents as had expired during the preceding year. It is known that the community has been imposed on by persons selling patent rights after they had expired. Such a publication would tend to prevent such impositions.
At present the patent office is a source of revenue, which, it is presumed, the framers of its laws never intended, and the compensation received by those connected with it, is far less, in proportion to their labour and responsibility, than that in many other offices of the Government within the District; said compensation having been fixed when neither the labor nor responsibility was one fourth of what it is at present. It is therefore humbly hoped that Congress will take the subject into consideration; revise the whole system, and appropriate its income, or so much thereof as may be considered expedient, to its own expenditure, and the extension of its utility. Unfortunately, an opinion appears to have prevailed, that the establishment was not an object of sufficient importance, to require any particular legislative attention. Should Congress in its wisdom see proper to appoint a Committee of their Honorable Body, to examine its present condition, perhaps the Report of the Committee would induce a different impression, and lead to improvements of which the office is susceptible, and to which its resources are fully adequate.
With great respect,
Yours truly
Hon. Martin Van Buren
Secretary of State
-----
page 72-73
July 1831 Craig to Secretary of State
Asks opinion of attorney general on several matters. 1 and 2 on reissues. 3. Should individuals be allowed to come into the patent office and take copies of papers without paying fees. 4. Do patent laws authorize the employment of sufficient clerks to discharge all the duties of the Patent Office as required by law?
-----
page 73-74
7 July 1831 Henry Bishop to Livingston.
Receives $500 a year. Must act as messenger and copy letters into a book. Asks additional compensation for copying. $100 was allowed several years ago. Has a numerous family of small children and sum is inadequate for their support.
-----
page 74
11 July 1831 Craig to Livingston.
A man named White has applied for clerkship in Patent Office. Is disreputable, etc. (From Baltimore)
-----
page 75
12 Mar 1832 Craig to Livingston.
No room for recording clerks. Could General Post Office spare some space.
-----
Page 75-77
17 May 1832 Levi Carroll Judson to Livingston.
Some suggestions for regulations of recording clerks. Thinks supervisors should be paid $5 for every 40,000 examined instead of $8.33 2/3 the amount now paid, providing he is also allowed to record in spare time. Supervisor could handle 10 men instead of present 6. Clerks should be compelled to write 24000 words a week instead of being limited to 4000 a day. Loss of one day could be made up another.
-----
page 77-78
[1st] Jan 1833 John D. Craig to Edward Livingston
Patent Office, Jan 1, 1833
Sir
Mr. Charles Bulfinch spends much of his time absent from this office, and even while present his performance is very disproportionate to that of any other, or to the salary he receives, and since Congress seem not disposed to allow the Office any more clerks, it is respectfully submitted, whether the public interest, justice to others in the Office, and to the Government, do not require a more efficient person appointed in the room of Mr. Bulfinch?
With great respect,
John D. Craig
Hon. Edward Livingston
Secretary of State
-----
page 78
26 Jan 1833 Alexander McIntyre and James P. Walker to Secretary
Department of State, Patent Office
Jan 26, 1833
The undersigned clerks in the Patent Office, in justice to the Superintendent, as well as themselves, state that having a perfect knowledge of the duties performed by Mr. Bulfinch, he has not averaged more per day than the writing of two sides of a record book, each side containing 400 words more or less..
In doing this they disclaim an unkind feelings towards Mr. Bulfinch.
Alexr McIntire
James P. Walker
-----
page 78-79
26 June 1833 D.A. Hall to Livingston.
Encloses a letter from Temple now a clerk in the Post Office formerly in the Patent Office respecting Bulfinch. Bulfinch is praised. Craig's charges untrue. Jones and Temple will testify the same. Craig is prejudiced. Hall is a fellow clerk.
-----
page 79
21 June 1833 Temple to Livingston.
Bulfinch wishes to transfer to some other office. Temple recommends him. Has observed in Craig a "deportment towards Bulfinch which appeared the result of the strongest prejudice."
-----
page 80-99
24 June 1833 John D. Craig to Louis McLane
Dept of State, Patent Office
June 24th 1833
Hon Louis McLane
Secretary of State
Sir,
I deem it my duty to inform you, that Mr. Charles Bulfinch a clerk in this office, at a salary of eight hundred dollars per annum is incapable of performing the duties assigned to him.
For dereliction of duty, he has long since been admonished without its having produced a state of things more satisfactory. It is his misfortune to be physically unable to perform the ordinary duties of a clerk, his eye sight is bad, and his bodily health such from disease either real or imaginary as to incapacitate him for business.
From the 3rd of March 1829 up to the first of this month, excepting four months, which I consider a liberal estimate of the time he was employed, when a press of current business required his aid in writing out patents, he has recorded 707 patents, containing 672,209 words, which at 12 1/2 cents per hundred words (the rate fixed by Congress for recording patents) is equal to $840.26 as the subjoined statement of all the recording done by him will show, it therefore does appear that during the period of four years, less one month, his services were worth to the government a little more than two hundred dollars per annum.
In conclusion I will add, that if no efficient clerk be appointed in his stead, the recording of all assignments and copies of patents, for legal and other purposes can be done by a regular clerk, and the fees received therefor be paid into the Treasury as the law requires, which of itself will save to the government six hundred dollars or more per annum.
All which is respectfully submitted for your consideration.
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
John D. Craig
-----
page 99-100
25 June 1833 Charles Bulfinch, Jr. to Louis McLane.
Washington, June 25th 1833
Hon Lewis McLane
Sir
I received, yesterday, a notice from you, stating that charges of incompetency had been preferred against me by the Superintendent of the Patent Office, and that in consequence my employment would cease on the last day of this month.
It is with the greatest regret I perceive, that the Superintendent is not satisfied with the services rendered by me, but painful as it is to come in conflict, in any manner, with the statement of my superior, I believe that a statement from me, of the manner in which my time has been occupied in the Patent Office, together with the amount of service of different kinds performed by me, will satisfy you, that I have been neither neglectful nor incompetent to the discharge of my duties.
I shall therefore, sir, esteem it a great favor if my sentence of dismission may be suspended, until I can furnish a statement of the amount of duty performed by me, and that I may have free access to all books and documents in the office, from which the necessary data can be drawn.
It would also be a favor, if I could be furnished with a copy of the charges preferred against me.
I have the honor to be, with the greatest respect, sir, your most humble servant,
Chas Bulfinch, Junr.
-----
page 100-102
26 June 1833 William Parker Elliot to Secretary McLane.
Has been employed for many years to record transfers of patent rights and to make out certified copies of patents with drawings; compensation fees allowed by law 20 cents per 100 words. Never amounted to more than $600 per annum. It is now recommended that this is to be done by a clerk with an annual salary which will deprive me of employment (unless I were to be that clerk.) By an arrangement between Mr. Van Buren and my father I was to be appointed to this office on his relinquishing his office. When the arrangement was made I was in Europe pursuing my studies as an artist. On the faith of this arrangement I came home. I do not wish to interfere with the economy proposed. I do not wish to be the victim of the alteration. Has been considered before but was decided that the present system was economical because person must be a draughtsman as well as clerk.
-----
page 102
27 June 1833 William Parker Elliot to McLane.
Sends copy of letter to Livingston. Livingston and Adams decided against plan. Why agitate it again. Economy will certainly not account for it.
-----
page 103-104
7 Nov 1831 Copy referred to above of William Parker Elliot to Livingston. Attorney General has made a decision. Craig asks him to write. Gives history. Up to 1824 fee was paid to person performing the service, work done out of the department. No clerk adequate to task of preparing drawings available. In 1824 Adams asked Thornton for information on subject which Thornton gave him. Adams approved continuation but required fees to be paid to an agent of the Department who deposited it to the credit of the department and gave a check. A quarterly account was kept and rendered until two years ago when Mr. Waddell the agent declined receiving the money though the account was regularly kept and rendered annually. "Law requires work by draftsman as well as clerk. No one can be found who will make a copy of the drawings for two dollars; when they are worth from 20 to 30 dollars and sometimes more." For the last 14 years I have performed the duties above mentioned (except three years that I was in Europe). Received never more than $500 per annum. If change is to be made asks for the appointment.
-----
page 105-109
3 July 1833 Charles Bulfinch to Louis McLane
Washington, July 3, 1833
Hon. Louis McLane
Secretary of State
Sir,
Having been kindly indulged by you with time and opportunity to make my defense against the grave charges preferred against me by the Superintendent of the Patent Office, charges going back to the times of my entrance into the office, I have bestowed my most careful attention in preparing what I hope will be received as a satisfactory vindication.
I received my appointment in March 1829, upon the recommendation of many highly respectable members of Congress.
The branch of business for which I was appointed (being a newly created clerkship) was for the recording of patents. which had been issued from the office.
I was at first directed by Dr. Thos. P. Jones, then Superintendent, to label a number of new models; this occupied my time till about the 1st of April. I was then employed in writing specifications on parchment for issuing patents during April and May. About the first of June I commenced recording patents (my especial duty) but was frequently required after this to assist in the current parchment work of the office. I was then allowed by the Superintendent to take a short journey and was absent about two weeks. Then June and July were spent, partly in recording, partly on parchment and the remainder on a journey.
My regular recording I consider as commencing about the 1st August 1829 (for though frequently taken from this duty after that date, yet I had recorded enough in June preceding to make up the deficiency.
My recording, though fairly commencing Aug 1st 1829 consisted of patents issued at and from the beginning of the year, thus putting back my record, even at starting about seven months. This has unavoidably increased, from my being taken from the records and put upon parchment work, since Jany 1st 1830, more than sixteen months, as per statement B, accompanying this, and also from the necessity of my being obliged to do all the recording of any given year, whereas the same patents when issued are upon a press of business, put into the hands of several clerks.
The number of patents recorded from August 1st 1829 or before to June 11th 1833, is, as per statement A, 707, recorded in 686 days. June 11th or the period to which the Superintendent makes up his statement and my number of recorded patents agrees with his.
The number of patents copied on parchment for issuing from May 1830 to April 9th 1833 is as per Statement B, 471 in 435 days.
Patents recorded 707 in days 686
Patents for issuing 471 in days 435
Patents 1178 Days 1121
Besides the above 471 patents, many more were copied on parchment in 1829 of which no exact account has been kept.
Statement A shows the number and names of all the patents recorded by me since entrance into the office, drawn from the record book.
Statement B shows the number and names patents copied on parchment since May 1830, of those copied before that date no exact account has been kept.
Statement C shows the time spent since I entered the office, with the deductions to be made therefrom.
The accounts of my employment previous to January 1st 1830 are taken from a copy of a letter addressed by me to the Secretary of State January 5th 1830.
The subsequent accounts are drawn from memoranda kept by me at the time, of each days work, these are now in my possession.
The reply to the charges preferred by the Superintendent. As to "dereliction of duty", I am not aware of any. I have rarely absented myself from the office even for a few minutes without his assent, or notifying the cause to the first clerk, except when absolutely disabled from performing my duties by sickness, and while at the office I think I may truly say that I have devoted my time as conscientiously to the public service as any clerk whatever. When absent on a journey, or away from the office for a few days (always by permission of the Superintendent) I have always, when required, furnished a substitute at my own expense to perform my duties, my substitute being approved and accepted by the Superintendent.
As to "physical inability", I think it is a cruelly exaggerated charge. Occasional infirmity is the common lot of humanity, every one is sometimes prevented by sickness from attending to business, and I think it will appear, as from Statement C, that the absence from duty for 7, 12 or 16 days in the year, owing to sickness, is hardly enough to subject a clerk to the charge of "physical inability", or of health so bad as to "incapacitate him for business."
My eyesight, I allow, is not so strong as that of some, but it is probably not worse than that of many who, like me, are in the habit of using glasses, and the writing of 1178 patents, many of them from 10 or 20 pages in 1121 days, I would respectfully submit does not appear like incapacity for business.
But the greatest injustice I consider is done me by allowing no more than four months for all the time employed on parchment work, as by my Statement B it appears, that from May 1830 to April 1833 I was employed (at different intervals) upon this sort of work 16 months and 19 days, or 435 days, in which time I copied 471 patents. This statement is drawn from a memorandum or diary, in which each days work was minuted down, as it was actually performed. Besides this, many patents were written on parchment in 1829, of which I kept no exact minute, but obtain the time, so spent, from a copy of a letter of mine dated Jan 5th 1830, addressed to the Hon. Mr. Van Buren. This writing occupied at least two months, May and April, 1829, as per statement C, making with those mentioned above, nearly 19 months. Indeed all my time from March 5th to August 1st 1829 was occupied in such miscellaneous duties, as will appear from Statement C., that I consider my regular employment of recording, as commencing Aug 1 and deduct the previous five months from the time since I entered the office, as also at the time afterwards spent in parchment work, Sundays, Holidays, etc.
From March 5th 1829 when I entered
the office to June 11th 1833 is 4 yrs 93 days.
Off (as before) the 1st 5 months,
Sundays, etc, as per Statement C -- 438 days
Off time spent on parchment work
from 1830 (per Statement B) 435 days
___________
873 days or 2 yrs 143 days
_______________
Remains 1 yr 315 days
All the time which I have spent on recording is 1 year 315 days, or one year 10 months 15 days.
From the above it appears that instead of "four years less one month" spent by me on the recording as stated by the Superintendent, after proper allowances are made only one year 10 months and 15 days were so spent.
With regard to my general character for moral conduct and quiet assiduous attention to my duty in the office, I would respectfully refer you to Doctor Thomas P. Jones by whom I was nominated to the Department and who had for a considerable time a good opportunity to observe my conduct.
I hope the above statement is sufficient to show that during the four years and a quarter since I entered the office, I have performed a reasonable amount of duty, that if not one of the most rapid writers, I am still very far from being the least efficient clerk in the government. This, I am persuaded would more strikingly appear, could the performances of others be subjected to the same severe scrutiny as mine have been.
I will now, sir, leave the whole matter to your decision, well convinced that you will not be disposed to judge harshly, nor deprive of his means of sustinence, without full cause, one who has devoted his time conscientiously to the best of his abilities, to the faithful discharge of his duties.
I am sir with the greatest respect, your very humble servant,
Charles Bulfinch, Junr.
-----
page 109
10 July 1833 John D. Craig to Charles Bulfinch
Patent Office, July 10 [1833]
Sir
As you have been discharged from this office, you cannot, till reappointed, be considered as belonging to it.
Yours respty
John D. Craig
Mr. Charles Bulfinch, Jun
-----
page 109
10 July 1833 Bulfinch to Craig
Washington, 10th July 1833
J.D. Craig, Esqr.
Superintendent of the Patent Office
Sir,
As the decision of the Secretary of State in my case has not yet been obtained, and as from his suspension of my dismission, I am still in the office, I am ready, and it would be agreeable to me, to perform any duty which may be assigned me.
If, therefore, it would be agreeable to you, I shall be glad to have papers delivered to me, that I may continue my recording, until the pleasure of the Hon. Secretary be made known.
I am, Sir, your obdt servt,
signed Chas. Bullfinch, Junr.
-----
page 110
17 July 1833 Charles Bulfinch to Louis McLane
Patent Office, July 17, 1833
Hon. Louis McLane
Sir,
Having understood the suspension of your order for my discharge from the Patent Office as placing me on the footing on which I previously stood, at least, until a definite and final decision should be made by you, upon the charges preferred by Dr. Craig, I had believed it incumbent on me to perform the duties of a clerk as usual.
Accordingly, after I had finished the recording of all patents that were in my hands, I called on the principal clerk for more papers to copy. He said that he had orders from Dr. Craig not to permit me any more patents to record.
I then applied by a note to Dr. Craig, a copy of which I herewith enclose, tendering him, as I believed it my duty to do, my services in the office, until your pleasure in the matter shall be made known. To that note I received the reply of Dr. Craig, which is also enclosed. I have, notwithstanding, deemed it proper to give, and accordingly have given, my daily attendance at the office, and have always been ready to perform my duties, with as much fidelity and efficiency as God has given me the power to do.
Charged as I am, by my superior in office, not indeed with crimes, or moral obliquities, but with an inefficient and imperfect discharge of duty, I have felt sensibly, the difficulties which a just and proper defense of myself imposed upon me. I cannot make the issue personal, between myself and Dr. Craig, but I think I may venture to say, that an unreasonable prejudice on his part has induced him to the various efforts he has made, to cause me to be removed from the office. For I must remark that this is the third time, that he has preferred similar charges. He first did so before Hon. Mr. Van Buren, and then before Hon. Mr. Livingston, both of whom, after a full investigation of facts, dismissed the charges. He has now presented them to you, Sir, but relying upon your disposition to do justice, I must cheerfully leave the decision in your hands. Dr. Thos. P. Jones knew me well, and the nature of my services in the office, and as he is now unconnected with it, and well known to you, I should be happy that you should have his testimony upon the subject, but as I understand that he is about to be for some time absent, I may have occasion to request your permission to take his statement in writing.
I am, with great respect, Sir, your very obedient servant,
Chas Bulfinch, Junr.
-----
page 111
11 July 1833 John D. Craig to Louis McLane
Dept of State, Patent Office
July 11, 1833
Hon. Louis McLane
Sir
I have perused the defense set up by Mr. Chas Bulfinch Junr against the allegations filed by me on the 24th ult, and seen little else necessary on my part than to offer a most positive denial to the correctness of it.
It is doubtless true that he has made it out from memoranda kept by him, but from my own personal knowledge and observation, he had taken credit for much more time than was consumed in the performance of other duties than recording patents. So far as the records of this Office furnish data, I am sustained in the statement made of the recording done, and acknowledged by him; the letters copied by him have been examined and found to contain not more than 8000 words, for which $10 would be ample compensation.
I will now take Mr. Bulfinch upon a single and by far the most important item to him, in his defense, and by his own showing proved that he has not earned $400 per annum; I have estimated it at a little more than $200.
He admits that 686 "working" days were consumed in recording 707 patents, containing 672,209 words averaging 979 words per day at 12 1/2 cents per hundred words paid him $1.23 per day, for 313 "working" days at $381.84 cts per annum.
As Mr. Bulfinch has labored to prove the charges false, I am under the painful necessity of calling upon the other two clerks for a statement which is herewith submitted.
I have the honor to be, Sir, your obedt servt.
John D. Craig
-----
page 112-113
18 July 1833 Craig to McLane. Previous patent recording is finished and a part of appropriation remains for recording those to be issued. Also Act of 1793 provides for recording patents in a book as they issue. Mr. McDonald was appointed by Mr. Livingston to fulfill both these provisions. He is equal to the task. Bulfinch is not. Will cost more money to reinstate Mr. Bulfinch and Mr. McDonald would have to go. Can also save $600 on fees for patents. Great pains and labor have been bestowed to bring business of office from a state of confusion and irregularity to that of order and system.
-----
page 113
17 July 1833 Charles Bulfinch to Louis McLane
Washington, July 17, 1833
Hon Louis McLane
Sir
Understanding that Dr. Craig has replied to the vindication of myself against his charges, and wishing for a full opportunity of knowing and answering every statement, I shall esteem it a favor if I can be furnished with a copy of Dr. Craig's reply to my statement, together with copies of all papers accompanying it.
With the greatest respect, I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
Chas Bulfinch, Junr.
-----
page 113-116
22 July 1833 Charles Bulfinch to Louis McLane
Patent Office, July 22, 1833
Hon. Louis McLane
Sir
A copy of Dr. Craig's reply to my defense against his previous charge is received.
I consider it a matter of course that he should mention the correctness of his former statement, and consequently that he should deny that of mine.
For the accuracy, however, of my statement, I am happy to have it in my power to appeal, as Dr. Craig admits, to memoranda kept by me, in which I carefully noted down daily, the amount of each days work, as it was performed.
These vouchers are as authentic as any merchants accounts, the entries being made as my daily work was done, with no view to any especial use, but merely as a matter of precaution against any renewed charges, like those presented to Hon. Mr. Van Buren, and which were set aside by him. These memoranda I shall be happy to exhibit to you, I desired. Dr. Craig asserts that I have "taken credit for much more time than was ever consumed in the performance of other duties than recording patents." I humbly conceive that this will not appear, when the time spent upon parchment work for issuing new patents is considered, and up which Dr. Craig is now totally silent.
Dr. Craig notices my item of "letters copied for the office"; this is but one and an unimportant item, among many others, accounting for the time spent, such as labelling models, Sundays, etc, upon this I lay no particular stress.
As to the amount of recording, there is no difference between Dr. Craig and myself, he allows me 707 patents, I claim no more.
The value of my recording, now allowed by Dr. Craig, is $381.86 cts per annum; in his former statement, he made it a little more than $200, thus nearly doubling the amount in my favor.
But his entire want of fairness is evident, upon observing his utter silence as to the item parchment work for issuing, done by me. While he notices the trivial matter of "Letters copied" and considers the recording as the "most important item to me in my defence", he totally omits all notice of what is really my most important point, upon which there is any dispute, viz., the parchment work for issuing new patents.
For this item he allowed me, in his former statement, "four months", but now passes it over in total silence; whereas I can prove, by my memoranda, which are perfectly authentic, because made a the time the work was done, that from May 1830 to April 1833, I was employed upon this sort of work 16 months and 19 days, in which time I copied 471 patents. To the above adding 2 months, in 1829, May and June, as per my former statement C, nearly 19 months were spent on parchment work; of all the time so spent Dr. Craig takes no notice. The number of words in these patents cannot be known, as they were sent off without being estimated, many of them however were very long.
Patents Recorded as per my statement A, 707 in days 686
Ditto copied for issuing, as per Statement B 471 in days 435
____ ____
Patents 1178 Days 1121
These 1121 days, with the various allowances for labelling models, Sundays, Holydays, etc., as mentioned in my former Statement C, will make the whole time spent by me in the office from March 1829 to June 11th 1833, viz., 4 years and 3 months.
I hope I have sufficiently answered Dr. Craig's charge of taking credit for much more time than was ever consumed in duties, other than recording.
Dr. Craig chooses to estimate my services at the rate of 12 1/2 per 100 words; this was the rate fixed in the appropriation bill for the compensation of a number of clerks who were temporarily employed in bringing up the back records and was never intended to apply to clerks receiving permanent salaries, and disclaiming all intention of implying that less is to be expected from permanent than temporary clerks, I would respectfully submit it, whether this rate should be applied to me, which is never applied to other salary officers, especially, as I have often been engaged in miscellaneous duties.
Messrs. McIntire and Walker, clerks in the Patent Office, have given a certificate stating that "I have not averaged more per day than the writing of two sides of a record book, each side containing 400 words more or less."
I am willing to hope, as they assert, that they do this from no unkind feelings toward me; but I think they are mistaken in their view of the subject.
I will take, for example, the Record Book, Vol 2I, which contains 558 pages. By my memorandum I found, I commenced this book April 6, 1832, and (with my substitute while I was absent on a journey who recorded 71 patents in 60 days -- not more than I should have done in a like period) I finished the volume in 209 days.
558 pages, written in 209 days, will average 2 2/3 pages per day.
I have the honor to be, sir, your most humble servant,
Chas Bulfinch Junr
-----
page 116-117
15 Aug 1833 Craig to McLane.
Asks opinion on a reissue.
-----
page 117-118
19 Sept 1833 Craig to McLane.
Sum paid to Henry Bishop the messenger has been disallowed by auditor. Secretary Clay Oct 1826 allowed it and so did Van Buren. So also Livingston (letter enclosed).
-----
page 118
22 July 1831 Letter to Craig from Brent on behalf of Livingston added $100 to messenger salary as of 1 July 1831.
-----
page 118
1 Oct 1833 Craig to McLane.
List of persons employed and place of birth. Craig (Ireland), McIntyre (Delaware), Walker (Ireland), Bulfinch (Mass.), Keller, machinist (France), Bishop, messenger (England).
-----
page 119-120
15 Oct 1833 Craig to McLane.
Re: Bishop's services. Double those of any other messenger. Was engaged to perform both the duties of messenger and letter copier. "I cannot conclude without adverting to the anomalous appearance the office presents, one of its inmates permitted to enjoy a salary of $800 though his services are not worth 1/3 of that sum; another not belonging to the office permitted to pocket $600 per annum which by express law of Congress ought to be paid into the Treasury though he is in receipt of an ample income without it, while Mr. Bishop who is of more use in the office than both of them, who has a wife and five children to support is deprived of 1/3 part of his small income, stipulated for when he entered the office, and which he faithfully and clearly earns."
-----
page 120 & 122
20 Sept 1833 Bishop to McLane.
Salary is $400 a year. Other messengers have $700. If $100 allowance for copying is withheld it will be a very serious loss to my family.
-----
page 122
23 Nov 1833 Francis A. Dickins to McLane.
Re Capt. Richard's letter. At the request of G.H. Richards of New York I called at the Patent Office Nov 12 to inquire concerning a patent application for tanning. Richards thought someone to whom he had confided his invention had applied for a patent. I asked Craig whether anyone had applied for a patent for tanning in the same method. He refused this information in a very rude manner, so rude as to put it out of my power to have any further intercourse with him.
-----
page 123
9 Dec 1833 Craig to McLane.
Responsive to letter from George H. Richards to Secretary. Information was refused Dickins as unpatented papers are private property. They are not seen by anybody without permission from the owner.
-----
page 123-124
9 Dec 1833 Craig to McLane.
Compensation to Superintendent and clerks is inadequate.
-----
page 124-126
11 Dec 1833 William Parker Elliot to Louis McLane
Washington, Dec 11th 1833
To the Hon. Louis McLane
Secretary of State of the United States
Sir:
I am indeed exceedingly sorry to trouble you again on my affairs; but a direct violation, both in spirit and fact, of the arrangement entered into, about a month ago, respecting my employment in the Patent Office, compels me.
You determined on my being deprived of my office of making copies of papers and drawings for the office, that I should be allowed to retain my table in the office as formerly, and to make the original drawings etc. required by applicants for patents, of their machines; and with which the office had nothing to do. And to enjoy this privilege I declined applying for the vacant clerkship caused by the removal of Mr. Bulfinch. Knowing that had I accepted the office I should have been deprived of the right to make original drawings for individuals.
Mr. Steiger, from Baltimore, (a gentleman who understands drawing), was appointed a clerk, with a salary of 800 dolls per ann to fill the vacancy. But he is hardly become known in the office till he begins to execute original drawings for applicants for patents, directly interfering with my business. Now, this is not only contrary to the classification law of clerks passed in 1818, (which says each clerk shall receive his fixed salary and no more) but contrary to the usage of the office and what was never dared to [be] done by a salary clerk before.
When, therefore, it is considered that this gentleman is paid by his salary for his whole time, he can have none to "spare", in which to make drawings for individuals. Besides how could I compete with one in the same business who received a salary: he could very well afford to do his work for one half the price which I can. When this circumstance is considered, as well as the arrangements made with Mr. Van Buren, and my coming from Europe, in consequence of this arrangement, I hope you will give directions to the Superintendent of the Patent Office, requiring that your former order be fulfilled in spirit, and that no one in the Office be allowed to interfere with my business with the public.
I have the honor to be your much obliged and obedient servant,
William P. Elliot
-----
page 126 [misnumbered in sequence as 128]
12 Dec 1833 William Parker Elliot to Louis McLane
Washington, December 12th, 1833
To the Hon. Louis McLane
Secretary of State of the United States
Sir:
I do not know what apology to offer for again troubling you; nothing but the urgency of my case can apologize for me. What may appear a trifle to others is of importance to me; my livelihood depends on your decision.
This morning, without the smallest provocation on my part, Dr. Craig, Superintendent of the Patent Office, ordered me to give up my table and place to Mr. Steiger; for no other reason that I am acquainted with, than having sent my letter of yesterday to you, complaining of Mr. Steiger's interfering with my private business. I informed him in a respectful manner that I should not leave without your order; he then called me "an ungrateful rascal", with other abusive epithets. Had it not been for the respect I owed you and the office of which you are the head, this gross insult would not have gone unresented. I have been attached to the Patent Office for more than 18 years; have always done my duty without ever giving the smallest offense to the Superintendent; and the manner in which I have done my business has received the approbation in the House of Representatives by one of its most distinguished members; even Dr. C. has himself spoken highly of me; but now because I will not suffer him quietly to deprive me of my bread I am to be abused, and turned out to make way for a favorite pupil of his. I know you will not suffer such injustice.
I have the honor to be, your much obliged and obedient servant,
William P. Elliot
-----
page 127
12 Dec 1833 Craig to McLean
Mr. Elliot has occupied a drawing table in the office for several years, but now it is needed for Mr. Steiger. Mr. Elliot says he will not give it up or leave the office without orders from Secretary.
-----
page 127
17 Dec 1833 Craig to McLane.
On reference to charges filed by Elliot asks the Secretary to order a full investigation.
-----
page 128-129
18 Dec 1833 Craig to McLane.
Re Richards, explaining unpatented papers. "The right of persons to send papers to be filed in this office for their own future use and protection previous to their being prepared to take out Letters patent has never been questioned; there can be no objection to placing them on file -- the object as I understand it is that they are deposited for safekeeping -- to show the time of the invention or discovery and to indicate the intention of the inventor to take out a patent at a subsequent period. No such papers as were referred to by Mr. Richards were received. Rule is not a written one but has been the usage. Quote letter Oct 21, 1822: "Your papers with the invention will be kept secret until you think proper to publish them."
-----
page 129
19 Dec 1833 Cranch to Elliot
Cranch burnt certain letters which had been placed on file in Patent Office by Thornton, upon orders from Mr. McIntire, believing that his orders were the orders of Dr. Craig. The papers were generally letters enclosing or accompanying specifications, or asking for information, and were said to be of no use.
-----
page 130-131
23 Dec 1833 Bishop to McLane.
Inquires whether he is to be allowed an increase as requested in enclosed letter of 9 Oct 1833.
-----
page 131
9 Oct 1833 Bishop to McLane.
Request for extra compensation. Duties: charge of cleaning office; makes fires; carry money of patentees to bank; patents to office of attorney general and to State Department to be sealed. Attend superintendent and perform errands.
-----
page 132
17 Nov 1833 George H. Richards to McLane.
Complains of Craig's refusal. "From the dogged manners of the present incumbent he appears to consider the office as instituted for his private benefit and to be rightfully subject to his arbitrary will and caprice."
-----
page 133
Annual Report of the Patent Office
Department of State, Patent Office
1st January 1834
The Superintendent of the Patent Office has the honor to submit to the Secretary of State the following:
Report
The number of patents that expired during the last
year was 157; and the number issued during the same
period 586. The corresponding amount of fees paid
into the Treasury was $17,580
Which with the amount received for copies of
patented papers and the recording of assignments
paid to the account of clerk hire in the Department
of State 130.77
___________
Makes $17,710.77
Meantime the whole expense of the Office for
clerk hire and contingencies was 7,575
___________
Leaving in the Treasury for the year 1833 a
balance of $10,135.77
In consequence of the great increase of applications for patents, the labor of the Office has become so onerous, that unless additional aid is allotted to it, it will be impossible to dispatch the current business in due time; litigation on patent claims has become so prevalent, that one clerk is almost constantly employed on making out copies of drawings and patented patented [sic] papers.
It is believed, that the framers of the Patent Laws never intended the Office to be a source of revenue; yet, it has paid into the Treasury of the United States, more than one hundred and ten thousand dollars beyond its expenses to the Government. A sum, fully adequate to erect a suitable fire proof building for the establishment; afford sufficient aid to carry on its business; and to allow a just compensation to those who perform the labor; which is not now the case.
All which is respectfully submitted
John D. Craig
-----
Page 135
3 July 1834 John D. Craig to Robert Mayo
Patent Office, July 3rd 1834
Sir
As you are now appointed a clerk in this office, I think it necessary, candidly to inform you, of what character I understand you bear in Washington; and I have it from the President, that he has had similar information on the subject, though he is not inclined to believe it true, and I sincerely hope it is not.
You are represented as a man of disagreeable temper, and constantly endeavouring to underman and supplant others in the office in which you have been; you are also stated to be a very inferior clerk. Such are the common reports in this city, and I have it in charge from the President to inform him minutely how far such character or any part of it shall prove to be true, and he has assured me, that your stay in the office will depend upon your conduct contradicting said reports.
With regard to the duties of the Office, they are both important and laborious and require both talents and attention, the hours of attendance throughout the year are from 9 to 3 o'clock, and no encouragement to visitors except on the business of the office, is to be given to any person, or any conversation permitted with visitors, except on subjects of the same kind, and it is an invariable rule that no one belonging to the office shall absent himself or leave the Office, during Office hours, without permission.
Thus with perfect candour and good feelings to avoid future misunderstanding, have I made this communication.
I am your humble servant,
John D. Craig
To Docr Mayo
-----
page 136
3 July 1834 Dr. Robert Mayo to the President
Washington, July 3rd 1834
Dr. Mayo feels himself in duty bound to report [?] to the President the enclosed letter from Dr. Craig. At the same time Dr. M. cannot refrain from remarking how utterly he was astounded at so uncalled for an attempt to wound his feelings and his honor at the moment of his induction into office for which he had been appointed by the Secretary of State with the avowed approbation and confidence of the President.
Dr. M. would most respectfully refer [?] to the consideration of the President whether it be not a reasonable request, either that an investigation of these charges be instituted, or that the letter of Dr. Craig be ordered to be expunged from the files of the office.
It is but too manifest that to accept office under such dark imputations of dishonor, accompanied too, with a querulous detail of other specifications of office, so novel, and I might say unexampled, would be to take part in fining the stamp of that dishonor, and loading the wounded spirit with such oppressions, as would drive his soul in disgust from his body.
Your very respectful and obedient servant,
Ro. Mayo
To the President
U.S.
-----
page 137-141
18 Nov 1834 Robert Mayo to John Forsyth
Washington Novr 18th 1834
Hon. John Forsyth
Secretary of State
Sir,
Every principle of honor and self respect calls upon me to lay the enclosed note before you. You will perceive that it contains an implicit charge, either that I neglect my duties by absenting myself from office, or that I contemplate doing so hereafter, neither of which is true.
Almost daily, for nearly five months since my appointment, I have been in attendance at the office, as early as eight o'clock in the morning, and I believe never later than half past eight, being always the first clerk in the office, except in some instances Dr. Craig is there a few minutes before me; and almost as uniformly am I the last to leave the office except Mr. Steiger, who frequently remains after office hours. This statement can be established by the messenger Mr. Bishop, whose constant presence at convening and adjourning makes him acquainted in detail; while it can also be established, in chief, by Dr. Craig himself, and every other person in the office. And whilst in office, I am unremitting in my duties, except at intervals when I have worked out of materials, and there is nothing left to go upon which has been the case, at short intervals, nearly every day the last week. On one of those occasions, I stopt up to the Dept of State to see Mr. Dickens, and on another, I called to see the Secretary of State. On Saturday, the date of the enclosed note, I was at the office at 8 o'clock. In the course of that morning, there being nothing before me to do, and having important demand to stop out for a few minutes, about 12 o'clock I did so and was out about half an hour. In fine to sum up the whole of my absence from office for four months and a half, though in bad health a great part of the time, I am confident it will not amount to one day, whereas the average of an hour before time every morning would set to the credit of my official zeal, but little short of 16 days gratuitous attendance. On the other hand, it is well known that Mr. McIntyre scarcely ever comes to the office before ten o'clock, and as uniformly withdrew at 2 and half after 2 o'clock. Also each of the other clerks and the machinists have been absent from days to weeks at a time, in the course of the time that I have been thus indefatigable in my attendance, sick or well.
Taking this renewed attack on my feelings and officerly deportment, in connection with Dr. Craig's letter to me of the 3rd July, detailing anonymous scandals of me, in disregard of the avowed disbelief of the President in those imputations when Dr. Craig was urging them against my appointment, I cannot but see in it the most conclusive evidence of predetermined injustice and wanton personality.
Whether any new motives has prompted Dr. C. to this renewed manifestation of his harsh feelings towards me, or whether it be only an additional evidence of a settled querulous temperament, my mind is somewhat at a loss to conjecture; but that it is to be attributed to one or both there causes, the Secretary of State will be able to form some estimate for himself from the following facts, in part, of many that could be adduced.
On one occasion, I have been under the necessity of declining to copy a specification for which a patent was ordered to be issued by Dr. Craig, on the ground that it was deficient in legal form, not having the signature of the petitioner nor witnesses. On another occasion, I remarked, upon making a copy of a specification, that I could not qualify to its being a true copy, as I did not believe any two persons would give it the same reading if they could make it out at all, so equivocally was it written, composed, spelled, erased, and amended. Also, early last week, I was required by a message from Dr. Craig to amend the specification of a patent, that had been issued to a Mr. Kelly, which I declined doing, stating to Mr. Kelly that his only remedy to amend a defective specification after patent is issued, was to take out a new patent, which has been done so far as relates to the action of this office, but the patent is detained at the Attorney General's office for want the necessary rect. Still more recently, on Thursday or Friday last, I declined making corrections in the orthography, grammar, punctuation etc in two specifications for patents issued to a Mr. Tompkins of Alabama, one of which has been in the office more than a year, and both of them written in such incoherent phrases as to be entirely unintelligible, and only of a parallel with the incoherent jargon that is to be heard in the cells of a lunatic hospital. When the examiner found I had declined making these corrections, he reported the copy to Dr. Craig, who acquiesced in the copy, but the patent was issued. On a recent occasion, a Mr. Shaw, who is now in the city, being in attendance to procure a patent, exhibited to me his drawings which he informed me, were executed by Mr. Keller, for which he paid him three dollars; upon which I remarked to him that I was surprised at that, as it was an infraction of law and rules of office to do so. Other instances of this sort have occurred, and as the work has to pass through the Superintendent's hands, it may have been in his power to recognize the style and manner of the artists, with which he has before had opportunities to become familiar, and it being known in the office, that I have become acquainted with these facts, may render it desirable to embarrass my official relations as much as possible.
As to the occurrences arising out of the general temperament of Dr. Craig, it would be a work of supererogation to give new instances. However, I may give one or two. A Mr. Ross from Richmond Va was on a visit a few weeks ago on patent business. He told me that Dr. Craig's conduct to him was so violent that it was as much as he could do to refrain from personal resentment in the office notwithstanding his age. This may pass for a sample of the other instances that could be stated, of which a recent denial of official information to a gentleman of this city might be regarded of nearly equal enormity. I allude to a visit of Wm. P. Elliot on Saturday last, to whose inquiries for information in relation to the patent business of some of his correspondents, all answer was refused both by Dr. Craig and Mr. Steiger. Whether any personalities of feeling between those gentlemen on account of private griefs on either side should exclude a citizen from official intercourse, I apprehend can hardly be made a question. Nor can I appreciate by conjecture any process of reasoning by which Dr. Craig can justify himself on account of what, I know not, in the double wrong of withholding all official courtesy and embracing ill-founded pretexts to cast indirect censure on a zealous discharge of duties, certainly unsurpassed, because there is no arrearage, but much gratuitous attendance given.
I wish., if possible, to avoid presenting these matters to the Hon. Secretary of State as formal complains and accusations; in that sense however they are entirely at his option, as the proofs are at hand in relation to violations of orders etc.; and in relation to the notes addressed to me, I could as easily have done any positively disreputable act, as to have passed them in passive subjection to their stigma. It would be but to plant in my breasts an eternal consciousness and grating recollection that however I came here as a free and independent citizens, there is evidence on the records of one of the most important offices of the Republic, and which has been under the management (if not the mismanagement of foreigners ever since the foundation of the government) that my spirit is broken and has suffered as a slave by the least meritorious of them all. I need not repeat a just desire that these documents (unworthy the character of official, the garb they have improperly put on) be stricken from the records. The Hon. Secretary of State has within his own breast that sense of right which I am sure will stand me in stead of the request. -- most respectfully
Ro. Mayo
-----
page 141
15 Nov 1834 John D. Craig to Robert Mayo
Patent Office, Nov 15, 1834
Mr. Mayo, will please to recollect, that no person belonging to this Office, is to absent himself from it during Office hours, without permission
J.D. Craig
-----
page 141-143
7 Jan 1835 John D. Craig to John Forsyth
Patent Office, January 7th 1835
Honorable John Forsyth
Secretary of State
Sir,
When the President informed me that Dr. Mayo would be appointed a clerk in this office, he desired that I should state occasionally how he (the Dr.) conducted himself, and performed the duties assigned to him. In compliance with which injunction, I now beg leave to state the following facts:
One of the rules and regulations from the Department of State, is, that no person belonging to this Office, shall absent himself during Office hours, without permission; yet Dr. M. has been oftener absent than all others belonging to the Office, and that without ever asking permission, or even notifying his intention to be absent. No matter what the pressure of business may be, he walks off at any hour and returns or not, during the day just as he thinks proper. To say nothing of such an example in a public office; one consequence is that there is no certainty when any work put into his hands will be finished, and Mr. Johns has taken from his regular employment to perform what should have been done by the other.
How far his productive labour while in the office will compensate for his absence, will appear by the following statement of his performance during the six months he has been in the office, viz
In July he wrote 29,852 words
In August he wrote 37,268 words
In September he wrote 39,688 words
In October he wrote 48,134 words
In November he wrote 47,210 words
In December he wrote 53,761 words
_______
Total for six months 255,912 words
which at 12 1/2 cents per hundred, the price fixed by Congress would amount to $319.89 or $639.78 per annum.
It would appear from the charges lately brought against this office by W.P. Elliot, that Dr. Mayo has been performing the part of an informer for that gentleman. If so, he is welcome to all the honor of that employment. It also appears from the public papers that he has petitioned for the benefit of the insolvent laws, in reference to which I cannot help remarking, that one of the most efficient clerks this office ever had was discharged by order of the President for a similar application.
It thus appears that Dr. Mayo is acting in defiance of the rules and regulations of both the President and Secretary of State, performing the office of a spy, and drawing from the Treasury of the United States one thousand dollars per annum for services worth little more than half that sum.
All of which is respectfully submitted by your obedient servant,
John D. Craig
-----
page 143
7 Jan 1835 State Department notation on above letter.
Endorsement: Re Mayo -- His communication appearing to have been made in pursuance of the Presidents discretion, it is respectfully submitted. Dept of State Jan 7, 1835
Second endorsement: Let a copy of the within charges be furnished to Dr. Mayo, and a full explanation required on all the charges.
A.J.
-----
page 143-147
10 Jan 1835 Robert Mayo to John Forsyth
Patent Office
Jany 10, 1835
Honorable John Forsythe
Secretary of State
Sir,
I have this moment recd your letter of yesterday, enclosing me a copy of a letter from the Superintendent of the Patent Office to the President of the United States, proferring a series of charges against me, which, in conformity with your request, I proceed to answer forthwith.
These charges appear to be reducible to the three following heads, viz.
1st That I habitually violate a rule of office by frequently absenting myself from office, during office hours, without asking leave of the Superintendent accompanied with details and remarks.
2nd That my services are worth but little more than half the amount of my salary, also accompanied with a statement of my work, as per statement of words written, and estimated at 12 1/2 cents per hundred.
3rd That I have been performing the office of spy and informer to Wm. P. Elliot in his late charges against the Patent Office.
4th That I have petitioned the District Judge for the benefit of the Insolvent Laws, with remarks.
The want of accuracy and fairness in these statements struck me as the pervading characteristic of the whole of this anomalous document, the gross colourings of which have but the semblance of facts of any kind, and surely none of a reprehensible kind, to base them upon.
1st In relation to the first charge, I deny it, and its details, in toto, except as to the fact of having in a few instances left the office in office hours under peculiar circumstances, but neither frequently, nor of sufficient duration to bring such absence within any rule of neglect or reprehension, in as much as my prescribed clerical duty is specific, and has never been in arrear since I have been in the office properly so to be alleged, but instead of arrear, very frequently during the time of my service, I have been idle for days together, for want of employment, and on some of these occasions I have stept out for a few moments, when it would be, as I should apprehend, a vexatious display of servility to recognize such momentary absences as coming within the rule of the alleged inhibition, having all the while my oath of office before my mind's eye, "to perform my duties with fidelity" and having fully squared and balanced them daily. On the other hand I have very uniformly resorted to the office, sick or well, before office hours (as I have had occasion to state in a former communication to the Hon. Secretary of State, for the most part before any other clerk, and as generally am the last to leave the office, and when the influx of business has been greater at certain times than at other, which it is, in the nature of things, I have returned to my desk in the afternoon, for the extra gratification of my own impulses, to keep it from accumulating. If any part of my duty has ever been handed over to another to perform from my default, I have not ever been so informed; that such a thing may occur in most offices, in order to meet special emergencies, I have no doubt, but surely such a transfer has not been made in this case without my knowledge, merely to afford a little colouring matter for this extraordinary document. I am moreover certain that this statement of the Superintendent has been taken on trust from some malicious, false representation of others, as I scarcely ever meet with him in the office or out of it. In relation to this charge and its correlative details, I beg that Mr. Johns and Mr. Bishop may be examined, and that my former communications to the Hon. Secretary of State may be referred to as a part of this answer.
2nd The second charge is fully answered in meeting the first charge and specifications as above, except so far as relates to the count of words, upon which I may state a fact, that this count of words is not always accurate in the office. In one instance that came to my knowledge, it deviated from the truth as afterwards ascertained, 25 percent. But suppose the count be true in this case, still a material fact is left out of view, which would totally change the character of the imputation. These words so particularly counted, are written upon parchment, the roughness of which, and its oiliness, together with the well known unsuitable nature of parchment in general, to receive the impression of ink from a swift hand, render it extremely unfair to put this matter upon the footing of a count by words, which is not the rule of compensation for writing on parchment in any of the Departments, even when it is done by the job.
3rd. There is nothing specified. I deny the imputation.
4th. In relation to the case cited as a parallel to my application to the District Judge, I must object to its accuracy. It is not a parallel case. I made my application to the Judge under peculiar circumstances of a sudden run upon me the instant I went into office, in July, I will not say by a conspiracy to produce that result as a means of urging a former action of the President to bear upon me. However that may be it is certain that the cases are dissimilar in all their material facts. Without entering into the general circumstances of the other case, it may be sufficient to say, that it occurred as a sequence of several years in office. Mine occurred before I had received a cent, and therefore had no opportunity to resume my payments, as I had formerly devoted my salary to pay my expenses here. And as a further, extra evidence of my good disposition in that regard, since I have been exonerated by the District Judge, I have resumed and continued the same course of payments of my own free will and sense of justice, devoting every cent of every month's salary to those accumulated dues of the last blank year, scarcely reserving the means of subsistence for my family from month to month, but as every creditor could not have preference in the first payments, I have given preference to those who have given me less annoyance, and this scheme of liquidation is as rigidly in progress now as ever, reserving nothing even for the day of precarious future, thoughtfully sensible of the efforts continually impending over my head to turn me out of office. All of which is most respectfully submitted by your respective and obedient servt.
Ro. Mayo
-----
page 147
10 Jan 1835 Robert Mayo to John Forsyth
Washington, Jany 10th 7 o'clock PM 1835
Honorable John Forsyth
Secretary of State
Sir
My letter of this afternoon, in answer to a document placed in my hands at 11 o'clock this morning is more brief than what I apprehend the case calls for; but it was dispatched in that laconic form in order to place a response in your hands with all promptness, and to throw no obstacle in the way of immediate action if desired by the delay of a protracted and specific statement and convey it to you as soon as possible in the hope that if there be no pressure for the use of so brief an answer when a "full explanation is requested" and is now in progress that I will be permitted to substitute it for the other. This, of course, will be entirely at the option of the Hon. Secretary of State. I purposed to have made this expose, in person, when I called to hand in the answer, but was prevented by the preengagement of your company at dinner.
I am very respectfully, your obedt. servt.
Ro. Mayo
-----
page 148
19 Jan 1835 Robert Mayo to John Forsyth
Patent Office
Jany 19th 1835
The Hon. John Forsyth
Secretary of State
Sir,
In the course of preparing a full answer to the charges preferred against me by the Superintendent of the Patent Office I have found some obstruction for want of copies of any orders, rules and regulations of the Department of State relative to the Patent Office which it may be proper for me to have access to, in order to make such references thereto, as the purport and bearing of those charges and my defense require. May I beg the favor of the Hon. Secretary of State to cause me to be furnished with such copies as it may be proper and admissible for me to have in such extremity and oblige his very respectful and obedient servant.
Ro. Mayo
-----
page 148-167
23 Jan 1835 Robert Mayo to John Forsyth
Patent Office
January 23, 1835
Honorable John Forsyth
Secretary of State
Sir
I received about 11 on the morning of the 10th instant your letter of the 9th enclosing to me a copy of a letter of the 7th from the Superintendent of the Patent Office to the President of the United States preferring a series of charges against me which in pursuance of your request "to furnish the Department with a full explanation in reference to all the charges therein contained", I proceed to answer with all practicable despatch, at my intervals of leisure after office hours, till completed. I also take this occasion to acknowledge your letter of the 19th in answer to my request of that date, informing me that you had instructed the Superintendent to permit me to make and retain copies of the letter of the Secretary of State to him of the 16th of December 1833 and of the arrangement for the business of the Patent Office of the 16th September 1834, in order to enable me to reply to the charges referred to and to express my thanks for the copies thus obtained of which I had no previous knowledge, but in a vague and unofficial way.
Being now brought to the platform of justice, I must beg leave to promise that such references and such remarks as I may conceive it proper for me to make by virtue of the extraordinary and responsible position in which I am placed, in order to give the full explanation desired, and which my own character and honor appear to me to demand, will not be made in any spirit of disrespect to any one, as I shall endeavour to divest myself of every other feeling but a sense of justice to all concerned, forbearing even to smith the vulnerable parts of my assailants, while I simply advert to them, in acquitting myself of a twofold duty of self defense and a proper regard to the good of the public service in which I am engaged.
The charges referred to with the details and remarks accompanying each, are reducible to these four heads, to wit
I. That I habitually violate a rule of the Department of State, by frequently absenting myself from office during office hours without asking leave.
II. That my productive labour is worth but little more than half the amount of my salary.
III. That I have been performing the office of spy and informer to W.P. Elliot in making his late charges against the Patent Office.
IV. That I have petitioned the Chief Justice of this District, for the benefit of the Insolvent Laws.
I may here remark in general that a want of accuracy and fairness strikes me as the pervading characteristic of the whole of this most extraordinary and anomalous document the highly wrought colourings of which have barely the semblance of facts of any kind and surely none of a reprehensible kind to ground them upon. The letter sets out, in the very first sentence, with evident disingenuousness towards the President, in endeavouring to throw the paternity of this procedure on him, by alleging that it is "made in compliance with his injunctions to state to him occasionally how I conduct myself, and perform the duties assigned me." Here is a palpable declaration, that the President at the time of my appointment entertained doubts of my conduct and my efficiency in discharging the duties that might be assigned to me: Whereas on the Superintendent's own extraordinary reception of me in personal language and by letter of the 3rd July, when I presented him my letter of appointment he substantially avowed that the President disbelieved those very allegation which he (the Superintendent) had been urging against my appointment. But, to quiet the distress of the Superintendent it appears the President gave him the alternative of putting me to the severest test, by reporting from time to time, any thing he might find amiss in my conduct and performance. Here, then, is evidence from his own words, that the President discredited those allegations. And further I am confident in the belief that if the President had entertained those doubts, he never would have sanctioned the appointment until they were removed, nor need I say that I have tangible evidence that I would not have accepted the appointment under such imputations, so accredited or recognized. I never viewed the authority to report me from time to time as originating in the distrust of the President, (tho it existed sub identio [?] by virtue of my official relation), not only because my confidence in his better opinion forbid it, but because the very words of the Superintendent's first interview and letter declared the very contrary of the impression now obliquely sought to be made. How far he has abused the alternative and the confidence of the President in making erroneous and frivolous charges will probably appear by the following canvass of his report, taking it by items.
I. In relation to the first charge the Superintendent says
(1) "One of the rules and regulations from the Department of State is that no person belonging to this office shall absent himself during office hours without permission. (2) Yet Dr. M. has been oftener absent than all others belonging to the office, and that without ever asking leave or even notifying his intention to be absent. (3) No matter what the prospect of business may be he walks off at any hour and returns or not during the day, as he thinks proper. (4) To say nothing of such an example in a public office, one consequence is that there is no certainty when any work put into his hands will be finished, and (5) Mr. Johns has to be taken from his regular employment to perform what should have been done by the other."
(1) "One of the rules and regulations from the Department of State is that no person belonging to this office shall absent himself during office hours without permission."
This is the first time I had learnt that such a rule had been adopted by the Department of State, nor had I any knowledge that such a rule exists in any other Department, though evidently much called for (to prevent perjury) as a codicil to the law organizing the Departments and requiring the clerks to make oath "to perform with fidelity the duties to be assigned to them" etc. Anterior to the existence of this rule, the Superintendent in his letter to me of the 3d July did speak of a rule of this import, in connection with many others, as appertaining to the Patent Office, which it appears by documentary evidence did not exist by any competent authority, and all of which was also connected with other vagaries, so foreign from any usage of the Department on the induction of clerks into office, as entirely to deprive it, as I apprehend, of any official character, and upon that account I referred that letter to the Secretary of State and to the President. (That reference, with a letter from myself to the President not having yet been acted upon, but probably will be, on this occasion, is herewith transmitted, as properly connected with the points under review) And it now appears by copies supplied to me by instructions of the Secretary of State at my request of the 19th instant, that such a rule did not then exist, but was adopted nearly three months thereafter, on the 10th of September last, and still was I not, till now furnished with a copy or apprised of it, except a harsh reproof be the legitimate mode of conveying such information, after leaving it enveloped in secrecy as a pitfall; such I did receive in a note from the Superintendent (referred to the Secretary of State) while I was still unconscious of violating any rule, and as conscientiously engaged in the daily and hourly discharge of my duties and fulfilling my oath to do so with fidelity. For at the moment this reprimand was given I had dispatched every iota of employment that was then in readiness for me, and having innocently stepped out a few moments of this respite of my official function, when I returned I found on my table (I will not say hunted up on the spur of the occasion to make the reprimand then in store the more poignant) one short specification for me to make out the schedule for a patent, which I immediately dispatched the same afternoon, and then I was out of employment again. Yet this note of reprimand was forthcoming, being handed to Mr. Steiger by Dr. Craig, to record in the letter book and then pass to me, while I was executing this forlorn hope of official -- double entendre -- perhaps I may call it. But it imported me little whether the Department of State had adopted any rule of rigour, whose object, I conceived, could only be to insure the performance of public duty, for having my oath of office always before my mind's eye, and my own conscientious dictates of propriety for my guidance even without such an oath, it was my settled contents and firm resolve that any such regulations could not and never should have any practical bearing upon me, as I should never absent myself from the office in the reprehensible sense which such regulations must be intended to prevent, or in any manner prove recreant to my duties and my oath. But being now in regular possession of the regulation since the 20th instant, I shall most cheerfully conform to the very letter by remaining in office the six hours whether there be employment or not. To ask leave of absence then shall be no necessity.
(2) "Yet (says the second specification) Dr. Mayo has been oftener absent than all others belonging to the office."
I could have preferred that this comparison between myself and all others in the office had not been made, as in truth it will give me an advantage in the actual exposition of the case, which I should be sorry to claim for the sake of Mr. Johns at least. But the comparison being made, I am bound to notice it in the same way.
I have been innocently absent for short intervals, neither frequently nor of sufficient duration to bring such absence within any rule of neglect, even had I known the existence of any other rule than my oath, as it is in my power to declare and to prove, that my duties, (such as I am permitted to perform) have never been in arrear since I have been in the office; but, instead of arrear, very frequently have I been idle for days together, in the month of July, and for single days and parts of days, at subsequent times, for want of employment. On several of these occasions I have stepped out a few moments to avoid the ennui of idleness, without neglect of duty of course, or impinging the spirit and meaning of the rule had I known it to exist. On the other hand, I have uniformly repaired to the office about 8 o'clock in the morning through the summer and autumn, being one hour before office hours every day, and have been as uniformly the last to leave the office, except Mr. Steiger, who commonly stays after 3 o'clock. Thus have I never lost a day, or a half day, in continuance, though I was frequently so ill in the summer and fall as to be obliged to go to bead as soon as office hours expired, and to avoid complaint or the appearance of neglect and still more to gratify my own emulation to keep my duties within my grasp, have I left my sick bed in the morning, to go to the office, while there was, in fact, no pressure of business to make such an effort necessary. So that, estimating my extra attendance at one hour per day, would give a clear gain of one day per week to the office, which in four months, before the winter, would give more than sixteen days, while I am confident, that were all the fractional particles of time that I have stepped out of office united they would not amount to two days. Now I defy the other gentlemen belonging to the office to give anything like such an account of themselves. All of them, except the Superintendent and the messenger, have been absent to distant cities, Mr. Steiger once to Baltimore, Mr. Johns twice to Frederick, and Mr. Keller two or three times to Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York, some, for days, and others for weeks together. And as a common practice Mr. Keller seems to be very generally absent (leaving his little brother, who does not belong to the office, to answer to the calls that may be made for him) and doing but little duty when he is present, except when the monthly accumulation of models on his floor occurs, when it takes him a week or ten days to put them out of the way of being handled and deranged by the concourse that takes place in his room on such occasions. Also, Mr. Johns, from the distance of his residence I presume, loses from an hour to an hour and a half every day, in late arrivals a little before ten, and in early adjournments, about half after two, making a difference between my extra and his deficit of about two days a week. That the Superintendent has made this exaggerated statement of my absence, from the misrepresentation of some other person I have the best reason to believe, from the fact that I seldom see him either in, or out of office, and therefore he could not have made it from his own observation. If it was necessary, I could give a specific statement of every absence that I have incurred and show at the same time that there has not been a single schedule for a patent delayed a moment on that account; and the preparation of these schedules is the only duty I have been permitted to perform since the distribution of duties of the 16th September last, though I am then distinctly required "to make out patents and to enter in the record books the patents granted." Mr. Johns, who writes in the room that I do, can testify that he never comes to the office in the mornings without finding me at work and that he never withdraws in the afternoon without leaving me at work; and he will as truly say that I scarcely ever leave my seat in the interval. And Mr. Bishop, the messenger, who is present early and late can equally testify to my constancy.
(3) "No matter what the purpose of business may be he (Dr. M) walks off at any hour, and returns or not, during the day, just as he thinks proper."
This allegation is so totally incorrect, that I am utterly confounded to divine how Dr. Craig could bring his mind to compass such a statement. There has at no time been a great pressure of business in the branch that I have been permitted to officiate viz the making out schedules preparatory to issuing patents, the other branches of my designated duty, as before stated, having been withheld from me. There has never been an accumulation of specifications, in waiting, for me to prepare the schedules, except in a very slight degree in December, and then not exceeding ten or twelve in number, though, during that month the greatest influx is brought by members of Congress for their constituents. Yet, even that momentary accumulation fluctuated down to three or four in the course of the month, and since that in the present month they have been several times entirely exhausted, leaving me at short intervals without employment, as is the case at this moment (Saturday) which affords me an opportunity to give an impetus to this answer. So that this branch of business has at all times been as nearly up to date as was practicable or desirable. In fact more so than is desirable because it continually subjects me to the liability of being idle at intervals, which would not so likely occur, were I to have the filling the blank letters patent in connection with the schedules as prescribed by the Secretary of State, and the entering in the index books the patents as issued. But at the very times the Superintendent was making his charges, there was a considerable accumulation of schedules, not less than 20 in number, already prepared by me, and waiting to be revised, for issuing the patents; nor was this and subsequent accumulations subdued until the 15th of January instant, when the balance on hand of fifteen schedules were examined on that day. If then, there has been any obstruction to the despatch of any portion of the business of this office, it cannot be laid to my charge. Nor have I ever on any day been absent from the office at the usual time of adjournment.
(4) "To say nothing of such an example in a public office, one consequence is that there is no certainty when any work put into his hand will be finished".
There has at no time been any work put into my hands, that dwelt there a moment beyond the time that the most sedulous devotion to my duties could execute it; nor was it ever intimated to me there was any greater hurry for the dispatch of one patent than another; and to have understood the usage to be, a uniform forwarding of all applications, in the order of their passing from the hands of the Superintendent, with the indorsation by him "to issue", which indorsation, indeed, is sometimes made prematurely and the specification passed to me and the schedule made out before the models are received, two of which have occurred in this month.
(5) "And Mr. Johns has to be taken from his regular business to perform what should have been done by the other."
There has never been any part of my duty handed over to Mr. Johns or any other to perform from any default of mine, of which I have had any knowledge, or the slightest intimation. One specification of two very long ones (for patents issued by special act of Congress to a foreigner for steamboat navigation of the waters of the United States in violation of the Constitution and the laws of naturalization authorized by the Constitution as the only channels through which foreigners can be admitted to the benefits of citizens) was placed in Mr. Johns' hands in August or Sept. while I was preparing the other, knot from the backwardness of my performances, but to gratify the agent Dr. Jones of the State Department proper, as I understand it, in having them both in forwardness at the same time; and the consequence of calling in the aid of Mr. Johns on this occasion was to throw more idle hours on my hands thereafter; so that the time Mr. Johns was employed on that schedule was literally thrown away, as to his proper employment, and useless to any available purpose of the office. If such another transfer of my work ever occurred, it was without my knowledge and I presume there could have been no other ground for it than to make speedy issue of patents upon some similar emergency of which I was ignorant and which might just as likely occur the very next day after being idle for want of documents, and yet there could have been no actual necessity, at any time for the adoption of such a policy, as a little patience on all these emergencies would have enabled me to subdue any such momentary influx, in the usual course and tenour of my duty. Surely such transfers have never been made with a view to procure a little colouring matter for a premeditated caricature. Yet Mr. Johns own work has always been in arrear, partly owing perhaps to having been frequently taken from it also to examine Mr. Walker's and Mr. Macdonald's.
II. In relation to the second charge, the Superintendent says
"How far his productive labour, while in office, will compensate for his absence, will appear by the following statement of his performance during the six months he has been in the office, which at 12 1/2 cents per hundred words, the price fixed by Congress, would amount to little more than half the sum he is drawing from the Treasury of the United States."
This charge is fully answered and refuted in meeting and refuting the first charge and specifications as above, except so far as relates to the count of words; on which I may state a fact, that this count of words is not always accurate in the office. In one instance that came to my knowledge it deviated from the truth 25 percent, as was afterwards ascertained by revision upon remonstrance of the party interested. But suppose the count to be true in this case, yet I have fully shown that my work, so far as I was permitted to officiate in the duties prescribed to me by the Secretary of State, was always up to the gage of the current business, and of course it would not be my fault if it had been fifty per cent less. Nevertheless, it appears from this count that my performance was nearly a hundred per cent greater in December than it was in July or August; but this comparative difference is fully explained by the same corresponding difference in the current applications for patents in those months. All of which rather proves that there does not come to the office enough of this current work to keep me employed, which the Superintendent surely ought to have known when he scaled my efficiency by this estimate. Wherefore then were the other branches [?] of my duty withheld from me and conferred, in excess, upon Mr. Steiger, a conformity to the distribution prescribed by the Secretary of State would have afforded me more full employment, and would have saved Mr. Steiger from being excessively worked, as I have understood is proclaimed by some persons connected with the office. Surely this disregard of the arrangements of the Secretary of State did not proceed from a predetermination to impoverish my performance in a beggarly exhibit of words counted at 12 1/2 cents the hundred, and to enhance the lustre and eclat of Mr. Steiger's performance. But again these words so particularly counted (which indicates a prodigal waste of time to little gain) are written on parchment, the roughness of which in many respects is similar to sand paper; also the oiliness and otherwise unsuitable qualities to receive the impression of ink from a swift hand, render it extremely unfair to put the estimate of this duty, upon the footing of a count by the hundred words, besides writing upon parchment for these very reasons, no doubt, is never paid for by this rule in any of the Departments, or elsewhere, even when it is done by the job, but rather at a ratio of twice or thrice this estimate of 12 1/2 cents the hundred words -- a price fixed by Congress on the ordinary recording on paper, not on parchment, as I understand it. Thus then would my work (though not fully employed) taking the estimate of December for the criterion, amount to between 1600 and 2400 dollars a year. Further I have never understood that any such estimate was ever taken into consideration, in fixing the permanent salaries of clerical officers of the government. I presume no such estimate was made to show to Congress that the arduous labours of Mr. Greenhow entitled him to an advance of more than fifty per cent, say from $1000 to 1600 dollars in a few months after his appointment in the State Department, when the former sum had been considered for a series of years adequate compensation, for the light duties of his predecessors, as in a dozen similar cases that I could mention in the other departments. But as small as my performances have been in despite of my ability to do all and readiness to do more than I have been permitted to do, how would it compare with that of clerks in similar or other duties in this office a few years ago, when there was not one fourth the number of patents issued, nor one tenth the quantity of transfers per year as in this year just past, to say nothing of the entire omission [?] then to record patents, though the same number of clerks or nearly so have always been allowed -- these facts are shown by the books and files.
III. In relation to the third charge, the Superintendent says
"It would appear from the charges lately brought against this office by W.P. Elliot that Dr. Mayo has been performing the part of an informer to that gentleman (alias) performing the office of a spy."
This allegation seems to be, in effect, a repetition of the general imputations thrown upon me by the Superintendent in his letter of the 3rd of July, already referred to. As however there is no specific charge but a general inference from charges made by another gentleman against the office, of which I had no knowledge nor heard of till after they were made, I have nothing specific to answer in the case, but to deny in general terms the truth of the imputation. Nevertheless as some light may be thrown upon the sensitive suspicions of the Superintendent, in connection with the good faith of the public service and the escape from any dereliction thereof, by thus attempting to implicate my honour and good faith as a decoy or obscuring envelope, I must exercise my right and my duty by virtue of the responsible position in which I am placed by the Superintendent to advert in a general way at least to a great map of facts that seem to be embraced in the range of this charge -- a course not only important to my own full vindication, but equally important in leading to a full inquiry for the information of the President, and the Secretary of State. This being done, I need make no effort to show that this charge (upon vague inference) taken in connection with the imputation of the letter of the 3rd July, has been suggested rather by the actual condition and transactions of the office than from any chargeable misdeed of mine. And who has not early learnt, as a salvo against the designs of the wicked, "that conscious rectitude has no need of alarm about spies and informers." Yet the Superintendent virtually admits there is a matter of impropriety in the conduct of the Patent Office, upon which he would enforce rigid secrecy among all belonging to the office, otherwise he could feel no alarm, as there would be but a barren field for the odious vocation of a spy or informer.
1st. In regard to Mr. Elliot, I have no particular connection or intercourse with him, but by virtue of his intercourse with the office, and otherwise, as an artist. Mr. Elliot has frequently visited the Patent Office with letters from his correspondents and has in some instances addressed them to me, making inquiries in their behalf for information. I referred his inquiries of me, in two instances, to the Superintendent, but finding it an unpleasant agency, I declined thereafter and suggested to Mr. Elliot on a third call at the office to carry his letters to the Superintendent and make his inquiries for himself. On several of these occasions, so far as my presence and observations enabled me to judge, I am free to say that Mr. Elliot was utterly denied any intercourse with the office and was repulsed on two or three occasions by one of the clerks (Mr. Steiger) who has charge of the files, on terms derogatory to the character of a gentleman, stigmatizing him with improper or dishonorable motives and declaring that he would have nothing to do with him, explicitly refusing to give any satisfaction to his inquiries, though letters were exhibited as the foundation of his inquiries. Of these facts Mr. Elliot could have required no information from me.
2nd. There is ample evidence in the office that the files and models are not in safe keeping, many of the former being lost, and are daily liable to be lost or mislaid, and many of the latter broken to pieces, lost, and daily liable to be mutilated. All of which can be proved specifically, in part evidence of which it may be sufficient here to advert to the broken condition of models in many parts of the office and particularly in the machinist's room, where the new models monthly accumulate on the floor, pell mell, and thus continue a week or ten days, subject to be handled and experimented upon by his little brother for the amusement of persons resorting there on these occasions. This monthly scene of floor exhibition now exists (Saturday 24 Jany) has been going on more than a week and will probably continue for several days to come. And I should judge that the greater part of the more delicate models get dislocated and crushed or greatly damaged before they are put away.
3rd. The office is liable at night to be in the possession of an individual not connected to it (Dr. Jones of the stated Department proper) by means of false keys or duplicate keys having his own writing table and depository of papers and drawings in the room that I write in, to which I have seen him making visits three times myself, without seeking or expecting to make any such discourse, and when I mentioned this apparently exceptionable intercourse with the office to Mr. Dickens, and the probability that Dr. Jones was still in the habit of preparing papers for his own emolument, from the great number of applications that were brought to the office by him, Mr. Dickens remarked, that he understood Dr. Jones no longer charged fees for his agency since the orders of the Department of the 16 Decr 1833, but only received presents from patentees, so that in order still to adhere to the substance he found a virtue in changing the name of the thing. Of this description of transgressions, no doubt many facts exist, one other alone has come to my knowledge, which is the case of Mr. Keller preparing a drawing for a patentee, who told me personally on depositing the drawing, that Mr. Keller prepared it and charged him three dollars. Whether these papers could be recognized by the Superintendent as evidences of transgression, from his knowledge of their styles of performance I know not. But I am certain that Mr. Elliot knows much more of such facts than I do, by virtue of his long connection with the office, and his intercourse as an artist, with persons resorting here on patent business, and therefore could need no information from me as he has obtained none that I knew of, surely none as a spy or informant. When the misdeeds of any office I may be in seem to call for such an agency as is by the Superintendent attempted to be so stigmatized, my resort would be, as in duty bound, to the superior officer.
Indeed, so conscientious do I endeavour to be at all times in that respect, that I will now mention another fact, lest I should be chargeable with the omission on so appropriate an occasion and particularly as I know the Secretary of State is under and erroneous impression in relation to it, from a remark he made to me, on the comparative duties of Mr. Johns and myself, saying to this effect, that while my writing was chiefly on parchment, I had less to write in making out patents that Mr. Johns had to do in recording them, by the difference of the printed form of Letters Patent, which I only had to fill the blanks, while he had to copy or record the whole. Now the fact is the patents are not recorded "as issued" according to the orders of the 16th September last, nor are they recorded at all, and never have been, though the law also requires them to be so recorded, and enjoins it in the order of official proceedings, before handing the patents over to the patentees. All that has ever been attempted toward complying with these requirements of the laws and of the Department, has been to record the specifications and the date of issue, as entered on the specification, whereby we have two copies of the specification, the original and the record, but none of the Letters Patent proper, they being sent away before any attempt is made to submit them to record. And as to other details of the arrangement adopted 16th September, I may add that the copies I make are revised by Mr. Steiger, not in conformity to any distribution of duty assigned to him, but apparently in disregard of the specific assignment to the Superintendent "to revise all writings prepared in the office, originals and copies" unless Mr. Steiger's performance of this duty is constructively the performance of the Superintendent. Also the notations, in Mr. Steiger's handwriting, on the specifications, in designating the titles for the schedules indicate that the examination of these documents, preparatory to their admission to be patented, is confined to Mr. Steiger.
IIII. In relation to the fourth charge, the Superintendent says
"It also appears from the public papers that he (Dr. M.) has petitioned for the benefit of the Insolvent laws, in reference to which I cannot help remarking that one of the most efficient clerks this office ever had was discharged by order of the President for a similar application."
This is obviously an attempt to arraign the consistency of the President, should he fail to order my discharge on account of the application here referred to. How discreet such an attitude towards the President might be esteemed, even were the cases parallel, is not for me to question or pass upon. But that the Superintendent has entirely erred in his assumption of their parallel character, it becomes me most especially to show, and I shall make it clearly appear that they are as different as two cases can well be, whether taken prospectively or retrospectively. I made my application, as stated in the very papers quoted (of which I communicated immediate information to the President at the Hermitage) in consequence of a sudden run upon me, the instant I went into office in July last, chiefly by agents here for antiquated claims foreign from this District, while the other case occurred as a sequence of some years in office, on claims incurred here while in office, a wide difference at once. Previous to my loss of office in 1833 (under the deliberate false pretenses of the Commissioner of Pensions, declaring there was no employment to engage me on at the office) I had regularly devoted my salary to the payment of my expenses here, while it is clear the other gentleman did not, or he would have had no occasion to resort to such relief, while he was in the regular receipt of his salary, unless his expenses overreached his receipts, from vices that might have afforded stronger reasons for his dismissal than the act held up to view and God knows, no man has ever been able to impute any thing of the sort to me even in this centre of all abominations. Here the comparison drops of course. But my vindication will be still more complete when I add that ever since I have been exonerated by the judge, I have, of my own free will and sense of justice, devoted every months salary to the payment of my arrears here, which but for the relief now complained of, would have been swallowed up by old foreign claims, to the exclusion of citizens with whom I have dealt upon the credit of any poor prospects I might have here, and which God knows, gets worse and worse daily, from my zeal and good faith in a cause I am willing to die by, as I have already hazarded assassination from a hundred hands that were too cowardly to strike.
But as every creditor could not have preference in the first instance of payments, I gave the preference to them who had given me little or no annoyance, and in this scheme of liquidation, am I still as rigidly progressing as ever, reserving nothing for the subsistence of my family, for the days of precarious future, though fully sensible of the efforts continually engendering to turn me out of office. Nor would I murmur at the complete success of these machinations, if they were not contrived by those who have no claim on the continuance of this administration, or had I as little pretensions as they. And if the Superintendent of the Patent Office desires that the President shall know still more of my private affairs, he is welcome, in all conscience, for I have no disguises. I live in a garret, with my wife and an indifferent domestic at as little cost as possible, and shall continue to do so, till I can make up the arrears of my late vacant twelve months, or do worse.
In fine, without legal or other counsel as to form and technicalities, or as to expansion or restriction of range and without seeking the intercession of friends, because I never would so call in question the entire justice and impartiality of the President and Secretary of State, I submit this "full explanation" in answer to the aforesaid charges as in duty bound.
and remain very respectfully your obedient servant,
Ro. Mayo
-----
page 169-179
14 Dec 1834 Craig to Forsythe
Transmits list of applicants whose patents had not issued, and whose fees were being transferred from the Bank to the Treasury
-----
page 181-185
7 Jan 1833 [or 4?] Craig to McLane.
With enclosures. Discussion of whether a U.S. Citizen and a foreign citizen being joint inventors, the foreigner could assign to the American so that a patent could be obtained. Foreigners could not get patents.
-----
page 186
24 Jan 1834 Craig to McLane
He has hired a lawyer to represent him in answering the charges of Elliot.
-----
page 186-187
27 Jan 1834 Elliot to McLane
Asks if there has been any resolution of his charges against Craig. Encloses copy of letter of William A. Weaver
-----
pages 187-189
28 Dec 1833 Weaver to Elliot
Complains of Craig's conduct in office
-----
page 189-190
28 Jan 1834 Craig to McLane
Through oversight he had not answered George H. Richards and given him the information desired, but just did so and copy enclosed.
-----
page 190
7 Dec 1833 Craig to Richards
Acknowledges receipt of serious charges made against him and asks for copy of the information on which they are founded.
-----
page 190
27 Jan 1834 Craig to Richards
Informs him that no application for a patent for an invention similar to his had been made and that the rule contained in the 24th article of the circular [against releasing information in pending applications?] was no longer in force.
-----
page 191
30 January 1834 Craig to McLane
Asks for an immediate investigation of Elliot's charges.
-----
page 191
4 Feb 1834 Elliot to McLane
Acknowledges receipt of notice of hearing of his charges at noon tomorrow. However, owing to severe indisposition which has confined him to bed, he is so weak as to be prevented from leaving his room. Asks a delay of a few days.
-----
page 192
9 Jan 1834 Craig to Bishop.
Bishop has used son to help him in his duties without compensation. Has asked Craig to employ him for copying at $100 a year. Craig has no authority.
-----
page 192
1 Feb 1834 Bishop to McLane
Enclosed copy of above letter and asked for consideration.
-----
page 193
19 Feb 1834 Dayton to McLane.
Steiger refused to answer questions [listed] put to him.
-----
page 193
20 Feb 1834 Craig to McLane.
Asks copy of Elliot's complaint against Bulfinch.
-----
page 194
10 Apr 1834 Craig to McLane
Transmits accounts.
-----
page 195-196
[undated] William P. Elliot to Louis McLane
[not dated]
To the Hon. Louis McLane
Secretary of State of the United States
Sir,
With a view to public good and the due execution of the patent law of 1793 etc., the following charges are made against John D. Craig, Superintendent of the Patent Office, by William P. Elliot, of the City of Washington.
Charge 1. By the 9th section of the patent law of 1793 for granting patents, interfering applications for patents are required to be referred to arbitrators, the Secretary of State choosing one, and each of the parties one; and their decision is to be final as far as regards the issuing of the patent. During the whole time Dr. Craig has been in office he has never had an arbitration, though often required, and he has in some cases issued three or more patents for the same invention; alleging that it is no use arbitrating because the parties would go to law afterwards. But by the same reasoning all our inferior courts might be dispensed with, because the parties have an appeal to superior courts. Besides this, by his course our courts are filled with litigants, and the country overrun with patentees and their agents who rob the people under the specious title of a patent from the United States, signed by the President, Secretary of State, and Attorney General, many of which for want of the due application of this 9th section of the patent law, have been surreptitiously obtained. The method of deciding interfering applications for patents had always been decided by arbitration till Dr. Craig came into office; and was the means of preventing from one third to one half the number of patents being issued that are now issued.
Charge 2. Formerly a book was kept in the office in which were recorded applications for patents, and by means of which interfering applications could be ascertained; as well as furnishing correct information to applicants respecting the originality of their inventions or any interfering applications; this book has been entirely discontinued, and by consulting the Doctor's letter book, it will be seen what meager and incorrect information he now affords inquiring applicants, compared with what was formerly done by his predecessors.
Third charge. He has destroyed all the letters of correspondence with the office, preserved during forty years, and continues to destroy his own, by which all examinations as to the correctness of the answers given is totally cut off.
Charge 4. There are other charges of a minor character which with justice might be made against the Doctor; such as his proverbially rude uncouth manners to visitants to the office, his total incompetency to discharge the duties of his office, and his general character as Superintendent, which are sufficiently manifest to the public and need not here be farther noticed.
The truth of all the above charges I am prepared to prove, if called upon, by the most incontrovertible evidence.
I have the honor to be etc.
William P. Elliot
-----
page 196
7 Apr 1834 Louis McLane to William P. Elliot
Department of State
Washington, April 7, 1834
Sir,
Your letter of the 1st inst has been received. The report made to me by the commissioner appointed to investigate the charges preferred by you against Mr. John D. Craig, the Superintendent of the Patent Office, having been prepared solely for the information of the Secretary of State, it is not thought proper to furnish you with the requested copy. No reason is perceived, however, for withholding from you the result of the investigation, as communicated to Mr. Craig in a letter, addressed to him on the 28th ult. That result was, that although from a view of all the circumstances it was not deemed expedient to remove him from office, yet that there is as much to censure in his conduct and that of Mr. Steiger, as developed in the examinations which had taken place. Mr. Craig was also directed to comply strictly, for the future, with the orders of the 17th October and 16th December last, to consider no case as exempt from the application of the 9th section of the act of Feb 21, 1793, until the patent should have been actually issued, to file all the official correspondence, to keep a book corresponding to that formerly kept under the name of the "Caveat Book", and not to suffer original papers to be taken from the office without the permission of the Secretary of State.
I am, sir, very respectfully,
Louis McLane
To Mr. Wm. P. Elliot
Washington
-----
page 197-198
9 Apr 1834 William P. Elliot to Andrew Jackson
Washington, April 9th 1834
To the President of the United States
Sir:
Some time ago, from a sense of duty, and with a view to correct certain abuses which had crept into the administration of the duties of the Patent Office, I deemed it proper to prefer certain charges against the Superintendent of the Patent Office to the Secretary of State. The secretary ordered an investigation into the same by a commissioner appointed for that purpose who made a report to the Secretary, which report sustains me in every charge.
The Secretary although he finds him guilty, privately reprehends him and orders the abuses to be corrected. I requested a copy of the report, and of his letter to the Superintendent; but was refused on the ground contained in the Secretary's letter to me; a copy of which is enclosed. As I am not content with this confidential reprimand I have thought proper to lay the whole matter before the President.
And I will here observe that this investigation developed facts of a more outrageous character than those with which he was charged, for not only was it proved that the official correspondence was destroyed; but it appears that the letter books containing answers to the letters from the beginning of the office to the year 1815, and which were in his possession as late as the year 1831 or 1832, are now missing.
His misapprehension of the patent law, gross ignorance, and total incompetency were clearly proved from his own letter books, as may be seen by the report referred to, and which is now on file in the Department of State.
Great abuses of a different nature still exist in the Patent Office of which the Superintendent must be perfectly well aware; but these I shall leave for others to expose.
From this report and decision it will be seen what has been the conduct of the present Superintendent in office, and what part I have acted, and I leave it to the President to judge and decide if he is a proper person to hold such an office.
I am, sir, very respectfully,
William P. Elliot
Endorsement: The inquiry has been compleat [sic], and on due consideration the report of the Secretary of State fully approved by the President and will not be opened unless new charges made and sustained by proof. A.J.
-----
pages 198-201
16 July 1834 Bishop to Forsythe
Letter and petition asking for increase in pay.
-----
page 201
25 July 1834 Steiger to Forsyth.
Asks promotion to vacancy left by Walker. [Walker died]. Increase from 800 to 1000.
-----
page 201-202
28 Jul 1834 Craig to Secretary.
Secretary had asked Craig's opinion of Mr. Walker who wishes to succeed his father. Craig says he writes a fair hand. Know nothing more. Has been employed for copying in the Patent Office.
-----
page 202
30 July 1834 Craig to Forsyth.
Macdonald has been making an index of patents but he is almost through and will return to recording.
-----
page 203
23 Aug 1834 Craig to Forsyth.
Secretaries of State have always required a good model with patent applications, although frequently asked otherwise.
-----
page 204
3 Oct 1834 Craig to Forsyth.
Explains why money is kept in bank instead of Treasury and precedent for it. Jones transferred $1200 to him. Secretaries of State had been informed of the precise amount in the bank when they came into office for at least three secretaries. However, it will all be transferred to the Treasury.
-----
page 204-205
8 Oct 1834 Craig to Forsyth.
Just received the printed "Information to persons having business to transact at the patent office." Did not change system of depositing until public could have notice. Has bank account at Bank of Metropolis for contingent fund. Will open one for fees as instructed if bank permits. Great part of money received for fees is in notes from Country Banks, which will not be received at the Bank of the Metropolis.
-----
page 206
4 Nov 1834 Bishop to Forsyth.
Asks that a laborer be employed to help him. Has been employing one himself but cannot do it on a reduced salary of $400 a year.
-----
page 206
8 Nov 1834 Craig to Forsyth.
Second's Bishop's letter.
-----
page 207
10 Nov 1834 Craig to Forsyth. Would like Macdonald to bring index up to date. Finished 18 months ago.
-----
page 207-210
14 Nov 1834 Craig to Forsythe
Responds to Wm. P. Elliot's letter of 5 Nov containing charges.
"... In consequence of having exposed shortly after coming into the Office, extensive frauds, that had been committed by some persons formerly in it, I have experienced the most inveterate hostility, in a certain quarter ever since; so that, if I were to credit reports, rank cowardice alone, has saved me from assassination.
"With respect to the charges preferred against me to the late Secretary of State, I shall only observe, that a suit is pending in the District Court, for the purpose of proving the falsehood of said charges; and,
As for the causes that lead to the complainant's ejectment from the building, I would state, in the first place, that he had no right to be there; and the room he occupied was wanted, for the convenience of those who were entitled to be there; -- Second, continued complaints were coming from the clerks who wrote in the same room, of the annoyance they experienced, from the noisy conversation carried on between him and his visitors, in consequence of which they found it impossible to avoid errors in their writing; -- A third reason was, that complaints of his exorbitant charges, brought reflections and [?] on the office, with which he was identified: -- But above all, on being prohibited from pocketing any longer the copying and recording fees, (By which the revenue has been defrauded of several thousand dollars) he displayed such indignancy of disposition, that it was not thought prudent, to suffer him to remain in the building; especially as there were strong suspicions that he was in possession of false or duplicate keys which gave him access to the rooms of the Office when no other persons were there; -- and
As for the President being dissatisfied with his removal, as he stated, the fact was so very different, that it was by the President's express commend to me, that I applied to the Secretary of State for his removal.
As for the late "Outrages" of which he complains, with regard to the first, I have only to state that it has been my constant practice, to keep unpatented models in my own room and to prevent any person, not belonging to the office, from examining them: -- and, as for his final charge, I would beg leave to state the following simple facts: that on the 23rd day of October, Mr. Mayo came into my room, and handed me a paper, observing that there was a letter, asking for some information from the Patent Office. I said "very well, leave the letter with me and I will answer it"; he replied, that the person to whom the letter was written wanted the information verbally. I told him such was not the practice of the Office and would not be complied with; -- William P. Elliot, then made his appearance from behind his levant Coureur [French for "rising runner"? KWD] and observed that that letter was written to him and he must have the information to answer it: -- To which demand .... I gave a silent by taking up -- not a newspaper, as he states, but a pen, and writing an answer to the letter in question, a copy of which is herewith enclosed, and to which by due course of mail I received an answer in which Mr. Sleeper informed me, that he had received my letter of the 14th October, it having lain in the Post Office some days, in consequence of the neglect of the carrier; and that he had written to the person alluded to in my letter from a belief that he belonged to the office.
It is with extreme regret that I have so far trespassed upon the time of the Secretary of State; to those acquainted with the character in question, such explanations would not be requisite; and I sincerely hope, Sir, that you will never have to know as much of him, as is known to your humble servant,
John D. Craig
-----
page 210
Craig to Sleeper 23 Oct 1834
Patent Office, Octr 23, 1834
Sir,
A person with whom this Office can have no intercourse was this day making inquiry, respecting your papers and money sent here for a patent.
Such papers and money were received on the 14th Inst. and the money ($30) returned to your address on the same day, for reasons therein stated, and which I hope you have received.
Yours respectfully,
John D. Craig
Mr. John R. Sleeper
Philadelphia, Pa.
-----
page 210-211
William P. Elliot to John Forsyth 15 Nov 1834
Washington, Nov 15th, 1834
To John Forsyth,
Secretary of State of the U. States
Sir
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 15th instant in answer to mine of the 5th, complaining of Dr. Craig's official conduct in refusing information when respectfully solicited respecting papers and money sent to the Patent Office and supposed to be lost. It would have given me satisfaction to have seen what apology could be made by a public officer for such rude and ungentlemanly conduct, however I must at present submit.
This morning I called on the Superintendent of the Patent office with the enclosed letter from Mr. Adam Ramager [?] of Phila respecting an improvement in the printing press which he wishes to patent, but was again treated with the same rudeness as formerly complained of and all information denied, the Superintendent remaining mum and his clerk refusing all intercourse. But, sir, what can be expected from men who have pronounced the salutary rules of your department tyrannical, forbidding clerks receiving presents or fees for doing extra business as they term it, and who continue to put these regulations at defiance; which I pledge myself to prove, if called upon, by the most incontrovertible evidence.
I am sir, your obedt servt,
W.P. Elliot
-----
page 211-212
William P. Elliot to John Forsyth 19 Nov 1834
Washington, Nov 19th 1834
To John Forsyth
Secretary of State of the United States
Sir
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 17th inst requesting me to furnish your department with such evidence as I may possess, in relation to the complaint which I recently made of the conduct of the officers of the Patent Office.
In compliance with this request I called on the Superintendent of the Patent Office and asked permission to examine his letter book and portfolio of drawings for the present year, in accordance with the practice of the Office under Dr. Thornton. He remained stubbornly silent. I then went to Mr. Steiger, the clerk having charge of them, and made a similar request. His answer was, "you cannot see them, as I before told you; and I shall hold no intercourse with you."
Now, sir, the object of this letter is respectfully to request that you will please to give directions to the Superintendent of the Patent Office to shew me what papers, drawings, and books I may have occasion to examine, in order to enable me to comply with your request.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Wm. P. Elliot
-----
page 212-214
William P. Elliot to John Forsyth 24 Nov 1834
Washington, November 24th, 1834
To the Honorable John Forsythe
Secretary of State of the United States
Sir:
I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 20th instant.
You were quite correct, sir, in supposing from the pledge I had given to prove the charge, incidentally made against some of the officers of the Patent Office, that the proof was in my possession at the time I made the charge. But I regret you cannot consent to my examining the records of the Office, in order to enable me more fully to sustain the charge without having recourse to proof implicating a gentleman of your department.
The following evidence will no doubt be deemed sufficient.
A few days ago Mr. William C. Grimes called on Dr. Thos. P. Jones of your department with a view of having a number of specifications and drawings prepared for inventions which he was about to have patented. The Doctor agreed to correct his papers, and to procure the necessary drawings at a reasonable price, and for this purpose Mr. W.T. Steiger of the Patent Office was employed to execute some of them. The Doctor received from Mr. Grimes ten dollars as part payment. Mr. G. shewed me the original specification corrected in the handwriting of the Doctor, but which were subsequently copied by another. Dr. Mayo, of the Patent Office, will make oath that Mr. Dickens informed him that Dr. Jones had confessed to him that he did receive payments from patentees for doing their business. And he will also swear that many of the specifications which come under his notice in copying them bear the signature of Dr. Jones as a witness, with other evidence of their having been written by him.
About the beginning of the present month Mr. George Cameron, of this place, called on Dr. Jones to get a drawing made for his fire engines, which he was about to patent. The doctor referred him to Mr. Steiger, who executed the drawing, and charged him five dollars for the same, as will appear by the affidavit of Mr. C. herewith enclosed.
That Dr. Craig is well aware of the existence of similar infractions of the orders of your department, and encouraged the continuance of them, is evident from the fact that he declared to Dr. Jones that the orders were "tyrannical"; and perseveres in putting them at defiance by receiving drawings and papers from the hands of Dr. Jones and Mr. Steiger executed by themselves, for private emolument, without forbidding the practice, which may be seen by reference to the files of the office.
In requesting that the records might be submitted to my examination I had no intention "to seek for proofs to sustain a charge which I had made without proof"; but merely to avoid the necessity of adducing such proofs as I feared might implicate Dr. Jones. Besides, in making the request I thought I was asking no more than any citizen had a right to demand in accordance with the spirit and usage of the office; and in conformity with the instructions of Mr. McLane, on file in the Patent Office; and to your own instructions recently promulgated to the public through the Official Newspaper, in the following words, "Caveats not being recognized by the present laws of the United States, no paper will hereafter be received under such a claim, and those which have been heretofore deposited, if permitted to remain, will be open to public inspection."
In order to point out other cases of violation of orders and to adduce further proof that they are committed with the perfect knowledge of the Superintendent I am ready to attend at the Patent Office with any Agent you may please to appoint for that purpose.
Nothing can be more unpleasant to my feelings than making complaints and preferring charges, but, sir, it so happens that the abuses complained of in the Patent Office, not only affect the public, but are peculiarly injurious to me, for how can I enter into competition with men who receive regular salaries, in making drawings etc. Besides, I have it from undoubted authority that the Superintendent uses all his official influence in preventing me from getting business from applicants for patents, and in endeavouring to injure my moral character.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
William P. Elliot
-----
page 214-215
George Cameron affidavit 18 Nov 1834
[with Mr. Elliot's letter of Nov 24]
Washn, Nov 18, 1834
On or about the 1st instant I called on Dr. Thomas P. Jones of this place to have a drawing executed of my fire engine, for which I was about obtaining a patent. The Dr. said he did not make drawings himself, but would find me some one who could make me a drawing; and referred me to Mr. Steiger, a clerk in the Patent Office. I went to Mr. S. who made the drawing; and when I asked him how much he charged, answered five dollars.
George Cameron
County of Washn )
District of Col ) ss
On this 18th day of November 1834, personally appeared before the subscriber, a Just of the Peace for said county, George Cameron, beforenamed, who made oath to the truth of the foregoing statement.
Fleet Smith
J. Peace
-----
page 215
Dickens extract 25 Nov 1834
Extract from Mr. William P. Elliot's letter to the Secretary of State dated November 24, 1834.
"Dr. Mayo, of the Patent Office, will make oath that Mr. Dickens informed him that Dr. Jones had confessed to him that he did receive payments from patentees for doing their business. "
On the foregoing paragraph I deem it proper to make the following remarks.
Dr. Mayo having represented to me that Dr. Jones was frequently at the Patent Office and was extensively engaged in preparing papers and otherwise assisting persons obtaining or applying for patents, and (as Dr. M. believed) received compensation for such services, contrary to a regulation of the Secretary of State. I informed Dr. Jones, by the Secretary's direction, of this representation, but without mentioning by whom it had been made.
Dr. Jones stated in explanation that his frequent visits to the Patent Office were for the purpose of obtaining information respecting new patents for publication in the Franklin Journal, but that his visits were not made within the hours prescribed for his attendance at the Department of State, that he did not make any charge nor receive any compensation for the assistance rendered by him to prepare drawings or applying for patents, although, in consequence of his former connection with the Patent Office, and his supposed knowledge of the subject, he was often called upon for his opinion, and that he was frequently consulted by his friends on matters relating to new inventions and to the patent laws, and that for his opinions given on such occasions, and given out of office hours, his friends sometimes made him presents.
When I sent for Dr. Mayo I acquainted him with Dr. Jones's explanation.
A. Dickens
Nov 25, 1834
Dept of State
-----
page 216-217
John D. Craig to John Forsyth 29 Nov 1834
Patent Office, November 29, 1834
Honorable Joseph Forsythe
Secretary of State
Sir,
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 27th instant, inclosing an extract of a letter from Wm. P. Elliot, Esqr. requesting that I would communicate such information to the Department as I might possess relative to the statements in said extract: 1. In answer to which I beg leave to state that in reference to Mr. Grimes' affair, all that I know is that he some day last week brought into the office two models with the requisite papers and drawings. These papers were certainly neither in the handwriting of Docr. Jones or Mr. Steiger. As for the case of Mr. George Cameron, I never heard of it till now, and therefore can say nothing concerning it: Respecting the papers said to be made out and amended by Docr Jones, I have to state that I have examined the files for the last fourteen months and found only one paper on which anything like Docr. Jones' handwriting is to be seen: it is herewith enclosed:
Docr Jones has occasionally brought papers, models, and drawings into the office, which I have understood to have been directed to his care, but neither papers and drawings can I recollect to be in his handwriting during the last twelve months.
But it is asserted "that I am well aware of the existence of similar infractions of the order of your Department and that I encourage the continuance of them"; and in proof of the assertion it is said that I pronounced the order referred to as "tyrannical", such proof might be very acceptable to Wm. P. Elliot but, I hope I am not yet under the Meridian of Isfahan, where to object to a law is deemed a violation of it.
If the order alluded to be one issued by the late Secretary of State, I have pronounced it tyrannical and unjust, but W.P. Elliot with all his spies and informers cannot produce a single instant in which I have either encouraged or connived at the violation of that or any other order from the same department.
With great respect, I remain, your humble servant,
John D. Craig
-----
page 217-220
William T. Steiger to John Forsyth 29 Nov 1834
Patent Office, November 29, 1834
Honorable John Forsythe
Secretary of State
Sir
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 27th instant, enclosing "an extract of a letter from Wm. P. Elliot Esqr of this city" and requesting me to communicate such information as I may possess relative to the statements therein contained and such explanations as may be necessary.
With reference to Docr Thomas P. Jones, I beg leave to state, that I have examined the recently patented papers on file in this office, and as stated have found his name subscribed to several of them as a witness, but whether any of these specifications which are in different hands were written by Docr Jones I am not sufficiently familiar with his writing to decide; with regard to his agreement with Mr. Wm. C. Grimes, all that I know is that he undertook to procure the necessary drawings; I have examined the late specifications of Mr. G. now in this office, and find that they are not interlined, in the manner stated in the extract before me, nor is Docr. Jones a subscribing witness to either of them.
With regard to the deposition of Mr. George Cameron quoted in the extract, I beg leave to state, that I am willing to make affidavit, I never received a cent from him, that I can prove by the testimony of Mr. Thos Shriver of Baltimore who was at my house and actually done great part of Cameron's drawing. I never expected to receive any thing, and it was well understood at the time, that the drawing was not intended to make a part of an application for a patent, but to raise a subscription for the purpose of testing the principle of his machine, as you will see by the accompanying certificate (No. 1) of Mr. J.F. Callan a highly respectable gentleman and the druggist in my neighbourhood, to whom Cameron (evidently Mr. E.'s tool for this occasion) applied immediately on leaving my house.
As regards the drawings of Mr. Grimes and others, said to have been executed by me, I humbly beg your indulgence, whilst I endeavour to make an accurate statement of such facts as relate to the business and to my connection with the office from the beginning and which, as I think, have an important bearing upon myself and others; especially since the present is the first fair opportunity that has been afforded me of so doing.
When Mr. McLane decided that the copying fees instead of being received by Mr. Wm. Elliot should be paid into the Treasury, there was no clerk in the office qualified to make copies of the official drawings, except Mr. E. and the Office, was until the day of my arrival compelled to continue that business in his hands, he receiving for said drawings, not the legal fee of $2 per sheet but whatever he chose to charge, which often amounted to five times that sum; Such sir was the situation of affairs; the office without a draughtsman, and the salary of $800 evidently not worth the attention of a person competent to discharge the duties of both a clerk and draughtsman, indeed, I have it in the handwriting of Mr. Elliot himself, that he declined applying for the situation when I received at Baltimore a letter from Dr. Craig of which the enclosed is a copy (No. 2) inviting me to let him name me for the situation, and in a subsequent letter (from which an extract is herein also sent No. 3) in answer to mine to know the duties and regulations of the office etc., a direct reference is made to the drawings with which the office had no business. I might execute for applications during "out of office hours" as some compensation for the smallness of the salary, no order or usage of the Patent Office to forbid it, existing at that time, on the contrary, Mr. Elliot had been executing such drawings for applicants at all hours, both in and out of office, and received hundreds in his time from Docr. Craig However ungrateful he has since proved himself for such disinterested kindness and however sensitive to "infractions of the orders from your department" he may wish to appear to you sir, on the present occasion; and this fact was well known to Mr. McLane.
I accepted the invitation thus kindly given by Docr. Craig, was no sooner nominated than appointed, commenced my duties on the 2nd of December last, and made original drawings during out of office hours for applicants for patents before the expiration of the month, however, a complaint was lodged by Mr. E. and an order obtained in his favour, without explanation and without affording me the slightest opportunity to show that the business was perfectly innocent in itself, was no part of the public business, could have no corrupt influence or evil tendency whatever, on the contrary was of great service to the office, but above all sir, without considering the smallness of my salary, it not being sufficient even after the most rigid economy to defray the expenses of my family, such an order was obtained from Mr. McLane, which although expressed in general terms, restricted me in the practice of making drawings, in direct opposition to the understanding with the Superintendent under which I had relinquished my business at Baltimore with to me, great sacrifices to accept the appointment. I confess to you in that I continued to make original drawings after the reception of this order, for no other resource was left to me to support my family, whilst at the same time, let me assure you sir that I would rather have seen them suffer than have been guilty of any conduct not strictly correct and honorable; it is not in my character, as hundreds in my native city of Baltimore, and among them individuals of the first standing can testify if necessary. It is hardly requisite to mention that subsequent to the examination which took place in March last, the order was reiterated and although the description of work which I had done previous to that order was sent in part to Mr. Stone a draughtsman convenient to the office as will appear by the enclosed certificate of that gentleman (No. 4); I do not pretend to deny that I have executed original drawings in and out of office hours, among which are those referred to as coming through Docr Jones, in order as I have already stated to assist in the support of my family; trusting that a faithful discharge of my official duties would be all that would be required of me, without reference to a trifling deviation from an order, not your order sir, but made by your predecessor under circumstances just detailed and which you had the power to annul or confirm whenever you pleased.
In conclusion, if I have been mistaken and have erred in the course pursued, I hope all the circumstances of my case considered, it will not be construed to the serious injury of myself, or of those whose feelings of disinterested friendship alone for me caused them to be at all connected in the business, and if after the explanations which I have thus kindly, for the first time, been permitted to make, should you gratify your informant whom I know to be the rank enemy of our venerable President and of all who write themselves his friends, except Docr. Mayo by confirming the order in question, however hard it may bear upon me and mine sir, I shall observe it most rigidly, and trust to the justice of the Secretary of State, for such an increase of my salary, as will place me beyond the necessity of resorting to extra means for a support.
All which is most respectfully submitted by me, with great respect, your most obedt servt,
Wm Tell Steiger
-----
page 221
Callan certificate 28 Nov 1834
Washington, 28th Nov 1834
I hereby certify that Mr. George Cameron called on me lately, say three or four weeks since, and showed me a drawing of a fire engine and at the same time handed me a subscription paper which he was carrying about for the purpose of raising money to build a machine for the purpose of testing the utility of the principle of his invention.
John F. Callan
-----
page 221
John D. Craig to William T. Steiger 23 Oct 1834
Patent Office, October 23rd, 1833
Dear Sir
There is some prospect of a vacancy in this office, which I think you would fill to advantage.
The salary at present is only $800 per annum but if a competent person had the situation, I have no doubt that it would be augmented by Congress to $1000. Should it appear an object to you worth acceptance, I would thank you to let me know as early as convenient, that I might mention you to the President and Secretary of State before any other may apply.
Yours truly, John D. Craig
Mr. Wm. Tell Steiger
Baltimore, Md.
-----
page 221
Extract from Dr. Craig's letter of Oct 26, 1833
In reply to yours of the 24th inst I have to state that the office hours are from 9 to 3 o'clock -- the "permanency" of the situation, during good behaviour, the business filling up letters patent on parchment, recording assignments, and making out copies of patented papers and drawings when called for, and the time of commencing as soon as convenient.
Applicants for patents frequently want some person here to execute drawings by which, out of office hours you might realize something considerable.
-----
page 222
Henry Stone certificate ca Nov 1834
I certify that my profession is that of a draughtsman for the preparation of drawings and specifications for patentees. That they have been recommended to me repeatedly by Dr. Craig, and that it has been my profession since Feby last.
Henry Stone
[ca Nov 1834]
-----
page 222-225
Thomas P. Jones to John Forsyth 1 Dec 1834
Washington, Dec 1st 1834
The Hon. J. Forsythe
Secretary of State
Sir
In reply to your note of the 28th ult, requesting that I would communicate to the Department such information as I may possess relative to certain statements made by Mr. Wm. P. Elliot, I have the honor to inform you that Mr. Wm. C. Grimes and myself have long been correspondents, our letters relating generally to inventions made by him, the object on his part having been, solely, to ascertain my opinion of the utility and originality of his machine. Upon these points I have communicated my ideas very freely, but Mr. Grimes has never proposed to me, so far as I recollect, to draw up specifications for the Patent Office, or if he has proposed it, it has been declined. It is a business which he has performed for himself, and to which he is perfectly competent.
With respect to the ten dollars of which Mr. Elliot speaks, its history is as follows. About twelve months since, Mr. Grimes remitted to me one hundred dollars, portions of which I was, when directed by him, to pay into the Patent Office as the applications were matured. Having occasion for money, he, in October last, drew upon me for $90, leaving in my hands a balance of $10, with respect to which not a word has ever passed between us. I am well aware, however, that Mr. Grimes considered himself in my debt for what he has accounted valuable information, as I have prevented his taking out several patents for inventions in which he had been preceded.
On his recent arrival in this city, Mr. Grimes has sought the same kind of information on other inventions, and for this purpose has exhibited to me some of his models and descriptions. In looking over the letters I sometimes drew my pen through certain words, and interlined others, but for so doing I have neither charged or received anything. I have not, in fact, a knowledge of the form in which Mr. Grimes has finally presented his papers to the office.
With respect to the drawings which Mr. Grimes has had executed, and the obtaining of which was the main object of his visit, several of them have been done by Mr. Steiger. Mr. Grimes desired me to recommend some person to make them from his models, which he then had with him. I named Mr. Stone, but he had already seen that gentleman, and thought his charges high. I then informed him that I thought I could get them done by a person in the neighbourhood, and that if he wished it I would do so. The models were consequently sent to Mr. Steiger. I had not, nor have I, any interest in the transaction, excepting that which I have taken in rendering a gratuitous service to Mr. Grimes, of whom I think highly. I did not refer him to Mr. Steiger, because I was apprehensive that that gentleman might think it improper to make a bargain with an applicant for a patent, although I was aware that he indirectly executed drawings for them, when such have been provided to this office, and the Superintendent has been requested to obtain them.
Mr. Cameron, whose affidavit accompanies Mr. Elliot's letter, applied to me to obtain a drawing of a fire engine of which he wished to make trial stating that he wanted it for the purpose of aiding him to raise a subscription to enable him to construct the instrument. Not a word passed upon the subject of obtaining a patent. I informed him that Mr. Steiger would probably execute it for him. This is all the information which I possess respecting that affair.
Dr. Mayo has undoubtedly given the strongest evidence in his possession to my disadvantage, namely, that he has seen my name as a witness to specifications; if this is a crime it is one which I cannot refuse to commit whenever called upon for that purpose; as to the inferences of that individual, I do not anticipate being required to defend myself against them; the facility with which he makes mistakes is evinced by the memorandum of Mr. Dickens relating to other points which Dr. Mayo states he stands ready to prove under oath.
My situation as professor of mechanics in the Franklin Institute, as the editor of a journal devoted to the useful arts, and as formerly Superintendent of the Patent Office, are circumstances which have placed me before the public in a prominent point of view, and, in addition to these, whether deservedly or not, a high degree of confidence is placed in my information and judgment in whatever relates to discoveries and improvements in the useful arts. I am therefore, placed in a situation from which I could not escape if I would; my opinion is frequently desired, and I have considered, and do consider, the information which I have acquired as, to a considerable extent, public property, and whilst it has been, and will be, my determination so to employ it as not to violate the rules of office, or to interfere with the duties which devolve upon me as a public officer, it is manifest that I cannot pursue such a course as will enable me to avoidance of misrepresentation on the part of those who are prone to resort to it.
Papers to be deposited in the Patent Office, and money to be paid into the Treasury, are frequently sent to me, and I have never refused to perform a task which obliges my fellow citizens, gives but little trouble and costs nothing. I some time since gave a public notice in my journal that when this was done I required no more than to be saved the expense of postage.
I have the honor to be, with great respect, your most obedt servt,
Thos P. Jones
-----
page 225
Jones note 8 Dec 1834
December 8, 1834 T.P. Jones begs leave to file with the foregoing, a letter received from Mr. Grimes in May last, which will fully confirm the statement made respecting the nature of his transactions with that gentleman.
All of which is most respectfully submitted, T.P.J.
-----
page 225
William C. Grimes to Thomas P. Jones 22 May 1834
York, Pa, May 22d 1834
Dear Sir:
You will find with this enclosed the drawings and specifications of a machine for attenuating iron or other metal, and also the specification of the revolving forging engine, the paper of which I sent to you some weeks since. This specification is to be substituted for the former one if the machine is patented, but I should like to have your opinion of these machines and also of the one for cutting round rods and window sash from boards or planks which I mentioned in a letter some two or three weeks since.
I have prepared the papers which I send you today with the intention of having the machines patented if there is not any thing in the way and you think them worthy of being patented.
I should be pleased to have some information respecting the note on the Patriotic Bank which I sent to you some time since for I heard that that bank had stopped payment. What loss is there on the note in consequence if it is necessary I will immediately forward more money to procure these patents.
Yours with respect,
William C. Grimes
Dr. Thomas P. Jones
-----
page 226
William P. Elliot to John Forsyth 18 Dec 1834
Washington, December 18th, 1834
To the Hon John Forsythe
Secretary of State of the United States
Sir:
I this morning called at the Patent Office, to make certain enquiries and examinations respecting models and papers for a friend at a distance. But was informed by Mr. Steiger, a clerk in that Office that they would hold no communications with me; nor should I make any such examinations there.
What have I done to deserve this treatment? Is it for having exposed the ignorance and malpractices of those who conduct the affairs of the Patent Office? I cannot believe that you have given any order to sanction such conduct; and believe that the present insolent behaviour of the Superintendent's arises altogether from his arbitrary disposition; and the ignorance of the duties of his office. It cannot be possible that you will deny me that right which every other citizen enjoys; viz. to examine the papers and models of an office whose very title (Patent) shews that they are to be open to public inspection. I would not deserve the title of a free citizen of the United States if I should submit to this treatment without resentment; and therefore am determined to have redress. As I have the highest respect for your independent, honorable spirit and high sense of justice I hope therefore you will apply a proper remedy to such grossly improper conduct.
I have the honor to be respectfully your obedt. servt.
William P. Elliot
-----
page 229
Ellsworth to Forsyth 7 Aug 1835
Has discharged Mr. Smith because Secretary of State says there is no appropriation to pay him. He was employed by Superintendent Pickett and held on by acting superintendent Mr. Johns. Question what fund he should be paid from.
page 229-230 Ellsworth to Forsythe 10 Aug 1835
Re Watt and Reiley interference for spark extinguisher, will Secretary please appoint arbitrators.
-----
page 230-234
Ellsworth to Forsyth 10 Aug 1835
Patent Office, Aug 10, 1835
Sir,
It is just one month since I entered upon the active duties of Superintendent of the Patent Office. During this time, I have assiduously endeavored to bring up the business in arrears, and also to learn the task which devolved upon me.
Finding it impossible with the present help to comply with all the orders on file, I feel constrained to present the state of the office ask some apology for what might seem remissness.
The peculiar manner of conducting the business in the Office presented unexpected embarrassment. The whole correspondence of the office (letters received) was formerly burnt by the Superintendent. Within a few years it has been kept on two long wires.
I found upwards of 60 models in the Superintendent's room occupying about 1/3 of the floor. No index or alphabetical list of unpatented models has ever been made, nor had the unpatented papers, including caveats been indexed since April 1829, if we except a part of the time since 1834.
Allow me to notice the course I have thus pursued.
In the first place, I removed all the models from the Superintendent's room to a private apartment for "unpatented models" first taking an alphabetical list of the same. This attention has made the Superintendent's room far more pleasant and enabled me to commence an index for all models received. By the use of this alphabetical list, several models have been found that were supposed lost, thereby causing a delay in issuing the patent.
The correspondence which I found on the wires I have ordered bound, and shall prepare an index for the letters as soon as possible.
Answers to inquiries compose 1/3 of the correspondence, and I would here remark that the delay in hunting up information from letters kept on wires, and papers without any index, is not only vexatious but injurious to all concerned; besides, on every examination of letters thus kept, a new hole was pierced, obliterating of course more or less words.
I have also procured three separate books, for the three separate funds, which in consequence of being all kept in one small book, were likely to become and in some cases did become blended.
I found also, that no list of applicants for patents was ever kept. The only entry made was on the original petition itself, of the time it was received.
It will therefore easily be seen that as the original papers are often sent back for correction, and handed to draughtsman for drawing (by order of the patentee) that this original file was very liable to be mislaid, and all evidence of an application having been made, gone, except the faint trace, of some correspondence respecting a patent. To remedy this evil in part, I have caused envelopes to be printed which when filed are never taken out of the office. The envelope also will save much writing, preserve uniformity in files, and guard against all radical defect in issuing a patent.
I have also ordered a book for the entry of all papers received into the office, either for patents, or as caveats. When this book is completed, I shall be able to comply for the first time with that order which requires a weekly list of applicants for patents.
Not only patentees, but assignees of patents, and suitors in court, have been pressing the office with great importunity, for their respective papers. In some cases, the delay has been very injurious to the parties -- and it is deeply to be regretted, that causes in court are obliged to be continued, at great expense for the want of a paper, which, with help, might be copied in an hour, and for which, twice as much is charged (20 cents) as it costs to furnish the same.
I am happy to say that so far as strangers are concerned, the business of the office, devolving on myself, is nearly brought up. (50 patents are now waiting the signature of the President) The Official reports however, required by the Secretary of State, and the indexes to a considerable business, is quite behind. On this part of the subject, I beg to observe, that a weekly report of the patents, applied for, and also issued, together with a list of fees received for copies and transfers, could easily be made, but a digest of the letters received and written will occupy one clerk, at least two or three hours every day. The correspondence often embraces 40 or 50 letters in a day -- some of the letters received are very long, and it will take much time to peruse them. As these letters will now all be regularly filed, bound, and indexed, and become the records of the Department, I have very respectfully to inquire, whether this last mentioned order respecting the weekly digest of letters could not be released[?] or suspended, until Congress should allow more assistance.
The order which requires all letters received to be answered the same day, however onerous the duty may be should remain imperative. It has been strictly complied with by myself, and will be while my health is spared.
There are several alterations made in the details of office arrangements, and especially in comparing the specifications, drawing and model together; a practice hitherto omitted, I understand, but absolutely necessary to protect the public interest. These changes however do not contravene any order of the Secretary, and have incurred but a trifling expense, and I will not now particularize. At a future time, I will beg leave to suggest a few things which may expedite the issuing of patents, and equalize the duties and expenses of the office.
My object now is, more particularly, to call the attention of the Hon. Secretary to the manner in which the patents are recorded.
I presume the Secretary supposed that the patents were recorded. This I believe has never been done. Allow me to explain. The specification only is recorded. What is technically and in fact the patent -- the document tested by the President and signed by the Secretary of State, and Attorney General is, with all its forms and dates, left wholly unrecorded. When copies are required of any patent, reference is had to the specification on record. The deficiency is made up by taking one of the common forms, or "heading" of patents -- borrowing from the index of patents issued, the name of the patentee, the date of the transaction, and the object of the patent, and gathering from the chronological events of the day, the name of the President, Secretary and Attorney General.
I need not add that a record made up in this manner cannot be certified with entire confidence. For, should there happen to be an acting Secretary of State, or Attorney General the record would, in a court of justice, be a fatal variance with the original. Besides, if the term of the patents should be changed (and it may) then, it would be extremely difficult to furnish a true copy. I will not enlarge. I had supposed that Congress intended the whole patent should be recorded, and, for this made an appropriation.
The expense of making a full record is no greater, or is trifling more, provided the form of the patent is printed with blank dates, and the records made upon sheets as is [?]
While I feel unwilling to make so great an alteration in the mode of recording without the knowledge of approbation of the Secretary, I feel bound to submit the matter without delay, to his notice and consideration.
With the highest respect I am yours respectfully
Henry L. Ellsworth
Hon. John Forsyth
Secy of State
-----
page 234-235
Ellsworth to Forsyth 21 Aug 1835
Mr. Johns continued ill health is causing the business of the Patent Office to accumulate very fast. There are 37 outstanding specifications and assignments for which copies have been requested. I have written over 500 letters since 1 July.
-----
page 235
Ellsworth to Forsythe 21 Aug 1835
Papers corrected and certificate
-----
page 236
Ellsworth weekly account 15 Aug - 5 Sept 1835
Small amounts of money received for copies and recording assignments.
-----
page 236-239
Ellsworth to Forsythe 29 Sept 1835
Patent Office September 29, 1835
Sir, I take the liberty of submitting a few remarks to the Hon. Secretary relative to the wants and inconveniences of the Patent Office.
There is an immediate want of more room to hold the models for the patents already issued and the number is daily increasing. Several hundred are now piled away in the garret of the Post Office.
The great weight of the present models is found to endanger the building. In addition to this all the room now occupied by the Patent office is needed by the P.M. General. Under these circumstances it is presumed that Congress will readily provide for the wants of the department becoming more and more interesting and important to the Government as well as to the public.
It deserves to be mentioned that the Patent Office is now credited beyond the expenditures since its organization a sum exceeding $130,000. The receipts for the last quarter will exceed $7000 for patents issued while the whole expenses authorized by law will in the same time fall short of $2000.
A suitable building could be erected sufficiently large to exhibit all the models arranged in such a systematic order as to show the progress and improvement in the arts, without encroaching upon any revenue separate from the Patent Office.
To any observer it must be apparent that the old law of '93 needs revision. The table of fees is in some cases too exorbitant, in others too little. Every drawing for instance required at the office is charged by law at $2, without reference to its size or complexity. Some drawings are worth from $30 to $40, others are worth less than $2. The fees for copies and for recording is 20 cents for every hundred words, while the expense of getting the work done does not exceed 10 cents. This is a high tax upon many unable to bear the exaction.
It may be deserving of consideration in this enlightened age of commercial reciprocity, whether a more liberal extension to foreign inventors would not be advisable. Our own citizens are daily availing themselves of the courtesy of other nations to secure the benefits of their inventions, while the favor is not reciprocated unless in a very limited degree. What effect our monopolizing may have on other nations is only to be conjectured.
It is also believed that the requirement of so many signatures to the patent is unnecessary to protect the public rights or to guard against errors. If the Superintendent could be authorized to act judicially and such additional effective aid allowed as is necessary, there would be no need of a delay in issuing a patent (when the papers are prepared) beyond a very few days. At present the President, Secretary of State and Attorney General all have to sign the patent and in the transmission of the documents through so many hands delays of course occur to the great inconvenience and injury of the patentee.
In the case of interfering patents it may be worthy of consideration, whether the decision of the Superintendent with an appeal to the Secretary would not be better than the present arbitrators, where the court is composed in part of two referees selected for their friendship to the respective patentees -- for these arbitrators also there is no provision by way of compensation, although each case of importance must necessarily consume time and attention.
But it is not the design of this communication to show the defects in the present law, so much as to state the absolute necessity of some provision for the accommodation of models and additional assistance with adequate compensation to discharge the onerous duties of the Department.
I am very respectfully yours,
Henry L. Ellsworth
Hon. John Forsyth
Secy of State
-----
page 239
Ellsworth to Forsyth 9 Dec 1835
Duties of various clerks. Recommendation that Mills be draughtsman and render such other service as leisure permits.
-----
page 239-240
Ellsworth to Forsyth 11 Dec 1835
Duties of Dr. Mayo, Mr. Johns, and charging expenses to contingent fund.
-----
page 240-241
Ellsworth to Forsythe 16 Dec 1835
Regarding funds from which various clerks are paid.
-----
page 241
Steiger to Forsyth 6 Feb 1835
Patent Office Feb 6 1835
To the Honorable John Forsyth
Secretary of State
Sir,
In extenuation of my conduct with regard to a Regulation of the Department of State concerning the employment of clerks and which it is alleged I have disobeyed by preparing papers for Applicants for Patents. I most respectfully beg leave to submit the following facts.
That I have never till now understood distinctly that the Regulations applied to me in the business of making drawings for applicants for patents, not having been expressly forbidden I acted under the impression when the late superintendent was notified on the subject that I was at liberty to determine for myself whether that regulation reached my case or not he (the superintendent) was of opinion that it did not and unfortunately I fell into the same error, chiefly owing to the circumstance of the employment being in itself innocent, the reason of the Rule therefore not being applicable to it. It is known that I had no one to disabuse me of my error. I therefore continued to make such drawings without attempting to procure as it was my place to have done by proper explanations a modification of the Rules, and in case that could not be granted [?] with perfect propriety to desist.
I hope sir this explanation will be received and I beg leave to assure you that no individual employed in the department entertains a higher respect of your orders and will obey them more punctually than
Your most obliged obedient Servant
Wm T. Steiger
-----
page 242
Pickett to Forsyth 6 Feb 1835
Draughtsman should be a $1000 situation. Request that Steiger be allowed to stay until the close of the session [of Congress]. Steiger is prompt, punctual and efficient. An additional clerk is needed.
-----
page 243
J.C. Pickett to Forsyth 4 Apr 1835
Regarding $629 deposited in Bank of the Metropolis by late Superintendent, and not transferred to the Treasury because names and addresses of remitters were not clear. Jacob F. Weller of Philadelphia applied to have money refunded because his patent was not issued. Asks permission or advice.
-----
page 243-244
Pickett to Forsyth 21 Apr 1835
In the garret of this office there are about 400 unpatented models, many of which have been injured. Mr. Keller will repair them if he is given the tools, costing $300-400. Most of the models represent inventions which will never be patented, and they should not be repaired. But the tools should be purchased to use on those that should be repaired. It does not appear that the condition is chargeable to any neglect, but they were abandoned by their owners, and there is no secure room belonging to the office in which they could be stored.
-----
page 244-245
Thomas Johns to Forsyth 9 May 1835.
Changes were made in the office in the present months which led to Johns being acting superintendent. The office is suffering from lack of necessary clerical help, which is needed.
-----
page 245
Ellsworth to Forsyth 11 May 1835, Washington
Encloses certificate from Judge Cranch that he had taken oath of office.
-----
page 245
Ellsworth to Forsyth 11 May 1835, Washington
Accepts office of Superintendent. Asks 60 days leave to arrange domestic matters, and to meet his son, now in Arkansas Territory, in Indiana about 1 June.
-----
Page 246
Ellsworth to Forsyth 18 May 1835, Hartford
Acknowledges receipt of grant of leave of absence.
-----
Page 246
Johns to Ashbury Dickins, Acting Secy of State
29 May 1835. Since Ellsworth has not shown up, Pickett has not transferred the Patent Office funds, and the Patent Office has no way to pay its employees. Asks partial transfer.
-----
page 246-247
Pickett to Forsyth 5 Feb 1835
Asks if money paid by original inventors for application can be used to issue patent to later assignee.
-----
page 247
B.F. Butler, Atty Gen, 12 Feb 1835
Yes, money can be used to issue patent to later assignee.
-----
pages 247-248
Ellsworth to Forsyth 20 May 1835 [sic]
Accounts for fees from 1 May 1835 to 8 Aug 1835
-----
page 248
Ellsworth to Forsyth 10 Sept 1835
Transmits weekly list of applications for patents. About 200 applications have been made during the two months I have been in office.
-----
[Note: I will hereafter omit letters transmitting lists of business unless they say something of more specific interest. Also I will omit requests for appointment of arbitrators for interferences. KWD]
-----
page 269
Ellsworth to Forsyth 28 Sept 1835
The business of the Office is up to date except for a report of the correspondence and some indexing. The new forms and new books are introduced. The accounts are herewith presented for review.
-----
page 269-270
Ellsworth to Forsyth 29 Sept 1835
Business of the Office is up to date. Additional help is needed. Some of the regular clerks have been ill. My son has been working with me for a week, and if agreeable to the Department, he will remain a few weeks longer. Asks a few weeks leave to go to Indiana.
-----
page 271
Pickett to Forsyth 14 Nov 1834
Although he transferred funds to Ellsworth a few days after he arrived to take up the office, and he then sent his accounts to the 5th Auditor's Office, they were lost, and he was obliged to reconstruct them. Delay in obtaining duplicate receipts delayed his final accounting.
-----
page 272-273
Ellsworth to Forsyth 5 Dec 1835
Apparently John White thought his patent had issued prematurely before he had had a chance to include new improvements. Various relevant letters included.
-----
page 273-274
Ellsworth to Forsyth 5 Dec 1835
More clerks urgently needed
-----
page 274-275
Ellsworth to Forsyth (unofficial) 29 Jan 1836
I transmit my report on the inquiries submitted and return the letter of the Hon. Mr. Ruggles.
I have endeavored to omit an allusion to any subject no deemed important. Should the statements or remarks not appear correct or judicious, I beg the kind suggestion of the Hon. Secy. of State before the report is transmitted to the Committee.
-----
page 276-277
Ellsworth to E. Whittelsey 24 Dec 1835
Regards efforts of applicant to have application fee refunded from the Treasury, and efforts to have a general law passed allowing adjustments of such matters.
-----
page 277-278
Ellsworth to Forsyth 5 April 1836
Will be going to Indiana to hold treaty talks with Indians.
-----
page 278-279
Ellsworth to Forsyth 5 April 1836
Exhaustion of contingent fund and necessity for laying off clerks unless more money is provided.
-----
page 279-280
Johns to [Forsyth?] 29 April 1836
Lists duties of clerks employed in Patent Office.Also, ages as Thomas Johns 44; Robert Mills 45; J.J. Roane 38; and C.M. Keller 25.
-----
page 281-282
Ellsworth to Forsyth 1 June 1836
Upon my return I find the work very far behind for lack of sufficient clerks. There are 80 to 90 patents ready to issue awaiting clerical time to transcribe them. Other delays.
-----
page 284-285
Ellsworth to Forsyth 8 July 1836
Minor items relating to Patent Office under the new law. Submits a proposed seal for approval of the President as required by law. Returned endorsed by Secy of State with approval of President of seal with addition "Seal of the Patent Office" thereon.
-----
page 285
Ellsworth to Forsyth 20 Sept 1836
Asks if it is possible for his son to be paid for the several weeks he worked in the Patent Office.
-----
page 285-287
Ellsworth to Forsyth 28 Oct 1836
Can more than one patent be reissued for one patent surrendered under the new law, and if so, how much is charged for each one.
-----
page 287-289
Ellsworth to Forsyth 14 Dec 1835
Sets forth duties of various clerks
-----
page 289
Ellsworth to Forsyth 15 Dec 1835
I regret that the business is accumulating so fast. The inquiries of members of Congress are frequent and require great search. On inquiry occupied a clerk nearly two days. I hope for some relief soon.
-----
page 289-290
Ellsworth to Forsyth 15 Dec 1836
I deeply regret to say that all the records, models, and papers of the Patent Office were destroyed by fire last night. I hastened to the scene and used every personal effort to save the papers, but in vain. The same causes which prevented those who slept in the City Post Office directly under the Patent Office from saving the mails, prevented me from saving anything in the Patent Office.
The Patent Office is now destitute of all accommodations for the transaction of business and I hasten to inquire what shall be done?
-----
page 290
Forsyth to Andrew Jackson 16 Dec 1836
Suggests that Superintendent be directed to procure such temporary accommodation as may be necessary for the transaction of the business of the office, until provision shall be made by Congress for that purpose.
Approved by Andrew Jackson
-----
page 290-291
Butler to Forsyth 15 Dec 1836
More than one patent may be reissued for each patent surrendered, and each at the reduced reissue fee.
-----
[Note: Book goes from page 293 to 314, omitting pages between]
-----
pages 315-316
Monroe to Thornton 27 Dec 1814
Department of State
December 27, 1814
Sir
I have, on full reflection, drawn up a regulation for the Patent Office, which I herewith by [?] to enclose to you.
As the officer having the superintendence of the Patent Office is specially charged with receiving and keeping all the papers, documents, and records, relative to patents, and as in the questions that may arise out of them, and which the Department may ultimately have to determine, a respect is due to his experience and judgment, it is considered that there are good reasons why he should abstain from appearing as a party interested, either directly or indirectly, in any case of a claim for a patent right. If it be said that this is taking from the Patent Officer a right which the law gives to every other citizen, the answer is obvious, that it is adopted as a mere regulation of the Department which, when it is made known beforehand to the officer, it is at his option to assume the superintendence subject to the restriction. I have made it, as you will observe, prospective to operate after the first of February. This has been done with a particular reference to yourself as the present incumbent of the post, and that, as you have heretofore had no notice of any such rule, time may be allowed you to perfect any rights which you may now happen to have, if such be the fact, under the patent laws in the same manner as if the rule in question had not been adopted.
Besides other reasons in its favor, there is that derived from the analogy of the law of Congress which prohibits officers of the customs from owning a vessel, or having any participation in the importation of goods, and the law which interdicts all the officers of the Treasury Department from dealing in any wise, in the stock, or public securities of the United States, or of any state. There are other laws of a similar spirit on our statute book.
It is proper to add, that the rule is laid down and from the opinion I have adopted of its propriety upon general grounds, as connected with the business of the Department, and not from any supposition that motives other than those which aim at a faithful execution of the patent law, ever have, or could influence your conduct.
I am Sir, your most obedient servant
Jas. Monroe
Doctor William Thornton
[Marginal Note: Hon. James Monroe to W. Thornton, dated 27th Dec 1814, received 8th Jan 1815. This was thought improper and was canceled. W.T.]
-----
Department of State, Dec 27, 1814
Regulation for the Patent Office
It is to be understood that after the first day of March [March crossed out and replaced by January] next, the officer charged with the superintendence of the patents in this department is not to make any application for, or be allowed to take out a patent, in his own case, for any invention which he may claim, while he continues to exercise such superintendence and receives a compensation for his services.
-----
page 317
Adams to Thornton 24 July 1818
William Thornton, Supt Patent Office
24 July 1818
Mr. Adams presents his compliments to Dr. Thornton and thanks him for the two drawings which he has had the goodness to make for the Department.
With respect to the postage of letters to the Patent Office on public business, Mr. A. would observe that as the laws have made no provision for that case, he knows of no other rule than the practice in relation to similar cases heretofore. What that practice has been he is not informed, and therefore cannot do better than leave the question to the discretion of Dr. Thornton.
-----
page 317
J.Q. Adams to William Thornton 1 Feb 1819
William Thornton
February 1, 1819
Sir
Alexander Black is desirous of exhibiting to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures of the House of Representatives the models of certain lamps which he deposited in the Patent Office some time ago, and upon which he obtained a patent and also models for lamps which Winslow Lewis deposited in the same office and upon which he has obtained a patent, and has asked for authority from this Department to get them accordingly delivered to him. As he states that he wishes these models for the purpose above mentioned, and that the Committee is desirous of inspecting them for an object that is now before them, you will please deliver them to him, taking his engagement that they be returned to the Office uninjured and unaltered. I am etc.
J.Q. Adams
-----
page 318
John Q. Adams to William Thornton 26 Oct 1819
Doctor Wm Thornton
Superintendent of the Patent Office
Department of State
Washington 26 Oct 1819
Sir
I have received an application from several respectable persons recommending the employment of Mr. Jonas Keller to repair the numerous models in the Patent Office, which are understood to be at this time in a state of mutilation, requiring a skillful and careful hand to mend and arrange them. I have therefore to request of you a report particularly stating whether any, and, if any, which of the models are in such a state of mutilation, and the cause or causes by which they have been mutilated.
I am etc.
John Q. Adams
-----
page 318
Daniel Brent to William Thornton 6 July 1820
William Thornton Esquire
Patent Office
Department of State
Washington 6 July 1820
Sir
I am desired by the Secretary to inform you that it would be very agreeable to him if you could comply with the earnest request of Mr. Legris, in furnishing him with a detailed certificate of the deposit in the Patent Office of his numerous claims to inventions, to serve as a general caveat against others, setting up titles to the same inventions.
I am etc.
Daniel Brent
-----
page 319 Daniel Brent to William Thornton 26 Aug 1822
William Thornton Esq
Patent Office
Department of State
Washington 26 Aug 1822
Sir
I am directed by the Secretary to inform you, that he authorizes you to employ the Swiss, Keller, till the meeting of Congress, to repair and keep in order the Models of the Patent Office, at an allowance not exceeding two dollars a day for this service.
I am Sir, respectfully, your obedient servant
Daniel Brent
-----
page 319
Daniel Brent to William Thornton 11 Nov 1822
William Thornton Esquire
Patent Office
Department of State
Washington 11 Nov 1822
Sir
I am directed by the Secretary to return to you the enclosed letters from and to J.K. Nourse, and at the same time to transmit the enclosed copy of a letter from the Attorney General of the United States to this department dated the 5th instant, upon the subject of the reference which was made to him at your instance of the question proposed in Mr. Nourse's letter, as to the true construction of the laws respecting patents, in the case stated in his letter.
I am sir with great respect and [?] your obedient and very humble servant
Daniel Brent
-----
page 320
Daniel Brent to William Thornton 11 Apr 1823
Department of State
Washington 11th April 1823
William Thornton Esq
Patent Office
Sir
The Rev. Mr. Robert Little has asked permission to examine such specifications in the Patent Office as are not under an engagement of secrecy, and to take copies of such as he may deem fit for publication in a quarterly magazine which he is about to publish in this city. The Secretary sees no objection to his having this permission and desires it be accordingly given to him.
I am, sir, your obedient and humble servant
Daniel Brent
-----
page 320
Daniel Brent to William Thornton 9 April 1823
Department of State
Washington, 9 April 1823
Wm Thornton, Esq
Sir,
I have been directed by the Secretary to inform you that you are at liberty to employ Keller in the Patent Office in the way that he has heretofore been employed, upon condition that he will depend for his pay upon the success of an application which will be made to Congress by this Department at the commencement of the next session, for an appropriation of the money that may be required to defray the expense and, with the understanding that no advances can be made to him in the meantime upon this account.
I am respectfully, Sir, your obedient humble servant.
(signed) Daniel Brent
-----
page 321
Daniel Brent to William Thornton 16 July 1825
William Thornton Esq.
Patent Office
Department of State
Washington, 16th July 1825
Dear Sir,
The President being extremely desirous as you know, that the record of the patents, from the beginning, should be brought up, and Mr. Little being as I understand, willing to undertake the work, upon the presumption that the Secretary will recommend, in his estimate at the next session of Congress, an appropriation of money, to meet the expense, and that Congress will accordingly make it, I beg leave, in the absence of Mr. Clay, to advise the employment of Mr. Little, for the purpose above referred to, with an understanding, however, that this arrangement must of course be subject to the approval of the Secretary, upon his return, for its continuance.
I am, dear Sir, respectfully, your obedient servant
(signed) Daniel Brent
-----
page 321-322
Daniel Brent to William Thornton 8 Dec 1826
William Thornton Esq
Department of State, Washington, 8 Dec 1826
Sir,
I am directed by the Secretary to inform you,in reply to your letter to him of the 28th ult., that he will take some suitable opportunity of recommending to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, an augmentation of your salary, but he directs me to add, that he will not propose another alterations or augmentations of any description with regard to the Patent Office, than those proposed at the last session of Congress. He will recommend only, as it regards yourself, an increase of compensation, leaving to the judgment and discretion of the committee itself to establish the degree of that increase, unless he should be specially applied to for advice upon this point, in which case it will be prepared to give it with a view to all the circumstances connected with the affair.
Yours etc.
Daniel Brent
-----
page 322
Daniel Brent to William Thornton 27 Aug 1827
Department of State, Washington, 27th August 1827
William Thornton, Esq.,
Superintendent of the Patent Office
Sir,
The Secretary desires me to inform you, as I have the honor to do, that he thinks Mr. John M. Behnam is entitled to a patent for the application of the waterproof cement in the manner and for the object stated in his specification, and that he wishes you to give him a patent, accordingly, upon his complying with the requisitions of the law.
I am, Sir, respectfully, your obedient servant
Daniel Brent
-----
page 322-323
Daniel Brent to Thomas P. Jones 4 Aug 1828
Dept of State, Washington, Aug 4, 1828
Thomas P. Jones, Esq., Patent Office
Sir:
I am directed by the President to observe to you, in relation to a circular letter, which is understood to have been prepared by you, and, in some instances, already used, which contains directions to persons desirous of taking out patents how they are to proceed to obtain them, that, in the absence of the Secretary, he is of opinion you ought not to make any further use of that letter. It would seem from an article in the journal of commerce, printed at New York, of the 30th or 31st ult, that the circular in question conveys an idea that a very great proportion of the patents which have been heretofore issued under the authority of this Department, with the concurrence of the Attorney General, are defective in substance and form, and that they would not be considered good, if questioned before the judiciary authority of the United States. Whilst a suggestion of this sort is well calculated to excite the apprehension of patentees, as to the validity of the rights which the[y] have acquired for valuable considerations, it does not appear to the President to have been proper, even, if the fact warranted the remark, and the patents in existence are thus defective, that it should have been made and proclaimed by the office whence they were immediately issued. The objections to the suggestion apply with still greater force, as he thinks, if there exists, in truth, as is believed to be the case, no irregularity in the patents themselves heretofore granted, either in substance or form.
I am, sir, respectfully yr ob serv
signed D. Brent
-----
page 323-324
Brent to Jones 11 May 1829
Transmits letter to Jones in Philadelphia from William Elliot to the Department, stating that it is necessary that Jones should make provision for opening letters addressed to him and received in his absence.
-----
page 325
Wililiam C.H. Waddell to Daniel Craig 20 March 1830
Dept of State W. 20 Mar 1830
John D. Craig Esq.
Superintendent of Patent Office
Sir
Two requisitions have this day passed from this Department on the Secretary of the Treasury to cause two warrants to issue in your favor, out of the following funds, and for the amounts set opposite to each. You will of course be charged on the books of the Treasury with these amounts, and accounts will be rendered with the approval of the Secretary of State thereon in writing to the 5th Auditor of the Treasury, with accompanying vouchers, quarterly, on the first of April, July, October and January.
Viz. Out of the appropriations for contingent expenses of the Patent Office for 1830, the sum of $500 and out of the appropriations for completing the fixtures of the Patent Office $1000.
I am, Sir, yours respectfully,
signed Wm. C.H. Waddell, agt
-----
page 325
Daniel Brent to John D. Craig 22 July 1831
Dept of State W. 22 July 1831
John Craig Esq
Superintendent of the Pat Office
Sir,
I am directed by the Secretary to inform you, as I take pleasure in doing, that he wishes you to add one hundred dollars to the annexed allowance which is made to Bishop, the messenger of your office for salary counting from the 1st of this month, in consideration of his being occasionally employed in copying for the office.
I am respectfully, Sir, your ob servt
signed D. Brent
-----
page 327
Edward Livingston to John D. Craig 17 Apr 1832
Dept of State W. 17 Apr 1832
Doctor John D. Craig
Superintendent of the Patent Office
Sir,
If Mr. Weaver has written to the amount of one hundred dollars, I wish you would pay him as far as he has gone. If the warrant I left for you is not sufficient for your current expenses, another will be issued. I desired, also, that benches and a stove might be procured to make the clerks comfortable.
I am, Sir, your obedt servt
signed Edw. Livingston
-----
page 327
Brent to Craig 15 Jan 1833
Forwards letter from Congressman Louis Williams on subject of petition of Mr. A.D. Smith.
-----
page 327-328
Louis McLane to John D. Craig 24 June 1833
Dept of State W. 24 June 1833
John D. Craig
Superintendent of the Patent Office
Sir
Have received your letter of this day representing that Chas. Bulfinch, a clerk in the Patent Office to be incapable of performing the duties assigned to him and have to state in reply that Mr. Bulfinch has been informed that his employment will cease on the last day of the present month.
In the interim I will appoint another clerk in his stead, who, it is hoped, will possess such qualifications as will enable you to make the savings referred to in the last paragraph of your letter.
I am, Sir, respectfully yr ob servt
signed Louis McLane
-----
page 328
Louis McLane to John D. Craig 26 June 1833
Department of State
Washington 26 June 1833
John D. Craig Esq
Superintendent of the P. Office
Sir
I communicate to you the copy enclosed of a letter which I have received from Mr. Charles Bulfinch, upon the subject of the recent order for his dismissal from the Patent Office. That he may have the opportunity of explanation, I wish you to consider that order as suspended for the present and in the meantime, you will allow him free access to such papers, or records, of the Office as he may think necessary for his defence.
I am, Sir, respectfully, your obedient servant
signed Louis McLane
-----
page 330-332
Louis McLane to John D. Craig 17 Oct 1833
Department of State
Washington 17 Oct 1833
John D. Craig Esqr.
Superintendent of the Patent Office
Sir
Referring to your several communications to my predecessor and to myself respecting the employment of clerks in the Patent Office and to the money received for copies of papers and drawings, I have to observe that, by the Act of Congress passed the 23d April 1830 entitled "an Act to regulate and for the compensation of clerks in the Department of State," the Secretary of State is authorized to employ one Superintendent of the Patent Office, two clerks in the Patent Office at a salary not exceeding $1000 per annum, and one clerk at a salary not exceeding $800 per annum. The clerks authorized by the law have been duly appointed and are now employed in the office in their respective duties.
By a resolution of Congress passed the 7th of March 1832, entitled a "Resolution concerning the recording of Patents for useful inventions," the Secretary of State was authorized, out of the proceeds arising from the fees on patents to procure the necessary books and other accommodations for recording patents issued and unrecorded as well as those hereafter to be issued at certain rates specified in the resolution and by the appropriation act passed the 5th of May 1832, the sum of $12,000 was appropriated for this purpose.
Under the Resolution, the Secretary of State employed several extra clerks, by whom the patents issued and unrecorded have all been recorded. The clerks so employed, with the exception of Mr. McDonald have been discharged, and the accounts closed, and though a balance of the appropriation remains unexpended, I understand from the Superintendent that, with the number of clerks authorized by the act of 23 April 1830, and the remaining one retained under the Resolution of 1831, provided they are efficient persons and faithfully perform their duties, the patents hereafter to be issued may be recorded without the employment of any additional force.
Under these circumstances, I consider that there is no authority in the Department to employ any other clerks in the Patent Office, and that, in future they must be limited to that number.
By the Act of Congress of 21 February 1793 entitled "An act to promote the progress of useful arts, and to repeal the act heretofore made for that purpose," it is provided that for every copy which may be required at the office, of any paper respecting any patent that has been granted, the person obtaining such copy shall pay at the rate of 20 cents for every copy sheet of 100 words, and for every copy of a drawing $2, of which payments an account shall be rendered annually to the Treasury of the U.States, and they shall pass to the account of clerk hire in the office of the Secretary of State.
It is represented to me by the Superintendent that this duty of making and giving copies of papers and drawings has been heretofore permitted to be and is now performed by a different person than the clerks employed under the Act of 23 April 1830, and the Resolution of 1831, who has also received the fees and applied them to his own use. I consider this practice altogether irregular and unauthorized. The Secretary of State cannot employ any more clerks in the Patent Office than those authorized by the Acts of Congress. The Resolution of 1831 does not authorize the employment of any clerk for the purpose of giving copies of papers and drawings and therefore this service must be regularly performed by the clerks employed under the act of 23 April 1830.
The copies of papers and drawings authorized by the Act of 21 February 1793 should be given under the direction of the Superintendent by such persons regularly employed in his office as he may designate, and the fees paid, therefore, should be by him received and accounted for to the Secretary of State. The direction in the act of 1793 that the amount received shall pass to the account of clerk hire gives no authority to employ any clerk not authorized by the other acts of Congress, but the money paid into the Treasury is merely auxiliary to the general fund for clerk hire.
In future, therefore, it will be the duty of the Superintendent to see that this duty is performed by a clerk regularly employed and that the fees be regularly accounted for to the Secretary of State, that the amount may be passed to the Treasury according to law.
I am respectfully, Sir, your obedt servant
signed Louis McLane
-----
page 333
Louis McLane to John D. Craig 16 Dec 1833
Department of State
Washington 16 Dec 1833
Sir,
In answer to your letter of the 12th instant, stating that the drawing table in the Patent Office, which has been occupied for several years by Mr. Elliot, is now wanted for Mr. Steiger, but that Mr. Elliot refuses to give it, unless ordered by the Secretary of State. I have to inform you that, if the table is the property of the office, it is to be under your control.
I take the occasion to communicate for your information and that of the clerks in the Patent Office, a regulation which has been adopted for the government of all the clerks in the Department. It is that no clerk can be employed, for his private emolument, in preparing papers relating to business which is to be acted on by the Department, nor in copying papers that are on file, or of record in the Department.
I am respectfully your obedt servant
signed Louis McLane
John D. Craig Esquire
Superintendent of the Patent Office
-----
page 334-335
Louis McLane to John D. Craig 18 Dec 1833
Department of State
Washington 18 Dec 1833
John D. Craig Esquire etc.
Sir,
In your letter of the 9th instant relating to the complaint of Mr. George K. Richards that the information requested by him, and which he believed he had a right to obtain had been referred to him in the Patent Office, you observe that "all unpatented papers on file in this office are considered private property, and as such they are held sacred. They are not seen by nor their contents made known to any person, without the order of the owner. In the present instance, I was desired to state whether any other papers than those of Mr. Richards had lately been sent to the Office on the subject of tanning, and if so, what was the person's name who sent them, and did they contain any improvements similar to those of Mr. Richards" and that "to have answered these questions I would have considered a violation of my oath of office and certainly a violation of that trust and confidence reposed in me by every person who deposits in this office specifications of his improvement, before he is ready to take out a patent." You also refer to a rule of the office established at its commencement to that effect.
I will be glad to be informed by what authority, and for what objects, unpatented papers are deposited and received on file in the patent office, and also for what purpose the papers referred to by Mr. Richards, if any such were received, were deposited. You will please also to state the actual condition of Mr. Richard's application, and at the same time to communicate a copy of the rule to which you have referred, and also inform me in what particular you would have violated your oath of office and the trust and confidence reposed in you by those who have deposited papers under the circumstances stated.
I am very respectfully your obedt servant
signed Louis McLane
-----
page 335
Louis McLane to John D. Craig 20 Dec 1833
Department of State
Washington 20 Dec 1833
John D. Craig Esquire etc.
Sir
I have received your letter of the 18th instant and have to request that you will furnish me with the letter from which you have given an extract, and also that to which it is a reply.
I have also to request that you will inform me whether it is not usual for persons depositing unpatented papers to state the object of placing them on file, and that you will state the practice of the office in regard to unpatented papers since the letter of 24 Oct 1822.
I am respectfully your obedt servant
signed Louis McLane
-----
page 335-337
Louis McLane to John D. Craig 6 Jan 1834
Department of State
Washington 6 January 1834
John D. Craig Esquire
Superintendent of the P. Office
Sir,
I have fully considered your several communications relative to the complaint made of your conduct by Mr. G.W. Richards, and perceiving a necessity for an entire revision of the rules for conducting the business of the Patent Office, I will immediately give my attention to the subject.
Meantime, I am constrained to observe that the explanation of your conduct in the case of Mr. Richards is not satisfactory. It is true that the 24th rule of the circular to which you call my attention requires that unpatented papers deposited in the office shall not be seen by, nor their contents made known to any persons, without express orders from their owners, but it does not appear to me that this rule authorized your refusing to answer the inquiry made by Mr. Richards, much less the manner in which, it is represented, you refused.
Captain Richards had regularly and in due form filed his application to obtain a patent for a new invention for tanning leather, and the absence of the Attorney General is represented by you to have prevented the completion of his application. At that time, you were informed that he was apprehensive, from information received by him, that some one to whom he had confided his invention, had applied for a patent, and you were asked whether any one had obtained, or applied for a patent for tanning in the same method. It appears to me that the inquiry was in every view proper. This information you refused, and as is averred by the gentleman applying in behalf of Captain Richards and not contradicted in any of your letter, in so rude a manner as to put it out of his power to have further intercourse with you.
If any other person had either obtained, or applied for a patent for the same invention, the 24th rule did not apply to the case, and it was your duty, especially under the circumstances, to have given the information requested.
It now appears, however, by your letter to the Department of the 18th Dec last, that "no such papers as were referred to by Mr. Richards were received," and therefore, even giving to the 24th rule its broadest application to unpatented papers, you would have discovered nothing intended by the rule to be kept secret, nor violated any confidence, nor done any injury to any one by truly giving a negative answer. But by refusing to give the information, you not only neglected the performance of a plain duty by founding your refusal upon the 24th rule, but authorized an inference, contrary to the fact, that such paper may have been filed.
I am aware that you may have acted with the best intentions upon your interpretation of the rule and felt yourself authorized to withhold the information requested by Capt. Richards. In such case, however, your demeanor should have been respectful and a citizen applying for information, in which he had a deep concern, was entitled to a civil explanation of the difficulties which prevented him from receiving it. Courtesy towards those who have business with the public is the indispensable duty of all persons employed in the office, and although I am not disposed to act on the present occasion with even apparent rigor, I shall, nevertheless feel constrained in case of a repetition of any disregard of duty on so important a point to apply the appropriate remedy.
I content myself, for the present, with directing that you will without delay and by letter to Mr. Richards, afford the information he has requested, and that, until you receive the revised rules which I am now preparing, you will consider the 24th rule of your circular of the ---- of --- as rescinded. You will also consider yourself authorized to receive "unpatented papers" on file in the office, only for the purpose of being made known to others, who may subsequently apply for patents for similar inventions.
I am, Sir, respectfully your obedt servant
signed Louis McLane
-----
page 337-338 Louis McLane to John D. Craig 7 Jan 1834
Department of State
Washington 7 Jan 1834
John D. Craig Esquire
Patent Office
Sir,
You will herewith receive a copy of the specifications of the charges made against you by Mr. William P. Elliot. The investigation of them will be prosecuted in such manner as you may indicate as most convenient to yourself.
I am respectfully your obedt servt
signed Louis McLane
-----
page 338 Louis McLane to John D. Craig 25 Jan 1834
Department of State
Washington 25 Jan 1834
John D. Craig Esquire
Superintendent of the Patent Office
Sir,
In reply to that part of your letter this day received in which you request that Mr. Elliot may be dismissed from the Patent Office, I have to inform you that, as that gentleman is not employed as a clerk, nor in any other public capacity this Department will not interfere with your desire to prohibit his occupying either of the rooms in your office.
I am very respectfully your obedt servant
signed Louis McLane
-----
page 338-339
Louis McLane to John D. Craig 27 Jan 1834
Department of State
Washington 27 Jan 1834
John D. Craig Esquire
Superintendent of the Patent Office
Sir,
In your letter of the 24th instant, acknowledging mine of the 7 instant, you inform me that to repel the charges of Mr. W.P. Elliot, in the most effectual manner, and expose the turpitude of their author, you had brought suit against him, and as you say nothing of the investigation proposed in my letter, I infer that you suppose it to be rendered unnecessary by the institution of the suit. I have to remark, however, that your proceeding against Mr. Elliot, being to obtain redress for the injury resulting to you from his accusations, is altogether unconnected with the examination instituted by the Department, with a view to the public service, into the truth of these accusations. I shall therefore proceed with the investigation, and you will accordingly indicate the manner in which it will be most convenient for you to have it carried on.
As considerable delay has already occurred, your early attention to the subject is requested.
I am respectfully your obedt servant
signed Louis McLane
-----
page 339
Louis McLane to John D. Craig 27 Jan 1834
Department of State
Washington 27 Jan 1834
John D. Craig Esquire
Superintendent of the Patent Office
Sir
I wish to be informed whether you have given to Mr. G.K. Richards of New York the information requested by him, and, if so, at what [sic] it was transmitted to him.
I am respectfully yours etc.
signed Louis McLane
-----
page 339-340
Louis McLane to John D. Craig 2 Feb 1834
Department of State
Washington 2 Feb 1834
John D. Craig Esquire
Superintendent of the P. Office
Sir,
I have received your letter of yesterday in answer to mine of the preceding day.
That the investigation may be conducted in a satisfactory manner, and without unnecessary publicity, I have placed it in charge of Mr. Dayton of this Department, and have directed him to make it at the Patent Office. He will attend, for that purpose, on Wednesday next the 5th instant at 12 o'clock, and will continue it, from day to day as may be found necessary. Both you and Mr. Wm. P. Elliot will have liberty to be present and any witnesses whom you or he may bring forward will be examined on oath.
I am respectfully your obedient servant
signed Louis McLane
-----
page 340
Louis McLane to John D. Craig 4 Feb 1834
Department of State
Washington 4 Feb 1834
John D. Craig Esquire
Superintendent of the P. Office
Sir,
Mr. W.P. Elliot having represented to the Department that, in consequence of a recent severe indisposition, he is unable to leave his room, the examination at the Patent Office is postponed for a week, viz to Wednesday the 12th instant at the same hour.
I am etc.
signed Louis McLane
-----
page 340
Louis McLane to John D. Craig 22 Feb 1834
Department of State
Washington 22d Feb 1834
John D. Craig, Esquire etc.
Sir
In reply to your note of the 20th instant, I have to inform you that it does not appear that any letter making complaints or charges against Mr. Bulfinch has, at any time, been addressed to this Department by Mr. William P. Elliot.
I am etc.
signed Louis McLane
-----
page 340-341
McLane to Craig 25 Mar 1834
In case of Mr. Bogardus, proof of his citizenship in a prior application is sufficient, and it does not have to be proved again in the present application.
-----
page 341
Forsyth to Craig 17 July 1834
Petition from Henry Bishop, Patent Office messenger, for additional compensation was received. It cannot be allowed, and he is not to be employed in doing the duties of a clerk.
-----
page 342
Forsyth to Craig 1 Aug 1834
Thomas Johns of Maryland was this day appointed clerk in place of Samuel P. Walker, deceased.
-----
page 345-346
John Forsyth to John D. Craig 16 Sept 1834
Dept of State, W. 16 Sept 1834
John D. Craig Esq
Sir
I enclose a copy of the regulations to be observed in conducting the business of the Patent Office from and after the 22d instant.
I am etc.
signed J.F. [John Forsythe]
Copy of Regulation to be observed in the Patent Office
The following arrangement of the gentlemen employed, the distribution of their duties, and rules for their performance will be observed in the Patent Office from and after the 22d day of September 1834.
Doctor Craig, the Superintendent, will have a general superintendence of the office, and the custody of all the books, papers, drawings, and models, will conduct the correspondence, will examine the description or specifications of inventions, and see that they conform to the law, will revise all writings prepared in the office, originals and copies, and will lay before the Secretary of State weekly a brief report of the letters received and those written, patents applied for and those granted, assignments made, fees received, and will render quarterly accounts of moneys received by him, and of moneys placed in his hands for disbursement.
Mr. Johns will record patents as issued and in a separate book transfers of patent rights.
Doctor Mayo will make out patents and enter in the Index book the patents granted.
Mr. Steiger will copy and record the letters prepared in the office and file those received, will keep the book of Entries, will file the communications presented in the nature of caveats and register the same in a book kept for that purpose, will register in a book kept for that purpose letters received and written, shewing in regard to the former when received, date, by whom written, purport and date and purport of answer, and will keep the accounts of the office, and will also perform the duties of a draftsman.
Notwithstanding the foregoing distribution of duties each clerk will, from time to time, perform such other duties as the public service may render necessary. The date of the receipt of each letter, communication or paper is to be noted on it, and all letters and other communications received at the office will be acknowledged and acted upon on the same day when received, unless for good cause to be made apparent, that shall be impracticable.
A report will be made to the Secretary of State, as soon as practicable, of the state of the business and of the records of the office.
The hours of business of the Patent Office will be from 9 o'clock A.M. until 3 P.M. during which no clerk will be absent, unless in case of sickness, without special permission.
signed J. Forsythe
Dept of State 16 Sept 1834
-----
page 346-347
John Forsyth to John D. Craig 26 Sept 1834
Department of State
Washington 26 Sept 1834
J.D. Craig Esq
Superintendent of the P. Office
Sir
The enclosed draft of "information to persons having business to transact at the Patent Office" has been prepared to take the place of the "Circular" now used for the same object. You are requested to examine it carefully, and to suggest any additions or alterations which you may think proper.
I am etc.
signed John Forsythe
-----
page 347-348
John Forsyth to John D. Craig 1 Oct 1834
Department of State
Washington 1st Oct 1834
John D. Craig Esq.
Superintendent of the Patent Office
Sir,
From the conversation had with you yesterday respecting the sum of $330 which, in your working account of fees received at the Patent Office week ending Sept 2, 1834, is stated to be for patents deposited in Bank to the credit of the applicant, subject to his order until the patent issues, I understood to consist of fees received by you from applicants for patents and not paid into the Treasury, because the patents have not yet issued. I understood, also, that a much larger sum is in your hands received and held under the same circumstances, and further that if patents should not be granted to any of the parties from whom these fees have been received the fees paid by them will be returned, as has already been frequently done.
This whole proceeding on the part of the Patent Office in withholding these fees from the Treasury, in retaining them, subject to the order of the applicant, and in returning any, where patents do not issue, has no doubt arisen from a misconception of the law, and if it has been done under any instructions from the Secretary of State you will refer me to them.
The 11th section of the Act of 1793 directs that every inventor before he presents his petition, shall pay into the Treasury thirty dollars, which money is to be in full for the sundry services to be performed in the office of the Secretary of State consequent on such petition. The words shew clearly that the payment, or the retaining of the fee is not intended to depend upon the issuing of a patent, and if the direction of the statute for paying the fee into the Treasury had been complied with the intention of the law in this respect could not have been frustrated, as the money, when once in the Treasury, could not be withdrawn without an appropriation for that purpose.
You will immediately pay into the Bank of the Metropolis to the credit of the Treasurer of the United States all the fees now in your hands, taking duplicate receipts for each fee which receipts should state the name of the applicant in whose behalf the payments are made.
You will also, as early as practicable make a report to me on this subject, accompanied by a statement shewing in relation to each payment when it was received, the name and residence of the person by whom it was paid and the invention, in respect to which the application was made and where the fees have been returned the date of the repayment and to whom. The statement should shew particularly the residence of the parties, as that information will be necessary if as you suppose many of the person by whom these fees were paid are now dead.
If hereafter any fees should be transmitted to the Patent Office, the Superintendent will immediately deposit the same in the Bank of the Metropolis to the credit of the Treasurer of the United States, and take duplicate receipts, one of which the Superintendent will transmit to the party by whom the money was sent.
Fees received for copies and for recording assignments are to be accounted for and paid into the Treasury at the close of each quarter.
I am, Sir, your obedt servant
signed John Forsythe
-----
page 349-350
John Forsyth to John D. Craig 7 Oct 1834
Department of State
Washington 7 Oct 1834
John D. Craig Esquire
Superintendent of the Patent Office
Sir
In your account of fees received at the Patent Office for the week ending October 4 1834, there is an item of "cash for sundry individuals for Patents $360." This I presume consists of fees which have been transmitted to you by mail, and which you have paid into the Metropolis bank to the credit of the Treasurer, agreeably to my late instruction on the subject. I wish, however, that the account instead of presenting the aggregate amount should state each fee separately, giving the date of the deposit in bank, and from whom received. Accordingly, I return the account that it may be so made out.
You were instructed, in my letter of the 1st instant to deposit to the credit of the Treasurer, at the close of each quarter, the fees received for recording transfers, and for copies of patents, drawings etc. It will be proper for you, however, to open an account with the Bank of the Metropolis, in your own name as superintendent of the Patent Office, and to deposit, from time to time, to your credit in that account such fees of those descriptions as you may receive. And, at the close of the quarter the amount should be paid into the Treasury by a check in favor of the Treasurer, and a receipt therefor should accompany your quarterly account with the United States.
I am, Sir, your obedt servant
signed John Forsythe
-----
page 350
John Forsyth to John D. Craig 9 Oct 1834
Department of State
Washington 9 Oct 1834
John D. Craig Esquire
Superintendent of the P.O.
Sir,
The account of fees received which accompanied your letter of the 8th instant is in a form quite satisfactory, and has been filed in lieu of that returned to you on the 7th instant.
I was not before aware that the fees for copies, drawings, etc. were deposited to the credit of an account kept by you in your official character in the Bank of the Metropolis. As it is stated to be the case, it is unnecessary to open any other account for them with the Bank.
You observe "that a great part of the money sent to the office in payment for those fees is in notes from country banks, which will not be received at the bank of the Metropolis." By a regulation of the Treasury Department, no bank notes under five dollars are receivable in payments to the United States. It is proper that the same rule should be observed in payments made to this Department. You will therefore require all sums under five dollars to be paid in specie and if any bank notes of five dollars and upwards should be sent to you which will not be received as cash by the bank of the Metropolis you will return them to the person by whom they were sent to be exchanged for others.
I am respectfully yours etc.
signed John Forsythe
-----
page 351
John Forsyth to John D. Craig 27 Nov 1834
Department of State
Washington 27 Nov 1834
John D. Craig Esquire
Superintendent of the P. Office
Sir
I enclose an Extract of a letter of William P. Elliot Esquire of this city and have to request that you will communicate to this Department such information as you may possess relative to the statements therein made, and explanations as are necessary.
I am, Sir, respectfully your etc.
signed John Forsythe
same to W.T. Steiger, P.O. and Dr. T.P. Jones, Dept of State
-----
page 351
Forsyth to Craig 2 Dec 1834
Papers under seal of Department of State are evidence of special authority.
-----
page 352 John Forsyth to John D. Craig 14 Jan 1835
Department of State
Washington 14 Jan 1835
John D. Craig Esq
Superintendent of the P. Office
Sir,
Doctor Mayo having applied for copies of certain regulations relative to the Patent Office, I take occasion to request that he and each of the other clerks employed in the Patent Office, be invited to make and return a copy of the letter addressed to you by the Secretary of State on the 16th Dec 1833 and of the arrangement for the business of the Patent Office dated the 16th of Sept 1834.
I am, Sir, your obedt servant
signed John Forsythe
-----
page 352 John Forsyth to John D. Craig 31 Jan 1835
Department of State
Washington 31 Jan 1835
John D. Craig Esq.
Patent Office
Sir
I regret to inform you that the opinion you have expressed, and still entertain, of a salutary rule of this Department, render it proper to terminate you connexion with it.
I am, Sir, your obedt servant
signed John Forsythe
-----
page 352
Forsyth to Pickett 7 Feb 1835
Robert Mills appointed this day a clerk in the Patent Office in place of Robert Mayo, removed.
-----
page 353
Forsyth to Pickett 13 Feb 1835
Application of filing to fee to particular case.
-----
page 353
John Forsyth to J.C. Pickett 3 Apr 1835
Department of State
W. 3 April 1835
J.C. Pickett Esquire
Superintendent of the P.O.
Sir,
I send for your information a printed copy of a notice dated the 1st instant to persons having business to transact at the Patent Office.
I am, Sir, your obedt servt
signed John Forsyth
-----
page 354
John Forsyth to J.C. Pickett 6 April 1835
Department of State
W. 6 April 1835
J.C. Pickett Esqr.
Superintendent of the P.O.
Sir,
Mr. Steigers removal, which has been for some time suspended at your request will be carried into effect tomorrow. The duties of draftsman as heretofore performed by him, are to be assigned to Mr. Mills, and the vacant clerkship will be filled by the appointment of Mr. Roane of Virginia who will perform the duties now entrusted to Mr. Mills.
I am, Sir, your obedt servt
John Forsyth
-----
page 354
John Forsyth to J.C. Pickett 6 April 1835
Department of State
W. 6 Apr 1835
J.C. Pickett Esqr.
Superintendent of the P.O.
Sir,
The money mentioned in your letter of the 4th instant is within the directions given by me to the Superintendent of the Patent Office on the 1st of October last. I can authorize no other disposition to be made of it, either in whole or in part, than its payment into the Treasury. Where the names of the persons from whom it was received are known, let that course be immediately pursued, and the receipts can be sent when their residence is known. Where the names are unknown, let an examination be made to ascertain them, and the same course afterwards pursued.
I am, Sir, your obedt servant
signed John Forsyth
-----
page 357
Forsyth to Pickett 22 April 1835
I have to reply to your letter of the 21st ult. that the unpatented models not being public property, no expense can be incurred in repairing them, but that such tools as are required to repair models belonging to the United States may be purchased out of the contingent funds of the Patent Office
-----
page 357
Asbury Dickins to J.C. Pickett 30 May 1835
Department of State
W. 30 May 1835
J.C. Pickett Esq
4th Auditor etc.
Sir,
I have to request that you will transfer such funds as are in your hands belonging to the Patent Office to Mr. Johns the acting Superintendent.
I am, Sir, your obedt Servant
signed Asbury Dickins A. Sec.
-----
page 361 Asbury Dickins to Henry L. Ellsworth 12 May 1835
Department of State
W. 12 May 1835
Henry L. Ellsworth, Esqr.
Hartford, Connecticut
Sir,
You are hereby appointed Superintendent of the Patent Office, at a salary of $1500, as, at present, fixed by law.
The leave of absence requested in your letter of yesterday is granted, with an understanding that you will repair earlier to Washington, if your affairs will permit.
Your salary will commence when you leave home for this city to enter the duties of the office.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant
signed Asbury Dickins, act. sec.
-----
page 361-362
John Forsyth to Henry L. Ellsworth 7 Aug 1835
Department of State
W. 7 Aug 1835
Henry L. Ellsworth Esq
Superintendent of the Patent Office
Sir,
Your letter of this date has just been received. I understand from Mr. Dickins that, during my absence, it was represented to him by Mr. Johns, that, in consequence of J's employment as acting Superintendent, the business of the Patent Office could not be kept up without additional aid, and that Mr. Johns was accordingly authorized to employ such aid, until, by your return,he should be enabled to resume his customary duties. For the services rendered by the person employed under his authority during your absence, he will be paid out of Mr. Johns' salary, for his subsequent services he must be paid out of the contingent funds of the Patent Office.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant
signed John Forsyth
-----
page 362
John Forsyth to Henry L. Ellsworth 11 Aug 1835
Department of State
W. 11 August 1835
H.L. Ellsworth Esquire
Superintendent of the Patent Office
Sir,
Your letter of yesterday has been received. The arrangement mentioned by you as having been adopted for improving the condition of the Patent Office are satisfactory. The manner in which the patents have been recorded as described by you, is disapproved, and must be immediately discontinued. The record should contain an exact copy of the entire patent. To save time and labor in recording, printed forms, as suggested by you, may be used as far as may be practicable, and consistent with an accurate record and they may be bound, from time to time, when sufficient for a volume. A copy of the printed form should be submitted to me before it is adopted. The information contained in the weekly reports to the Secretary of State was deemed necessary to the proper supervision of the Patent Office. Although I have entire confidence in your superintendence, yet I cannot dispense with any aid which these reports will afford in performing my own duties in regard to the office. It is probable that those reports will not be found so onerous as you suppose; as they will, in fact, consist of nothing but transcripts of entries which will be made in the book of the office.
I am, Sir, your obedt Servant
signed John Forsyth
-----
page 363
John Forsyth to Henry L. Ellsworth 22 Aug 1835
Department of State
W. 22 Aug 1835
Henry L. Ellsworth Esq
Superintendent of the Patent Office
Sir,
I have received your letter of yesterday. The certificate which you have been requested to furnish cannot be given. It is altogether unusual for the Department to certify that particular acts have not been done or that particular papers have not been placed on its records. And even if such a certificate were granted, it would not be evidence, as the law making copies of records, or papers authenticated under the seal of the Department evidence, could not apply to it.
It would even be hazardous to make in an official letter. the unqualified statement contained in the proposed certificate. All that can be safely said on the subject is, that it does not appear by such an examination as you have been able to make, that any other letters patent have been granted to etc. or that any assignment by etc. has been recorded in this office. Such information you are at liberty to communicate verbally or by letter. The certificate which had been prepared for my signature is returned.
I am, Sir, your obedt servant
signed John Forsyth
-----
page 364
John Forsyth to Henry L. Ellsworth 22 Aug 1835
Department of State
W. 22 August 1835
Henry L. Ellsworth Esq.
Superintendent etc.
Sir,
Your letter of yesterday mentioning the indisposition of Mr. Johns and the pressure of business in the Patent Office has been received, and until the health of Mr. Johns is restored, you are hereby authorized to employ Mr. Cadin, allowing the same compensation which is received by that gentleman.
I am etc.
signed John Forsyth
-----
page 364 Dickins to Ellsworth 29 Sept 1835
I have to reply to your letter of this date, that leave of absence is granted, agreeably to your request, and that Mr. Johns will perform the duties of Superintendent till your return.
-----
page 364-365
Forsyth to Ellsworth 8 Dec 1835
Upon the representation contained in your letter of the 5th inst. received yesterday, the duties, other than those of draughtsman, heretofore assigned to Mr. Mills, will be transferred to some of the other clerks, and you will be pleased to report to me on an arrangement for that purpose.
-----
page 365
Forsyth to Ellsworth 10 December 1835
Duties of clerks
-----
page 366
[John Forsyth] to Henry L. Ellsworth 11 Dec 1835
Department of State
W. 11 December 1835
Henry L. Ellsworth
Superintendent P. Office
Sir,
Your letter of this date has just been received. I was aware that Dr. Mayo was paid out of the fund appropriated for recording patents, and not out of the contingent fund of the office. What I desired to have explained was why Mr. Johns had not performed the duty assigned to him, and why any other person should have been paid for performing a portion of those duties, seeing (as is presumed from your proposing to assign other duties to him) that his time was not fully occupied. Your letter suggests another inquiry. Why Mr. Johns should have been employed in making out patents, that being part of the duty assigned to Mr. Roan.
I am, Sir, your obedt Servant
[presumably John Forsyth KWD]
-----
page 366
John Forsyth to Henry L. Ellsworth 15 Dec 1835
Department of State
W. 15 December 1835
H.L. Ellsworth Esquire
Patent Office
Sir,
Your letter of yesterday has been received. The explanation about the employment of extra aid out of the special fund is not satisfactory, but without looking to the past, I deem it proper to apprise you that, in future, the regulations and orders of the head of the Department are to be strictly observed and carried into effect. If obstacles not foreseen by him occur, fulfilling his directions, they should be promptly made known to him by the Superintendent.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant
signed John Forsyth
-----
page 366-367
John Forsyth to Henry L. Ellsworth 17 Dec 1835
Department of State
W. 17 December 1835
H.L. Ellsworth Esq
Superintendent Patent Office
Sir,
Your letter of the 16th instant was received today. The Superintendent of the Patent Office is authorized to employ extra aid in recording patents, only when the force of the office is insufficient for that service. That such aid was employed, at other times before your appointment, and that you continue to follow the practice of your predecessor, is no explanation, why such aid was employed. Yet this appears to be the substance of all that your letters have contained on the subject. It is not perceived that further correspondence can be necessary, you will therefore suffer the subject to rest where it now stands.
I am, etc.
signed John Forsyth
-----
page 367
Forsyth to Ellsworth 30 Dec 1835
Leave of absence granted
-----
page 368
Forsyth to Ellsworth 9 Jan 1836
Re passport for Mr. Bacon
-----
page 368
Forsyth to Ellsworth 20 Jan 1836
I have to inform you that if the pressure of business in the Patent Office be such that necessary copying cannot be prepared by persons therein employed, you are authorized to employ others to assist them, to be paid out of the contingent fund of the Patent Office.
-----
page 369
Forsyth to Ellsworth 16 Mar 1836
Re passport for Ebenezer Jackson Jr. and family
-----
page 369
John Forsyth to Henry L. Ellsworth 1 Apr 1836
Department of State
W. 1 Apr 1836
Henry L. Ellsworth Esquire
Superintendent of the P. Office
Sir,
In answer to your letter of the 31st ult., I have to inform you that the President, to whom it was referred, has determined that another Commissioner must be selected to treat with the Indians at Fort Wayne.
I am, Sir, your obedt Servant
signed John Forsyth
------
page 369
Forsyth to Ellsworth 2 June 1836
In answer to your letter of the 1st instant, I have to inform you that, if the presence of business in the Patent office be such that the necessary copying cannot be prepared by persons already employed, you are authorized to employ others to assist them, to be paid out of the contingent fund.
-----
page 370
John Forsyth to Henry L. Ellsworth 6 July 1836
Department of State
W. 6 July 1836
H.L. Ellsworth Esqr
Washington D.C.
Sir,
The President having appointed you, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate Commissioner of Patents, I herewith enclose your Commission, the receipt of which you will be pleased to acknowledge.
I am, Sir, your obedt servt.
signed John Forsyth
P.S. Should you accept the Commiss:n you will be pleased to inform the Dept of the name of the state or country in which you were born.
-----
page 370-371
John Forsyth to Henry L. Ellsworth
Department of State
W. 11 July 1836
H.L. Ellsworth Esqr
Commissioner of Patents
Sir,
I return the device for a seal for the Patent Office, which accompanied your letter of the 8th instant. It has been laid before the President and approved by him with the addition of the words, Seal of the Patent Office.
I return, also the draft of a form for the letters patent. It seems to be sufficient for all purposes. The drawings which accompanied your letter are likewise returned. These, with the form of the letters patent, were submitted to the President's inspection.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant
signed John Forsyth
-----
page 371
Forsyth to Ellsworth 26 July 1836
In answer to your letter of the 22nd instant, I have to inform you that the Secretary of State has no authority to allow any such account as that which you therewith transmit. The account is herewith returned.
-----
page 371-372
Forsyth to Ellsworth 8 Sept 1836
Re claims in the case of the case of the brig Belesarius
-----
page 372
Forsyth to Ellsworth 22 Sept 1836
In answer to your letter of the 20th instant, I have to inform you that the Department is not authorized to allow compensation for services rendered necessary for your absence from the Patent Office on private business.
-----
page 372
Forsyth to Ellsworth 15 Nov 1836
Re several passports requested
-----
page 372-373
Forsyth to Ellsworth 17 Dec 1836
Transmits opinion of Attorney General
-----
page 373-375
Opinion of Attorney General J.Y. Mason 7 July 1845
[Obviously not the opinion transmitted above, nine years earlier]Answering question whether, under 6th section of act of 3 Mar 1837, an inventor can assign, before issuance of his patent, any interest less than the whole. Opines that an assignment before issuance of the patent must be for the total interest in the patent so that patent can issue to assignee. This does not affect the equitable interests of such an assignee
-----
page 376
James K. Polk to Henry Sylvester 26 Aug 1846
During the absence of Edmund Burke, Commissioner of Patents, you are hereby appointed to take charge and to execute the duties of his Office
-----
page 376
Tracy [Acting Secretary of State] to Burke 7 Sept 1848
You will herewith receive the opinion of the Attorney General upon the points presented in your letter to the Department under date the 24th April last, relative to applications for patents for improvements in the Electric Telegraph, one by Professor Morse, an American citizen, and the other by Alexander Bane, a British subject. (See page 345 for opinion)
[Despite that annotation, it is not on page 345 of this volume]
Go to top page of Patent Office history material
.