1st Session.

No. 1484.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

JULY 12, 1890.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. PLAT, from the Committee on Patents, submitted the following

REPORT:

[To accompany S. 4141.]

The Committee on Patents, to whom was referred the bill (S. 4141) referring to the Court of Claims the claim of William E. Woodbridge for compensation for the use by the United States of his invention relating to projectiles, for which letters patent were ordered to issue to hum March 25, 1852, having considered the same and accompanying papers, submit the following report:

The committee fully concur in the report of the House Committee on War Claims, of the present Congress (Report No. 403), and adopt the same, which is appended hereto as a part of this report. Said report is as follows:

[House report No. 403, Fifty-first Congress, first session.]

The Committee on War Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2390) referring to the Court of Claims the claim of William E. Woodbridge for compensation for the use by the United States of his invention relating to projectiles, for which letters patent were ordered to issue to him March 25, 1852, having considered the same and accompanying papers, respectfully report as follows:

The records before the committee show that the invention of Dr. Woodbridge to which this bill relates was made known by him to the Ordnance Department in the year 1850, and that in the fall of that year a series of experiments with his projectiles was conducted at Fort Monroe, a certified copy of the record of these experiments be ng furnished by the War Department. Dr. Woodbridge also communicated to the public a knowledge of his invention by means of a descriptive pamphlet, fully illustrated, published in 1852, giving an account of the firing at Fort Monroe, with a statement of the advantages to be derived from the use of rifle projectiles for cannon, now universally admitted, but then rarely conceded or recognized as practicable. In the mean time he had applied for a patent for his invention, and a patent was ordered to issue on the 25th of March, 1852. In accordance with the practice then prevailing when it was desired by a patentee to take out a foreign patent, the applicaut requested that the patent might be filed in the secret archives of the office, desiguating one year as the period for which it should be so retained, if a designation of time was necessary. The Commissioner informed bim, in reply, that the papers were so filed and that the patent would issue at such time as he (the applicant) might direct. When, however, Dr. Woodbridge called for the issue of his patent in 1861, it it was refused on the ground that his delay had deprived him of his right and that the patent could not be legally issued.

That the invention originated with him has never been disputed. Without disenssing the correctness of the position taken by the office, it is evident that error, if it existed, arose from the original action of the office itself, or from its inaction in not issuing the patent at the expiration of the period designated by the inventor. Woodbridge has made every payment and performed every duty imposed upon him by the law. Only by the action of the office could the transaction have been completed. This miscarriage of justice in the name of the law should not be placed in the account against the inventor.

S. Rep. 9- -5

Indeed, so far as his relations with the Government are concerned, the question of the issue of a patent should be considered as unimportant. The value of the services rendered is the same in either case. Certainly the Government could have gained nothing by the issue of the patent, which might have been restrictive, but could not have made the use of the invention more free.

Nothing seems to have been wanting on the part of the inventor to make the in vention available to the Government. He early conveyed to the proper Department a practical knowledge of his invention, and made strenuous efforts to introduce it into service, seeking also Congressional aid to extend its application to guns of the largest caliber. His subsequently published description and account of the firing at Fort Monroe was widely circulated among members of Congress, officers of the Army and Navy, and others, and was placed in various libraries. Though the invention had appeared too early to be at once appreciated, he had made it available for all subsequent time.

Modifications of Woodbridge's projectile might be, and doubtless were, patented by others; but it is obvious that only the modification could be the subject of a valıd patent, and that it could not in any way restrict the use of the invention in any other form. In no other way could the Government have been more fully protected against false or invalid claims for its use than by the recited acts of the inventor. The justice of his claim is supported, as will be seen from the appended letters, by the honorable Secretary of War and by the Chief of Ordnance.

It is evident to the committee that Dr. Woodbridge's invention was largely used by the Government, and they believe that both justice and sound policy require that he should be duly compensated for its use.

The committee concur in House Report No. 44, Fiftieth Congress, first session, hereto annexed, and unanimously report the accompanying amended bill with the recommendation that it do pass, and that the original bill be tabled.

Upon these facts the committee believe that Woodbridge is entitled to relief. Therefore Senate bill No. 4141 is reported back with recommendation that it pass.

House Report No. 44, Fiftieth Congress, first session.

The Committee on War Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 27) vesting the Court of Claims of the United States with jurisdiction to determine the rights of William E. Woodbridge to certain letters patent for a metallic sabot, and to render judgment in payment for the use of the same by the Government during the war of 1861, have duly considered the same and accompanying papers, and recommend that it pass.

The facts upon which this recommendation is based are so fully set forth in House Report No. 4168, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, that your committee ask to make the same (with slight alterations) a part of their report, which is as follows:

[House Report No. 4168, Forty-ninth Congress, second session.]

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 221) for the relief of William E. Woodbridge, having considered the same and accompanying papers, submit the following report:

The committee find the facts to be as stated in House Report No. 1778, Forty-eighth Congress, first session, which said report is hereto annexed and made part of this report, and is as follows:

"The records before the committee show that on February 9, 1852, William E. Woodbridge made oath that he believed himself to be the first inventor of an improvement in rifled ordnance, and believed that the same was never before known or used, and on the 11th of the same month petitioned the Commissioner of Patents that letters patent of the United States be granted to him therefor, he having paid $30 into the Treasury and complied with all other conditions required by the Government. "Woodbridge's invention consisted in applying to a projectile to be fired from a rifled cannon a ring or sabot of soft metal for the purpose of giving to the projectile a rotary motion.

"The iron projectile is made in ovoid form, and the rear section, from a point near the center to a point near the rear end, is surrounded by a soft metal collar, cylindrical on its outer surface, but its inner surface fitting closely to the iron projectile. "The operation is thus described in the specification:

"A suitable charge of powder is to be introduced into the gun, and the ball and riflering placed in the position represented in Fig. 1, the rear of the ball being in contact with the charge of powder. The surface of the rifle-ring exposed to the action of the gases formed by the inflammation of the powder being much greater in proportion to its inertia than that of the ball, the ring is driven forcibly forward upon the ball, so as to embrace it tightly and thus impart the rifle motion which itself has received from the grooves of the gun; and at the same time it is stretched to fill the bore of the gun completely, thus destroying the windage, and causing the ball to advance striotly in the line of the axis of the bore.'

"The application was filed February 11, 1852, and a patent was allowed and ordered to be issued on the 25th of March following. Two days previously to the allowance of a patent, Woodbridge wrote to the Commissioner of Patents requesting that upon the issue or order to issue of a patent it might be filed in the secret archives of the office, in order that his ability to take out a patent in a foreign country might not be affected by the publication of the invention. To this letter the office replied on the 15th of April, 1852, informing Woodbridge that a patent had been ordered to issue on his application, and that, in accordance with his request, the papers had been filed among the secret archives of the office subject to his directions as to the time of issuing the same. He had preformed every requirement of the law, and no further payment was necessary to obtain his letters patent duly authenticated. "Woodbridge had not only at this time taken means to secure his invention by patent, but brought his invention to the knowledge of the proper Department of the Government, and conducted a series of experiments with it at Fortress Monroe, of which detailed reports have been furnished the committee by the War Department. "It also appears from the records that subsequent to taking steps for securing a patent he applied for the assistance of Congress with the desire that the value of the plan proposed might be fully tested by guns of heavy caliber, and compared with the unrifled guns then in use in the various points affecting its utility in the different branches of service.' It would seem, however, that the invention had appeared too early to receive appreciation, and his applications to Congress and the War Department were unsuccessful.

"Woodbridge, relying on the action and statement of Commissioner Eubank, above recited, did not call for the issue of his patent until December 31, 1861, when he addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Patents, calling attention to the case, requesting leave to amend the form of his claims if permissible, and, if not, the immediate issue of the patent without amendment. During the interim a new Commissioner had been appointed, and changes in the rules adopted for the administration of busi

uess.

"In answer to Woodbridge's last letter, the Commissioner replied that the length of time he had allowed his invention to slumber was a bar to the grant of a patent, and referred to the 34th section of the printed rules, which prescribed that

"No application upon which a patent has been ordered to issue shall be retained in the secret archives more than six months from the day on which the patent wat ordered to issue.'

"On receipt of this decision Mr. Woodbridge addressed the Commissioner as follows:

"A letter from the Commissioner dated April 15, 1852, says, referring to my appli cation: "A patent was ordered to issue thereon," and "the papers were filed in the secret archives of the office, subject to your directions as to the time of issuing the same," from which it appears to be the deliberate conclusion of the Commissioner that I should be permitted to receive my patent at such indefinite time thereafter as I might call for it.

If, therefore, it be granted that I have committed an error in leaving my patent so long uncalled for, I have certainly been led into it by the action of the office itself, and if the results should entail inconvenience on any one, the responsibility, it appears to me, must rest on the office rather than on me. The words, "at your own risk," used by the Commissioner, can not have been intended to cover any dereliction of duty on his part, nor, were it possible to suppose such intention, would they have such effect any more than in case of a person who should receive a piece of property into his house "at the owner's risk," and then become accessary to its theft or destruction.

"I must object to any disturbance of the decision of Commissioner Eubank, as announced in his letter of April 15, 1852, such action being contrary to the rule of the office, which declares that "a decision deliberately made and approved by one Commissioner will not be disturbed by his successor. (See sec. 38 of Rules of Patent Office.) # * *

"Judge Dunlop, in the cases of Larrowes and Simpson's appeals, to which I respectfully refer if there should be any doubt as to the obligation of the rule, clearly expresses the opinion that the Commissioner has not the right to reverse the decision of his predecessor.'

"To establish the date when section 34 of the printed rules went into operation, the committee, under date of April 29, 1884, asked the Department of the Interior for the information, to which the Department replied as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 66 Washington, May 3, 1884. "SIR: Referring to your letter of the 20th ultimo, requesting certain information in connection with House bill 2859, for the relief of William E. Woodbridge, you are informed that the Commissioner of Patents, to whom the matter has been referred,