Letter: Edward Stabler to James Harland, July 9th, 1865

Wash. City 7/9/ '65

To Hon J. Harlan Secy. Interior

A case of great public interest, no less than involving the whole Agricultural Interest of the whole country, induces me most respectfully to call thy attention to the subject; and if one in which the Department can grant any relief, I hope & trust it will be done. Succinctly, & as briefly as possible stated, it is this—

In 1851 Palmer & Williams, and Wm. H Seymour obtained certain Patents in Reaping machines. The former were subsequently purchased by Seymour & Morgan, & as is believed for an inconsiderable consideration, as they were then deemed of small value; The latter firm however, by various re-issues, & claiming what they never invented, or had patented previously, succeeded in [buying?] tribute on other Inventors & Manufacturers to large Amounts, as I am advised.

The said Patents & re-issues expiring on the 1st & 8 of July this year, Seymour & Morgan applied for Extensions of the same.

Believing that they were not originally enti-

tled to what they claimed, I determined to oppose the Extension, and so twice in writing notified the Patent Office, & admitted by the Commissioner to me to be done in time, & legally done.

I gave notice to the parties, of time & place, when & where I should take testimony in opposition to said Extention. Henry Baldwin Snr., who claimed to be atty. for claimants, but who had filed no power of Atty. in the office, and in fact as he admitted to me had no power of atty. at that time, filed objections to my testimony being admitted on the ground that no particular number, or building, was designated; a mere technical objection as the Commissioner stated to me he considered it — for the parties could readily have been present to cross question the witnesses, if so desired.

Under these circumstances, the commissioner extended the time for taking the testimony over again; & required that my notice of it should be given by letter to Geo. Gifford of New York, the atty. for claimants who had filed a power of atty. and the letters registered. He did not require the notice to be served on the parties personally but stated expressly & clearly, that registering the letters, and two days notice, was sufficient.

The notice was read by the Register Clerks, both in Washn. & Balt. a certified copy retained, & filed by me in the Patent Office & with five days notice, instead of two, so as to afford ample time for claimants or their atty. to be present.

The testimony was taken over again, imposing more than a thousand miles travel on [??] & many hundreds of dollars expenses, & just for a mere technicality, or quibble.

After the extended time had expired, Geo. Gifford

the atty for claimants is permitted to file an affidavit that he had never received the last notice to take testimony:the first notice was admitted & doubtless in order to file objections, as to lack of proper form, as was claimed - & as is presumed under the supposition that my testimony was then filed.

It is also in evidence, & on file, by the [letter?] of Register Clerk in the New York Post Office, that Geo. Gifford was notified three different times that these registered letters were there for him; but he would not take them; as he doubtless knew their import well enough!

The commissioners of Patents admitted to me to day, as well as on a former day, that the evidence I produced was sufficient, if admitted, to decide the Extension against the Claimants - and it is fully & entirely so - for I submitted the sworn evidence of four or five respectable, competent witnesses, that the alledged improvements of Palmer & Williams, & Wm. H. Seymour were known, made, and used, by others, years before the the dates of their Patents. It is so plain, clear & positive, that it cannot be refuted; and it can only be set aside by trickery & quibbling, to use no harsher, or more significant terms.

If the Agricultural Interest of the country is to be made a foot ball, by designing, grasping, and unscrupulous parties, the end is not yet.

The second notice was given exactly in accordance with the prescribed mode, as directed by the Commissioner of Patents. He explicitly stated, that it was not necessary & he did not require to serve the notice in person; though if required, it could & would readily have been done. The claimants took forty or fifty depositions; but not until the very last day of the extended time for taking testimony, & as I notified

that the claimants intended to, or had taken, a single deposition!! Is any of that testimony rejected?

Is it right and just that the Farming community shall suffer, & be imposed on for seven long years, by technicalities & quibbling, on one side, or the lack of judgement and discution on the part of the Commissioner, in the mode of ordering the notice. even supposing he had no discution in the case & knew no better — but which by the Law he certainly has?

But H. Baldwin Jr. the agent of G Gifford, & the hired agents of the claimants, did get the notice somehow, which he refused to receive, & as one of my witnesses Genl. Tilghman, informed me, he was called on by Baldwin in Talbot County & told that if he sent in his Testimony, he would have it thrown out & rejected!! as this would have been mortifying, he declined to furnish it as he told me, & gave this as the reason why the testimony was not filed with others as promised

If the Secy. of the Intn., as the Head of this Dept. will call for the files of this rejected testimony, and the statement of the Register clerk in New York even the shortest & the most cursory examination will show as I believe, and satisfy any unprejudiced mind, that if there is no direct evidence of collusion, there is the most satisfactory proof of trickery & unfair dealing; and also, that the only possible way to untie this Gordian knot, was to sever it with the sword of arbitrary & unjust exercise of power.

George Gifford, the Atty. for Claimants, unquestionably

knew the purport of these Registered letters: for he was advised by the Patent Office of the extended time for taking Testimony, & on the same day of giving the notice; at least it was so ordered by the Commissioner in my presence; he declined to obtain the letters after three different notices, that the letters were subject to his orders, & in the City Post Office.

Now, can or should a party be suffered to inflict a great wrong on others, or be permitted to take advatage of his own intentional wrong doing? G. Gifford swears that he did not receive the notice; of course he did not, because he could not receive the notice.

In conclusion, permit me to hope that justice may be meted out, to what I cannot but consider under all the circumstances, our outraged community - and representing as it does, the greatest and most important interest in the whole country.

I am most respectfy. Edwd. Stabler