FULLORSE'S PTENT.
OF
DR. CHAS. T. JACKSON'S PRETENSIONS
TO THE
INVENTION
OF THE
RIUCAN ELECTRO-MAGNETIC TELEGRAPH,
BY
HON. AMOS KENDALL,
LATE POSTMASTER GENERAL, U. S.
WASHINGTON:
PRINTID  BY JNO. T. TOWERS.
1852.








MORSE'S PATENT.
FULL EXPOSURE
Of Dr. Charles T Jackson's pretensions to the invention
of the Awerican Electro-ifiagnetio Telegraph.
To enable the reader to understand the process by which the
scientific monomaniac, Dr. Charles T. Jackson, has come to consider himself the inventor of Morse's Electro Magnetic Telegraph,
we must turn back and trace the progress of the invention and
the publications and correspondence concerning it.
Prof. Morse and Dr. Jackson, were fellow passengers on board
the packet ship Sully, in October, 1832, on her voyage from France
to the United States,; and it was during a conversation with Dr.
Jackson on board that ship that the idea of an Electric Telegraph
first occurred to the mind of the Professor.
There are two points on which the parties agree, viz:
First, that there was conversation between them on the subject.
Secondly, that in answer to Prof. Morse's inquiries, Dr. Jackson
informed him what substances were readily affected by the electric current in such a way as to change their color, and that experiments were to be made on their arrival in the United States,
with the view of ascertaining what chemical compound could
be thus most advantageously used for marking telegraphic signs.
In a letter to Prof. Silliman, dated December 25th, 1832, (see
Boston Case, page 163,) Dr. Jackson said:
"On my voyage home, I had the pleasure of becoming acquainted
with S. F. B. Morse, a distinguished American artist, who is very
ingenious in mechanical inventions. We employed our weary
hours at sea in contriving various things; among which, we
invented an Electric Telegraph, light-house, &c. As we intend
to make some experiments before we say any thing about these
products of our speculations, I forbear troubling you with a description of the machinery until it shall be matured and proved
on a small scale, by actual trial."
In a letter to Prof. Morse, dated November 7th, 1847, Dr. Jackson states what the projects were, which were to be tested by
experiment, in the following words, viz 
"1. I observed that electricity might be made visible in any
part of the circuit by dividing the wire, when a spark would be
seen at the intersection.
"2. That it could be made to perforate paper interposed between disconnected wires.




4
"3. Saline compounds might be decomposed, so as to produeo
colors on paper.
"The second and third projects were finally adopted for a future
trial, since they could be made to furnish permanent records."
Here we have stated by Dr. Jackson, the projects to be experimented upon, as represented to Prof. Silliman; and thus faror at
least in reference to the third project, Dr. Jackson and Prof. Morse
agree.
But in reference to the Electro Mlagnetic Telegraph, Morse's
real, practical invention, they are "wide as the poles asunder.'
Dr. Jackson asserts that he described it minutely to Prof. Morse
on board the Sully, while Prof. Morse asserts that he never received from Dr. Jackron a practical hint on the subject.
Dr. Jackson himself shall be the witness to prove that it was
not an Electro Magnetic'l'elegraph that he had in view in his
conversation with Prof. Morse on board the Sully.
1. In his letter to Prof. Silliman, dated December 25th, 1832, he
says that the telegraph invented by him and Prof. Morse, jointly,
was an " Electric Telegraph."
2. In his letter to Prof. Morse, dated November 7th, 1837, the
two projects which he says "were finally adopted for a future
trial," were projects of an Electric Telegraph merely, and had
nothing to do with electro magnetism. Nor does he in that letter, pretend that he had with Prof. Morse, on board the Sully, any
conversation about an Electro Magnetic Telegraph; and yet, two
years afterwards, he twice stated that he had in that letter, recapitulated all the conversation he had with Prof. Morse on board
the Sully, having relation to the telegraph.
In an article prepared by Dr. Jackson, and published in the
Boston Morning Post in January, 1839, it is represented that this
letter contained "a detail of all the circumstances of the invention
and of the conversation which took place on board the Sully."
In a letter to Sidney E. Morse, brother of Prof. Morse, dated
January 23d, 1839, Dr. Jackson, speaking in reference to the same
letter, said: "I wrote a letter in which all our conversation wAhich
took place on board ship, was 7-ecapitulated, so that he (Pl of. Morse)
is tn full possession of the facts on which my claim is fJounded."
Nor can Dr. Jackson now claim that any thing raterial was
omitted in that letter; for he says therein, "you (Morse) s;-y that
you have a distinct recollection of the manner, time. t(nd place,
and the moment when the thought of making an electric wire
the means of communicating intelligence first came into your
mind and was uttered. If you have this vivid recollection, you
cannot refuse your assent to the following remarks; fbr I remember too, and am happily endowed with a strong and retentive
memory as to the facts."




5
And in another version of the same letter which Dr. Jackson
siets forth in his deposition in the Boston Case, he says, "I remember distinctly every word of the conversation that took place in the
cabin of the Sully, the substance if which is contained in my above
proposals."
Let us now quote from that letter as received, all the circumstances and conversation. therein detailed and recapitulated, being
the entire substance of his "above proposals:" "1 was (says Dr.
Jackson) enthusiastically describing the various and wonderful
properties of electricity and electro magnetism before yourself,
Mr. Rives, Mr. Fisher, and others, at table after dinner; while the
company were all listeners, and as appeared to me, were somewvhat incredulous, they knowing little or nothing of the subject. I
mentioned, among many other things, that I had seen the electric
spark pass instantaneously without any appreciable loss of time,
400 times around the great lecture room of the Sorbonne. This
evidently surprised the company, and I then asked if they had not
read of Dr. Franklin's experiment, in which he caused electricity
to go a journey of 20 miles by means of a wire stretched up the
Thames, the water being made a portion of the circuit. The
answer was from yourself, that you had not read it. After a
short discussion as to the instantaneous nature of the passage,
one of the party, either Mr. Rives or Mr. Fisher, said it would be
well if we could send news in the same rapid manner: to which
you replied, Why can't we? I then proceeded to inform you, in
reply to your question, how it might be done.
"1st. 1 observed that electricity might be made visible in any
part of the circuit, by dividing the wire, when a spark would be
seen at the intersection.
" 2d. That it could be made to perforate paper, if interposed
between the disconnected wires.
"3d. Saline compounds might be decomposed, so as to produce
colors on paper.
"The 2d and 3d projects were finally adopted for future trial,
since they could be made to furnish permanent records. The
saline substances mentioned, were certain salts of lead, such as
the ascetate and carbonate which an interrupted electro galvanic
current would decompose and leave a black mark on the paper.
Next, tumeric paper was to he dipped in a neutral salt, say sulphate of soda, and then acted upon by the galvanic current. This
would produce brown marks from presence of free disengaged
alkali. Platina points were proposed to effect the changes of
color. I then observed, that it would be easy to devise a method
of reading the markings.
"Here the conversation changed for a while, and was resumed
by you the next day after breakfast. You then questioned me




again on every point of the invention, and said that you had been
thinking much about it, and, pencil in hand, proposed a method
of decyphering the markings, the dots and marks being made
regularly. This was a subject of discussion, and we both-took
part in it; but I acknowledge that you did most in planning the
numeration of the marks. You at first proposed, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 0, and subsequently reduced the number to five figures
and an 0."'
This is the amount of the invention ori board the Sully, given
in that letter-every word of it. This is what Dr. Jackson said
to the public through the Boston Post in 1839, contained "a detail
of ALL the circumstances of the invention aind of the conversation
which took place on board the Sully;" this is what he afterwards
wrote to Sidney E. Morse was a recapitulation of "ALL our conversation which took place on board ship," affording Prof. Morse
"FULL POSSESSION of the facts on which my claim is founded."
It is, as he said, the "substance" of a conversation, "EVERY
WORD of which he remembered."
The reader will perceive, that in this detail there is not ONE,
WORD about an Electro-Magnet Telegraph. The whole has
exclusive reference to an Electro-Chemical Telegraph. The projects reservedfor future trial, the chemical compounds mentioned,
the platina points to effect changes of color-none of them have
any thing to do with an Electro-Magnetic Telegraph.
One of two conclusions is inevitable, viz: either Dr. Jackson
said nothing about an Electro-Magnetic Telegraph on board the
Sully in 1832, or he omitted to claim what belonged to him in
1837, and uttered and repeated a gross falsehood adverse to his
own claim in 1837 and 1839. Those who know Dr. Jackson
will readily acquit him of omitting to claim all that belonged to
him in the way of discovery or invention, and will be inclined to
think that the letter of 1837 did in fact contain the substance of
ALL the conversation he had with Professor iMorse in relation to an
Electric Telegraph on board the Sully."
Certainly, Dr. Jackson himself is not at liberty to take any
other ground, after stating that he remembered "every word" of
the conversation, and that. this letter contained all of it! Can
he now be permitted to say that his memory is weak and treacherous;, that he did not remember the most material part of the
conversation, which did not recur to his mind until years afterwards?
So it is, however, that Dr. Jackson, in his recent depositions,
has said and sworn, in substance, that. the letter of 1837 did not
contain all the conversation with Protf Morse on board the Sully;
that the most material part of it, the only part which has any
thing to do with the present controversy, was forgotten and omitted; that the part given was, in an essential point, remembered




7
wrong, apd      erroneously stated; and some           things then remembered, he does not now        remember at all!        He now      remembers,
that in the conversation on board the Sully, he described minutely
the Electro-Magnetic Telegraph, as it now exists; he remembers
that it was not Prof. Morse, but himself, who devised the system
of signs; and he does not remember that it was Mr. Fisher or
Mr. Rives who first suggested the idea of sending news by electricity.   To   make more       plain   the   operation ot Dr. Jackson's
"strong and retentive memory," we place in parallel columns his
recollections, as given in 1837 and 1850:
"ALL THE CONVERSATION" between Dr.      THE CONVERSATION between Dr. Jackson
Jackson and Prof. Morse, relating to the and Prof. Morse, relating to the Telegraph,
Telegraph, on board the packet ship Sully, on board the packet ship Sully, in 1832, as
in 1832, as given in the letter of Dr. Jack- given in Dr. Jackson's deposition in the
son to Prof. 2Morse, dated Nov. 7,1837:  case of Smith vs. Downing, 4-c., in 1850:
"Now, in what manner did the discovery  "While on the voyage, one day at table,
and invention arise, and to whom are the I introduced the subject of electricity and
Suggestions due? I was enthusiastically de- electro-magnetism, describing an experiment
scribing the curious and wonderful properties of Pouillet, of sending electricity a great
of electricity and electro magnetism before many times around the Academy of the
yourself, Mr. Rives, Mr. Fisher, and others, Sorbonne, without any perceptible loss sf
at table, after dinner, while the company time. There being some expressions of inwere all listeners, and, as appeared to me, credulity, I endeavored to enforce the fact
were somewhat incredulous, they knowing by alluding to Franklin's experiment of
little or nothing of the subject. I mentioned, transmitting an electric spark to a great disamong other things, that I had seen the tance, using a wire and water as conductors.
electric spark pass instantaneous, without Mr. Morse asked in which of Franklin's
any appreciable loss of time, four hundred works it was contained, and stated he had
times around the gieat lecture room of the never read it. I stated I believed it was in
Sorbonne.   This evidently surprised the his autobiography.  After some discussion
company, and I then asked if they had not on the point, one of the passengers said,
read of Dr. Franklin's experiment, in which' It would be well if we could send news in
he caused electricity togo a journey of 20 this rapid manner.' This was a casual remiles, by means of a wire stretched up the mark in allusion to our earnest desire to
Thames, the water being made a part of the hear from home, as there was some apprecircuit? The answer was from yourself, hension of a war with France. Mr. Morse
that you had not read it.  After a short dis- said,'Why can't we?' I immediately recussion as to the instantaneous nature of the plied,'We can; there is no difficulty about
passage, one of the party, either Mr. Rives it;' and then proceeded to describe various
or Mr. Fisher, said it would be well if we methods by which I conceived that intellicould send news in the same rapid manner. gence might be transmitted by electricity
To which you replied,'Why can't we?' I and electro-magnetism.
then proceeded to inform you, in answer to.your question, how it might be done:
"1st. I observed that electricity might be  "First, I proposed to count the sparks
made visible in any part of the circuit, by in a disjoined wire circuit-counting the
dividing the wire, when a spark would be sparks in time-that is, counting or noting
seen at the intersection,               the sparks and the intervals between the
sparks.
"2d. That it could be made to perforate  "Second, by producing colored marks on
paper if interposed between the disconnect- prepared paper, the paper being saturated
ed wires,                               with- an easily decomposable.neutral salt,
and stained with tumeric, or some other
easily changed vegetable color.




8
"3d. Saline compounds might be decom-  "Third, by saturating the paper with a
posed, so as to produce colors on paper.  solution of acetate of lead or carbonate of
" she 2d and 3d projects were finally lead, the paper being moistened while the
adopted for future trial, since they could electric current was passed through it, or over
be made to furnish permanent records. The its surface, between points of platinum wire.
saline substances mentioned, were certain  " Fo rth, I proposed to make use of the
salts of lead, such as theascetate and carbo- electro magnet, which is formed by coiling
nate, which an interrupted electro galvanic copper wire insulated by being wound with
current would decompose and leave a black silk around soft iron, bent in the form of
mark on the prepared paper. Next, tume- the letter U; the iron being rendered temric paper wasIto be dipped in a neutral salt, porarily magnetic, by the passage of a
say sulphate of soda, and then acted upon galvanic current though the copper wire;
by the galvanic current. This would pro- a keeper or armature of soft iron being
duce brown marks from the presence of placed across the poles and attracted firmly
free disengaged alkali. Platina points were against tlem during the time the gulnanic
proposed to effect the changes of color. I current s passing.  proposed to connect
then observed, it would be easy to devise a with this keeper the short arm of a lever
method of reading the markings.       beam and tofix a point of steel in the long
arm of the lever, so that when the keeper
was drawn to the electro magnet, the point
would perforate holes inpaper. The paper
was to be passed from one reel to another
by clock work machinery,so that in intervals
of space these holesmight be punctured and
telegraphic indications he produced thereby.
"( When I mentioned the subject of electro
magnetism in the presence of Mr. Morse,
during this conversation, he asked me the
meaning of the term, saying'Electro Magnetism! How does that differ from other
magnetism?' I explained it to him, making drawings of an electro magnet and a galvanic battery for that purpose.
"During a part of this conversation, Mr.
Rives and Mr. Fisher were present, and
two Messrs. Palmers, of New York, and
Capt. W. Pell. They were present at the
beginning of the conversation and heard a
considerable portion of it, and they all seemed to consider my project visionary.  Mr.
Morse at that time made inquiries and suggested difficulties, and seemed to regard the
thing as impracticable. My earnestness increased in proportion to their incredulity.
"The next morning Mr. Morse came to
the breakfast table and said, that he had not
slept during the night, and had been thinking about what I had told him about telegraphing, and he was satisfied it could be
done. I said,'to be sure it can; there is no
difficulty atoutit.' We discussed the subject
some time; and during this conversation, I
spoke of,aving an electro magnet on board
and t wogalvanic batteries, which were stowed away between decks. Imade drawingsrough sketches, as I do not profess to be
a draftfman-of the electro magnet, which I
gave to MIr. M1orse who copied them into his
note-look in an artistic manner, asking of
me explanations as he made the drawings.




9'Either on this or a subsequent day, T also
described to Mr. Morse a method of making
signals for light houses, by the sudden ignition of charcoal points after the method
discovered by Dr. Hare. I made drawings
and showed them to Mr. Morse; but upon
this method we had very little conversation
afterwards. During the rest of the voyage,
Mr. Merse appeared very much occupied
with the idea of a Magnetic Telegraph, and
followed me about the vessel asking me
questions and taking notes in his memorandum book.
S       *      S       *      *
"Here the conversation changed for a while,' Within a few days after my first conand was resumed by you the next day after versation above mentioned, I think the third
breakfast. You then questioned me again day after, I had a conversation with Mr.
on every point of the conversation, and said Morse as to the practicability of devising a
you had been thinking much about it, and, system of signs which could be readily inpencil in hand, proposed a method of decy- terpreted, I proposed an arrangement of
phering the markingsof the dots and marks punctured points or dots, to represent the
being made regularly.  This was a subject ten numerals.  Mr. Miorse proposed to reof discussion, and we both took part in it; duce it to five numerals and a zero, saying
but I acknowledge you did most in planning that all numbers could be represented therethe numeration of the marks.  You at first by. Mr. Morse took a Dictionary and numproposed, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, and bered the words, and then tried a system of
subsequently reduced the number to five dots against it.  We assigned to each word,
figures and an 0.                      selected for that purpose, a separate num*       *      *       *      "     ber, and the numbers were indicated by dots
"I giv e you full credit for your ingenious and spaces. We took our respective places
suggestionsas to the divisions in themark- at opposite sides of the table. He would
ings, which you certainly did propose."  send me despatches written in numerals,
which I would examine by the aid of the
marked Dictionary, which I held in my
hand, and I found no great difficulty in
reading them; and then we would change,
he taking the Dictionary and I sending the
words. Mr. Morse took the principal part
in arranging the system of signs, and deserves the greatest credit for it. Mr. Morse
made notes of the system of signs so far as
we had completed it, in his note book, either
fully or partially. We had absolutely concluded on no complete system before the
termination of the voyage.'I saw Mr. Morse's note-book in which
he made his plans and observations, from his
first entries in it in regard to the telegraph,
until the end of the voyage. He would often bring it and show it to me, and show
me the notes and plans in it; but I never
had it in my possession. I saw nothing in
it which 1 had not explained and given
him rough drafts of, except the system of
signs, which was the result of our joint
action as before stated. TWe gave the name
of Electro lMagnetic Telegraph to the instrument proposed and explained as above,
and this was the name by which it was
known and called in our conversations."




10
We have marked in italics the most striking discrepancies between Dr. Jackson's account 6f what took place on board the
Sully, in his letter of 1837, and his deposition of 1850.
1. In his letter he says it was " either Mr. Rives or Mr. Fisher,"
who said "it would be well if we could send news in the same
rapid manner."
In his deposition he says it was "one of the passengers," his
memory failing to designate which.
2. In his letter he describes the perforation of paper by the
electric spark, as one mode of telegraphing described by him.
In his deposition he omits this altogether.
3. In his letter he says the perforation of paper by the electric
spark and the discoloring of prepared paper by the electric current, were the two projects "finally adopted for future trial."
On this point his deposition is entirely silent.
4. In his letter, after setting forth specifically'three modes of
telegraphing described by him, he says, "here the conversation
changed for a while, and was resumed by you the next day."
Precisely at this point in his deposition he interpolates afourth
mode of telegraphing, being in many respects precisely the same
as ti at then conceived, and afterwards perfected by Prof. Morse,
and alleges that a description of that mode also constituted a
part of the conversation.
5. His letter, which he repeatedly stated contained all the conversation, and, as he said to Sidney E. Morse, put his brother,
Prof. Morse, " in full possession of the facts on which my [his]
claim is founded," contained not a word descriptive of an ElectroMagnetic Telegraph. On the contrary, all the projects therein
described had in view a mere Electric Telegraph; and in his letter to Prof. Silliman, dated Dec. 25, 1832, Dr. Jackson said, " We
invented an Electric Telegraph."
In his deposition he says they called it an " Electro-Mlagnetic
Telegraph."
6. In his letter he said, "You at first proposed 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 0, and subsequently reduced the number to five figures and an 0."
In his deposition he says "I proposed an arrangement of punctured points or dots to represent the ten numerals. Mr. Morse
proposed to reduce it to five numerals and an O.
7. In his letter he said, "I give you full credit for you ingenious suggestions as to the divisions in the markings, which you
certainly did propose."
In his deposition he not only claims to have been the first to
suggest the use of dots and spaces, but says the system of signs
" was the result of our joint action."




11
Dr. Jackson has sworn to three depositions purporting to state
what took place on board the Sully; two in the Kentucky case
of Morse et al vs. O'Reilly et al, and one in the Boston case of
Smith vs. Downing et al. On some points, these depositions are
inconsistent with each other.
The first Kentucky deposition, like the letter of 1837, contains
the project of an Electric Telegraph by perforating paper with
the electric spark, which is omitted altogether in the second and
third depositions.
The first deposition also corresponds with the letter in representing that the conversation about the signs took place the
"'next duy" after the first suggestion of sending news by electricity, whereas the second and third depositions represent it as
"a few days after."
How are we to account for the fact, that Dr. Jackson claims
now what'he did not claim in 1837, and recollects now material
parts of the conversation which he did not remember then, or
even so late as 1839? How is it, that his memory is more bright
seventeen years after the occurrences of 1832 than it was within
five years? How is it, that Dr. Jackson's remembrance becomes
more vivid as events recede, so that he not only remembers much
more now than he did seventeen years ago, but is enabled in 1850
to correct errors of memory committed in 1837, and even so late
as 1849?
Perhaps we may arrive at some conclusion on this point by a
more comprehensive review of the publications, correspondence,
and testimony having reference to Morse's invention.
On the 15th April, 1837, an article was published by Sidney E.
Morse in the New York Observer, in which he said:
"A gentleman of our acquaintance, several years since, suggested -that intelligence might be communicated almost instantaneously, hundreds if not thousands of miles, by means of very
fine wires, properly coated to protect them from moisture, and
extending between places thus widely separated. It is well
known, that the electric fluid occupies no preceptible time in
passing many miles on a wire; and if it is possible, by connecting one end of the wire with an electrical or galvanic battery, to
produce any sensible effect whatever at the other, it is obvious
that if there are TWENTY-FOUR WIRES, each representing a letter of
the alphabet, they may be connected with the battery in any order;
and if so connected in the order of the letters of any word or
sentence, that word or sentence could be read or written by a
person standing at the other end of the wires."
On the 2Sth August, of the same year, (1837,) Professor Morse
wrote to Dr. Jackson, and others of his fellow-passengers on
board the Sully, requesting their testimony to the fact that he




12
had invented and described his Telegraph on board that ship in
1832. In his letter to Dr. Jackson, he said: "I accomplish the
marking by means of an electro-maznetic power."
As Sidney E. Morse was the brother of Prof. S. F. B. Morse,
and in a position to hold constant intercourse with him, it was
natural that Dr. Jackson should conclude that Prof. Morse was
the gentleman alluded to in the Observer, and that he had accomplished the object by the use of twenty-four wires and
twenty-four magnets. In his reply to Prof. Morse, dated the 17th
September, 1837, Dr. Jackson said:
"Mrs. Jackson has forwarded to me your favor of the 28th
ult., in which you give me some account of the success of our
Electric Telegraph. I have seen several notices of it in the
newspapers, but observe my name is not connected with the discovery. I am greatly rejoiced to learn that you have been successful in the trial of its power. This I felt confident would be
the result, as there are various ways of marking at any distance
required. In the application of the electro-magnet, I had proposed to mark in actual type, having a packet of twenty-four wires
for the conductors to the several magnets, each of which marked a
letter, and pressed with great power."
The perfect coincidence between this plan and that mentioned
in the New York Observer some months before, is very remarkable; but it was not Prof. Morse's plan, though Dr. Jackson had
good reason to suppose it was.
In his reply, dated September 18th, 1837, Prof. Morse did not
disclose what his plan was, though he said:
"The plan of marking by my peculiar type, and the use which
I make of the Electro-Magnet was entirely original with me, and
all the machinery has been elaborated without a hint from you
of any kind in the remotest degree. I am the sole inventor."
In this letter, though Prof. Morse claimed originality of the
thought and first suggestion as to the practicability of sending
news by electricity, he admitted that Dr. Jackson suggested in
reply to his inquiries, some chemical substances which might be
used in the process, and said it was agreed that after reaching
home, experiments should be tried by them jointly in view to that
result.
In this state of the case, Dr. Jackson's letter of the 7th November, 1837, was written. Though he knew Morse accomplished
his markings by means of an electro-magnetic power, he did not,
in that letter, pretend that he had, on board the Sully, described
any mode by which that power could be appl;ed to telegraphic
purposes. As we have seen, all his communications, by his own
showing, related to other modes of telegraphing. That letter,
however, contains conclusive evidence that he knew very well




13
what plan Mo7Tse had devised on board the Sully, and was attempting to perfect after his return. He says:
"You will not, I presume, venture to maintain that you, at that
time, knew any thing about electro-magnetism more than you
learned from me. If I wanted any other proof, beyond your own
confession, I should only have to recall to mind your futile attempts (after your arrival in New York) at making a galvanic
battery, and the plan of types, levers, wc., which were wholly impracticable, and demonstrated to me that you did not understand
the subject."
-Now, this was the very plan which Morse had carried into effect-the plan which Jackson was then claiming in the dark, and
has since claimed in open day. It wras one of the plans that Prof.
Morse had devised on board the Sully, partially drawn out in his
sketch book and shown to Jackson! That Jackson did not know
this "impracticable" plan had been found practicable, is shown
near the conclusion of his letter, where he says: " I have invented
a new instrument; so perhaps have you; for I do not know what
your new one is, since you say i have not seen it nor heard about
it beyond your announcement."
In his reply to this letter dated December 7th, 1837, Prof. Morse
said:
"'You must be aware that while you considered my invention as
impracticable, you did not suggest a single hint of any other mode
of applying it. You spoke of my invention of numerals, intervals,
levers, type, &c., which I had drawn out in my sketch book as ingenious, but impracticable; indeed, in your last letter you assert
that my mode of permanently recording is impracticable, and that
you corrected my errors. How you corrected my errors you don't
say, nor what mode you proposed as a substitute. If you did propose any, you can doubtless tell what it is."
Again:
"This machinery consisted chiefly, as you well know, of a system of signs which were numerals to be read by intervals; types
and apparatus to arrange the numbers for transmission; a lever
to mark on the register by closing and breaking the circuit; and
a register moving by clock work; machinery to receive the marks
at the proper times. So much of the invention at least you properly concede to me. You allow explicitly in your letter, that I
invented these!" * * * * "The apparatus which I invented
on board the Sully was gradually matured, and was constructed
for, and adapted to, the use of one wire or a single circuit. Now,
this you have often asserted to me to be impracticable," &c. * 
"If you have invented a telegraph of 24 wires and a mode of
marking in real types, why do you claim to be a mutual inventor
of' mine, which is adapted to one wire or a single circuit, and




14
which you, at the same time, pronounce'impracticable?' Your
claim to any share in my impracticable mode is, to say the least,
very singular. Unfortunately for the sustainment of your claim,
the plan which I devised on board the ship, the plan of numerals,
types, levers, &c., which you pronounce wholly impracticable,
and the use of one wire or a single circuit, which you pronounce
impracticable, is the very plan I have now in successful operation."
Thus was it established by Dr Jackson's own evidence in 1837:
First, that he never described any Electro-Magnetic Telegraph
to Prof. Morse, on board the Sully, in 1832.
Secondly, that when Prof. Morse described his plan to mark
down telegraphic signs by means of a single circuit and single
magnet, Dr. Jackson pronounced it "wholly impracticable."
As might be imagined, Dr. Jackson never answered Professor
Morse's letter of December 7th, 1837; and it might be supposed,
that he would not again set up a claim to Morse's invention.
Not so, however. Upwards of a year he remained silent; and in
the meantime doubtless ascertained in detail what Prof. Morse's
invention really was. Then, in January, 1839, while Prof. Morse
was in Europe, he wrote and caused to be published editorially,
in the Boston Post, an article comnlencing as follows, viz:
"We are informed, that the invention of the Electro-Magnetic
Telegraph, which has been claimed by Mr. S. F. B. Morse, of
New York, is entirely due to our fellow-citizen, Dr. Charles T.
Jackson, who first conceived the idea of such an instrument
during his return voyage from Europe, in the packet ship Sully,
in October, 1832. Mr. Morse being his fellow-passenger, and
having pretended to feel a great interest in the invention, and a
desire to participate in the experimental trials of the machinery,
Dr. Jackson freely communicated to him and to all the cabin
passengers his various plans for effecting the telegraphic communications."
Not content with this, Dr. Jackson wrote a letter to a member
of the French Academy of Sciences, in which he said:
"I rregret to see in the public papers that Prof. Samuel F. B.
Morse has appropriated to himself my Telegraph Electro-Magnetic. I explained to him this instrument long ago, on board the
packet ship Sully, when I returned to America, in the month of
Octobe r, 132. 1 am pained at the undeserved patronage which
the French philosophers have awarded to Mr. Morse. The invention which he has shown them belongs exclusively to me.
Since I have known what were his pretensions on the subject, I
addressd him my protest,'but I see that he perseveres. 1 pray
you to intorm the Academy that Mr. Morse has not invented the
new Telegraph, and that 1 gave him the description in 1832."




15
Without stopping to comment on the modesty of the man who
could thus trumpet his own inventions, or the honesty of the man
who thus set up claims-to an invention he had previously denounced as impracticable, or the honor of the man who could
thus stab the reputation of his absent countryman at home and
abroad, we now call attention to the singular progress of Dr.
Jackson's claims.
In his letter to Prof. Morse, dated Sept. 10th, 1837, he called
the invention "our Electric Telegraph," and says "the invention
was our mutual discovery."
In his letter to Prof. Morse, dated Nov. 7th, 1833, he said, "I
do claim to be the principal in the whole invention made on board
the Sully."
In the Post article, of January, 1839, he says, "the invention of
the Electro-Magnetic Telegraph, which has been claimed by Mr.
Samuel F. B. Morse, is entirely due to our fellow-citizen, Dr.
Charles T. Jackson; i. e. HIMSELF!
And in his letter to the member of the French Academy about
the same time, he says, "the invention he (Morse) has shown
them (the French philosophers) belongs exclusively to me!"
The invention then exhibited, be it remembered, marked with
a pencil, or other coloring matter, and the mode of marking by a
metallic point indenting paper was not invented until long afterwards, and not patented until 1846; and now, behold! Dr. Jackson claims that also!! He says in his deposition:
"I proposed to connect with this keeper the short arm of a lever
beam, and to fix a point of steel in the long arm of the lever, so that
when the keeper was drawn to the electro-magnet, the point would
perforate holes in paper."
Thus Dr. Jackson, according to his own story, was first a mutual inventor, then a principal inventor, and finally the exclusive
inventor I He claims to have invented some half dozen modes of
telegraphing, but finally settles down upon one, that one which,
when presented to him, he pronounced "impracticable;" containing features which were not invented until about 1844, and not
patented until 1846! He was mistaken in 1837, in the supposed
discovery that Morse's Telegaph was composed of 24 wires;
then acknowledged that he knew nothing about it; having in
1839 discovered what its leading principle was, he put in a claim
for it; and now, in 1850, having ascertained all the details of
Morse's machinery, with all the improvements, he claims to have
described the whole on board the Sully, in 1832, even down to the
pen point first described in MIorse's patent of 1846!
Soon alter the publication in the Boston Post in January, 1839,
Mr. Sidney E. Eorse. the Professor being in Europe, wrote Dr.
Jackson, inquiring whether he assumed the responsibility of the




16
article; and if so, he said " I will thank you to specify the part or
parts of the telegraph which you claim as your invention."
In his reply dated January 23d, 1839, and now in his deposition, Dr. Jackson acknowledges himself virtually the author of
the article, and repeats, in general terms, his claim to be the inventor of the marking Electro-Magnetic Telegraph of Prof. Morse.
In another version of that letter, dated 22d January, 1839, set
forth in his Boston deposition, very different from the letter received, he says: "if, however, he (Prof. Morse) takes out the
right of using the means I have prescribed, viz:
"1. The perforation of paper.
"2. The marking on chemically prepared paper by the chemical re-action of galvanic electricity.
"3. By the use of electro magnets, printing by moveable levers
and letters or types of numerals-then he infringes on the plan
which I proposed."
Here Dr. Jackson first specifically claims "the plan of types,
levers,'c.," which, on board the Sully, and again in his letter of
November 7th, 1837, he pronounced "wholly impracticable "
In May, 1839, Prof. Morse having returned from Europe, replied to the article in the Boston Post, placing the invention on
its true ground.
Nothing more was publicly heard from Dr. Jackson for ten
years! lHe was then summoned to aid in sustaining the O'Rielly
piracy on Morse:s invention. But, by the developments in his recent deposition at Boston, it appears that then, in 1839, he made
private efforts to sustain his unfounded pretensions. lie sets forth
a letter which he wrote to the Hcn. W. C. Rives, dated June 14th,
1839, in the hope of eliciting trom him, by leading questions,
something which he could use for that purpose. In that letter he
says, among other things:
"The processes proposed by me at that time were as follows,viz:
" 1st. To count the sparks in the disjoined wire circuit, and to
note the number successively given, per watch, so as to denote
the numbers.
"2d To perforate paper by the sparks from the Leyden jars and
commoin electric machine.
"3t1. To decompose certain saline or metallic salts upon prepared paper, by means ot' a galvanic current communicating with
platina points, connected with conducting wires of copper and
the galvanic battery.
"4th. By the li'iing power of the electro magnet, to move a
lever beam and print malrks or numbers.
"All these processes were simple and familiar experiments to
me, and were unknown altogeiher to Mr. Morse until 1 informed
him. I was the first person who proposed to use these data for




1F
the telegraph. Will you please give your opinion of the correctness of the above statements?"
Here he re-instates the electric spark omitted in his letter to S.
E. Morse, and not only clings to the electro magnet, bu't speaks
of the lever beam motion-" the electro magnet to move a lever
beam "-as one of the " processes " which "were simple and familiar experiments" to him.
Now, in his letter of 7th November, 1837, to Prof. Morse, he
says: "I have proof enough to show that I had produced a lever
beam motion with mine (electro magnet) for that purpose, as long
ago as the spring of 1834," &c. And this is reiterated with additions' in his recent depositions.
In the spurious copy of the same letter, dated November 5th,
1837, set forth in his Boston deposition, Dr. Jackson states the
same incident more in detail, as follows, viz:
"I have furthermore, since my return to Boston, made more remarkable improvements with an electro magnet which I brought
home from Paris in the Sully, (1832,) when 1 had the pleasure of
your company. In 1834, I produced with that instrument a lever
beam motion, which was shown to many of my scientific fiiends;
and by that instrument I proposed to print my letters in actual
types."
So, the only " remarkable improvement" worthy of particular
notice, made by Dr. Jackson, after his return to Boston, was the
production of this lever beam motion in 1834, a process which he
tells Mr. Rives in 1839 was perfectly familiar to him in 1832 
It is worthy of note, however, that in none of Jackson's letters
of 1837 or 1839 was there any allusion to marking with a steel
point. That seems to have been a more recent discovery! 
Mlr. Rives did not think Dr. Jackson's letter of June 14th, 1839,
worthy of an answer, and the unfortunate claimant of other people's inventions seems to have given up in despair. Morse took
out his patent in 1840 without opposition, and for seven years
thereafter this disinterested man of science, who had conceived it
so much his duty to put down false claims, and give the world
the gratuitous use of his invention, suffered Prof. Morse to impress on the Patent Office, on Congress, and on the world, the
belief that he was the true inventor of the first recording telegraph! But in 1847, he made another private effort to maintain
his unfounded claims. tie then appears to have become again'pained" not only that the "French Philosophers," but the world
in general, accorded to Prof. Morse the invention of the recording
Electro-Magnetic Telegraph, but that he was likely to derive
some emolument from the invention. Under the false pretext,
among others, that Prof. Morse was writing letters to be used
against him in the Ether controversy, he wrote to J. Francis
2




18
Fisher, of Philadelphia, one of the passengers on board the Sullyt
asserting his claim to the invention of the Telegraph, and enclosing a list of interrogatories as to what passed on board that
ship, to which he requested a general answer. The interrogatories were prefaced with some remarks, of which the following is
an extract, viz:
"He [Dr. Jackson] also wishes me to say to you, that a statement of the substance of your recollection, separate from any
remarks as to what you do not recollect, would be desirable to
him," &c.
This is surely a shrewd way to examine a witness. "If you
can say yes, do so-if not, say nothing. I can then draw inferences
which would otherwise be palpably inadmissible! This is the plain
English of this modest proposition. Mr. Fisher returned an answer, however, not at all to Jackson's taste, from which we shall
hereafter take extracts.
Next we find him in correspondence with Royal E. House, an
infringer of Morse's first patent. House writes to him from
" New York, January 14, 1848," and Jackson answers with almost
telegraphic despatch from "Boston, January 16, 1848." This is
surely "a swift witness."  He heads his letter "private," and says,
near its close, "You will please regard this letter as strictly confidential." *  *  * "If you can get the evidence you need from
others, I should prefer to keep out of the dispute." Id est, if you
can overthrow Morse's Patent without my assistance I should
prefer it; if not, I am at your service!
And now, in his depositions of 1849 and 1850, we have him
swearing that Morse's invention, pen-point and all, was conceived
and minutely described by him on board the packet ship Sully, in
October, 1832!
Thus far, we have been content to array Dr. Jackson against
himself. Let us now see how far his claims are disproved by his
own witnesses.
In his genuine letter to Prof. Morse, dated November 7th, 1837,
Dr. Jackson said it was "either Mr. Rives or MIr. Fisher" who
first suggested the idea of sending news by electricity.
In the Post article, of January, 1839, Dr. Jackson says it was
he, himself, who'first conceived the idea of such an instrument
during his return voyage from Europe, in the packct ship Sully, in
October, 1832," and adds, "The origin of the idea of the new Telegraph, as above stated, can be proved by a number of passengers on
board the Sully; and Mr. Rives, the American ambassador to
France, Mr. Fisher, of Philadelphia, and Capt. Pell, of the Sully,
having listened to the conversation, will recollect that Mr. Morse
acknowledged himself wholly unacquainted with electro-magnetism, and that Dr. J. freely informed him of every particular
discovery applicable to the case."




19
Although Prof. Morse in his reply to the Post article in May,
1839, said: "I have a letter from each of them (Rives, Fisher,
and Pell) asserting, unequivocally, my exclusive claims to the invention, and one of them at least has expressed not only surprise,
but indignation at the reference made to him by Dr. Jackson;"
although some of these were published in Vail's book as early as
1845; and although Dr. Jackson had written to Mr. Rives without receiving an answer; and having written Mr. Fisher, had
received an answer disproving his pretentions; yet, in his letter
to House in 1848, he refers to the same witnesses in the following words, viz:
"I would suggest that you should consult the passengers in the
Sully, who were present at the time I communicated my plan to
Mr. Morse. The names of the passengers can doubtless be learned by consulting the newspapers of November, 1832. Mr. J. F.
Fisher, of Philadelphia, Mr. Rives, of Virginia, (Mr. R. was Mr.
Morse's friend and patron,) two young gentlemen of New York,
by the name of Palmer, and Capt. WMi. Pell, were present during
part of the conversation, and may, perhaps, remember something
about it."
In his Boston deposition, Dr. Jackson says: "During part of
this conversation, Mr. Rives and Mr. Fisher were present, and
two Messrs. Palmers of New York, and Capt. Wmi. Pell. They
were present at the beginning of the conversation and heard a
considerable portion of it."
Niow, let us see what the testimony of these witnesses whom
Dr. Jackson'invokes, really is.
On the 28th August, 1837, Prof. Morse addressed a circular
letter to the Hlon. W. C. Rives, Capt. Win. W. Pell, J. Francis
Fisher, Esq., Charles C. Palmer, Esq., and Dr. CharlesT. Jackson.
In this circular he said:
"My object in writting you is, to ask whether you remember
my conversing on the subject of the Electric Telegraph, as my
invention, when a passenger with you on board the sphip Sully in
the month of October, 1832."
Mr. Fisher answered under date of September 19th, 1837, and
said:
" I certainly recollect many conversations with you on the subject of tn Electric Telegraph during our voyage from Europe in
the Sully in October, 1832."  *  -     *    *     *
"'1 am at any time ready to give my certificate, that you proposed and were occupied about the details of an Electric Telegraph at the time referred to. Wishing you all success in this
as well as every other occupation, and that the establishment of
your fame for this invehtion may be as extensive as it is deserved,
I remain," &c.




20
Capt. Pell answered on the 27th September, 1837, and among
other things, said:
"I am happy to say I have a distinct remembrance of your
suggesting, as a thought newly occurred to you, the possibility of
a telegraphic communication being effected by electric wires.
As the passage progressed, and your idea developed itself, it became frequently a subject of conversation. Difficulty after difficulty was suggested as obstacles to its operation, which your ingenuity still labored to remove, until your invention, passing from
its first crude state through different grades of perfectionment,
was, in seeming, matured to an available instrument, wanting
only patronage to perfect it and call it into reality. And I sincerely trust that circumstances may not deprive you of the reward due to the invention, which, whatever be its source in
Europe, is with you at least, I am convinced, original."
Mr. Rives answered on the 21st September, 1837, and said:
"I retain a distinct recollection of your having explained to me
the conception of this ingenious invention during our voyage
from France to the United States in the autum of 1832, and that
it was more than once the subject of conversation between us,
in which I suggested difficulties, that you met and solved with
great promptitude and confidence."
Mr. Charles C. Palmer had left the country, we believe, and
did not answer.
After Prof. Morse received Dr. Jackson's letter of the 7th Nov.,
1837, in which he attributed to Mr. Rives or Mr. Fisher the first
suggestion of sending news by electricity, he wrote another letter to Mr. Fisher dated November 14th, 1837, in which he propounded the following questions, viz:
"First. Do you recollect having made Ihe observation attributed eitlher to you or to Mr. Rives?
" Second. HIave you any impression, from your recollection of
what occurred on board the Sully, that any other person than
myself, was the inventor of the Electric Telegraph?"
On the 17th, Mr. Fisher answered to the first inquiry, "certainly
not; and it would have been strange, if not silly, to have done so,
since the first mention of an Electric or Galvanic Telegraph by
you implied the possibility.
To the second he answered, "I had no idea that any of our fellow-passen:gers could claim the credit of it. I am quite sure I received my first idea of it fiom you; that you were most interested
in it; that you alone seemed inclined to test its practicability after
landing," &c.
Prot. Morse also wrote to Mr. Rives making similar inquiries,
and received an answer dated March 1st, 1838, in which that
gentleman says:




21
"i am utterly surprised that any one should have given me
credit for suggesting it.. I am perfectly sure that such a conception had never entered my mind, and that it was a complete novelty to me when first presented to my contemplation by your conversations during the progress of the voyage above mentioned.
Wishing you, my dear sir, great success in maturing and carrying
into execution an invention which promises to mark a new era
in the progress of improvements, I remain," &c.
Thus was it proved that Dr. Jackson's "very retentive memory"
was mistaken in attributing the first suggestion of the idea to Mr.
Rives or Mr. Fisher. It now appears, that in 1839, he was equally
in error in claiming it for himself, for in his recent deposition, he
only remembers that it was "one of the passengers," but not Prof.
Morse!
Let it be noted, that this letter was written by Mr. Rives some
months after Dr. Jackson wrote to him claiming that he was the
inventor, and asking a statement to that effect.
On the 20th January, 1838, Prof. Morse again wrote to Capt.
Pell with the view of establishing the originality of his invention
against Dr. Jackson's claim. In his reply dated February 1st,
1838, Capt. Pell said:
" It is a matter of great astonishment to me, that a fellow-passenger with us in the Sully from Havre in October, 1832, should
attempt to contest with you the claim of having been the inventor of the Electric Telegraph, which occupied so much of your
attention during the passage, or that there was one on board of
her who had any claim to even a participation of its honors." ^
*  *     " ]My impressions rest upon my mind with the freshness
and force of conviction, that you only, on board of that ship, was
the originator of the invention; that your mind alone seemed interested in it with any seriousness of purpose, even after its first
suggestion by you; and while it was in seeming, the daily and
favorite object of your study, which was each day developing it
into a higher perfection:
"So, when a few days since, I examined your instrument, I recognized in it the principles and mechanical arrangements which
on board I had heard you so frequently explain through all its developments. With the sincere wish that no hand may be so rash
as to persist in the attempt to snatch from you the reward which
belongs to you, I subscribe myself," &c.
While in Paris in 1839, Prof. Morse received intelligence that
Dr. Jackson had set up a claim to his entire invention; and having ascertained that one of the Palmers resided at Rahan in Ireland, he addressed him a letter dated Paris, February, 22d, 1839,
from which the following is an extract, viz:
" Please to designate who you believe to be the inventor. Have
you any idea that any other person on board that ship could claim




22
to be the inventor, or to be a participator in the invention of the
Electro Malgnetic Telegraph, as there planed?  My object in requesting an answer to this question is, to defend myself against a
claim just publicly made by one of our fellow-passengers, who,
since the announcement of the success of my invention, has boldly
attempted to deprive me of the'entire invention.'"
Mr. Palmer replied, under date of March 5, 1839, and, among
other things, said:
"I perfectly recollect your describing to myself, and others of
our fellow-passengers on board the Sully, during her homeward
passage from Havre to New York, in 1832, an Electric Telegraph,
which you stated you had invented, or which had occurred to you
since your being on board.
" It was certainly new to me, and, to the best of my knowledge
and belief, was so also to the rest of our fellow-passengers; for
(if my memory does not betray me) no one at that time claimed
a priority of invention in your method of applying the electric
fluid to the conveying of despatches. I certainly did understand,
at the time, that you intended to perfect this invention, which you
considered your own, and to obtain a patent for it."
Mr. Fisher, in reply to Dr. Jackson's letter of June 6th, 1847,
among other things, said:
"Whoever first started the idea, he (Morse) at once embraced
it, and by dint of his inquiries, and by the aid he solicited from
others, was able to carry it to perfection. Without your assistance, or that of others equally accomplished in science, he, in all
probability, would have been unable to proceed, but would have
ridden it as a hobby-horse, with as little progress as an infant on
his. But the praise must be his of seeking, wherever he could
find it, the science and mechanical skill which previously he had
not, and useing them in prosecuting his favorite scheme."
Mr. Fisher was required to give his deposition in the Kentucky
case of Morse et al vs. O'Reilly et al, and on that occasion stated
under oath, that he wrote the letters to Prof. Morse, above quoted,
dated September 21, and November 17, 1837; that he " then believed, and still believes the matters therein stated to be true;
that neither Dr. Jackson, nor any other-passenger, except Prof.
Morse, was engaged on board of that ship in planning or devising
any machine, or telegraphic instrument, or the mode of communicating intelligence by telegraph:" that "Prof. Morse's mind,
and his only, seemed to be engaged in that subject, and that intensely;" that Dr. Jackson did not, to his recollection, " on board
of the packet ship Sully, or elsewhere, give any minute, or any
description of the appropriate, or of any means, or of any instrument, by which news might be communicated by galvanic electricity, or by electro-magnetic machinery;" that to "the best of




23
his recollection, Dr. Jackson did not, on board the Sully, describe
any mode of telegraphic communication." In fine, nothing could
be more directly confirmed than Morse's claim is by this deposition, and nothing more effectually exploded than Jackson's claim.
In a deposition in the same suit, Capt. Pell states on oath, that
he "believed, and still believes that the matters stated by him in
his letters to Prof. Mouse, dated on the 27th September 1837, and
1st February, 1839, to be true;" that he "does not know any
other passenger or person, who returned with Prof. Morse, on
board the ship Sully, in October, 1832, who discovered or invented, or who communicated the discovery or invention of an
Electric Telegraph, claimed to have been discovered by Prof.
Morse;" that during the passage, "he did not hear, nor did he
understand, that any other person on board the said ship, except
said Morse, pretended to claim to have made said discovery,"
that neither Dr. Jackson, nor any other passenger, except Morse,
to his knowledge, "made any claim in regard to the matter, as
being the inventor, or as having any part in it, or as taking any
such part or prominence in the said discussions as would make
him out as a participator in the invention;" that "he always has
believed, and still does believe that Prof. Morse was the first
person, and the only person on board the packet ship Sully, who
suggested the Electric Telegraph, and that he alone among the
passengers brought it to its maturity."
And the Hon. W. C. Rives, at present Minister to France,
declared, on the eve of his departure, that he was ready, on any
proper occasion, to confirm on oath the truth of his letters to
Prof. Morse, dated September 21st, 1837, and March, 1st, 1838.
Much of this testimony was known to Dr. Jackson years ago,
and all of it was accessible to him before he gave his late deposition in the Boston case. I-ow are we to account for his letters
to Rives in 1839, and to Fisher in 1847? What obliquity of intellect or of moral sense could have induced him to refer, in his
letter to Mr. House in 1848, to gentlemen who he knew, repudiated his claims, and sustained Morse? And is it not astounding,
that now, in 1850, after finding every witness he has referred to
testifying against him, and his own memory proved treacherous,
not only by their testimony but by self-contradictions, this extraordinary man should persist in his unfounded claim with more
tenacity than ever?
But there are other dark features in this picture. Dr. Jackson
begins by assuming extraordinary learning on his part, and extraordinary ignorance on the part of Prof. Morse. He would make
the world believe that Prof. Morse could not have conceived the
idea of a Telegraph, because he was too ignorant, and that he
must have conceived it, because his mind was a perfect storehouse, in which was deposited all the learning of the age 




24
In his letter of November 7th, 1837, to Prof. Morse, Dr. Jackson
says:
"You will acknowledge that you were at that time wholly
unacquainted with the history and management of elecricity and
electro-magnetism, while I wtas perfectly familiar with the subject, it having been one of my favorite studies from boyhood up
to that time, and 1 had enjoyed every possible advantage in acquiring a full knowledge of the subject during my studies in the
scientific schools of Paris and elsewhere." *  "I knew every
experiment mentioned from my own frequent practice in making
them.  It was to me no unwrought problem, but a matter of
absolute certainty. I was not making conjectures but reporting
the facts of chemical and physical science." * -* "You-will
not, I presume, venture to maintain, that you at that time knew
anything about electro-magnetism more than what you learned
from me."
In his letter to Mr. House, dated January 15th, 1847, Dr. Jackson says:
" Those who know Mr. MIorse are awvarc of the fact, that he
had no knowledge of electro-magnetism previous to his voyage in
company with me in the packet ship Sully, (Oct., 1832.')'' *
" Ignorance of them would be strong presumptive evidence against
the patentee who alleges that he discovered and invented the
Electro-Magnetic Telegraph, on board the packet ship Sully,
during her voyage from Havre to New York, in October, 1832."
In one of his Kentucky depositions, Dr. Jackson says, that
when, on board the Sully, he mentioned electro-mgnetism, Prof.
Morse exclaimed, "Electro-mnagnetism! W/ hat is it?"
In his more recent deposition in the Boston case, he says:'When I mentioned the subject, electro magnetism, in the
presence of Mr. Morse, during this conversation, he asked me the
meaning of the term, saying,'Electro-magnetism I I-How does
that differ from other magnetism?' I explained it to him, making drawings of electro-magnets and'a galvanic battery for that
purpose. He did not appear to be acquainted with the subject."  *  *  "Mr. Morse, as- an apology for not knowing any
thing about electro magnetism,said that he had paid no attention
to the subject, being wholly occupied with painting and the fine
arts."  *  *  *  "After our arrival in New York, he (Morse)
brought me in New York, a plate of copper and a plate of zinc,
each about two inches square, connected by a strip of copper
more than a foot in length, and about half an inch in breadth,
and asked me if that would do for an elementary battery. I told
him no; that'it would make no battery at all; that the plates
must be near each other, and not connected, for an elementary




25
battery, which he proposed to make. His producing a contrivance like that, showed that he was not acquainted with the subject of galvanism, not even knowing how to construct a galvanic
battery, which is essential to produce the electric current. I explained to him how it could be made."
In the Post article of 1839, Dr. Jackson said, Mr. Rives, Mr.
Fisher, and Capt. Pell, "having listened to the conversation, (on
board the Sully,) will recollect that Mr. Morse acknowledged himself irholly unacquainted with electro magnetism, and that Dr.
Jackson fireely informed him of every particular discovery applicable to the case."
Now, we have abundant proof that these arrogant and insulting
imputations of ignorance to Prof. Morse and assumptions of extraordinary learning in himself, are absolutely if tot wilful/y false."
That Prof. MAorse was not so profoundly ignorant, the evidence
is both positive and negative. Let us first look at the negative
testimony, and for that purpose introduce Dr. Jackson's own witnesses, Mr. Fisher and Capt. Pell.
While Mr. Fisher was giving his deposition in the Kentucky
case, the article in the Post was shown to him, and was asked" Do you recollect that Mr. Miorse acknowledged himself wholly
unacquainted with electro magnetism, qr that Dr. Jackson informed him of every particular discovery applicable to the case."
He answered, "I do not, nor do I know such to be the fact."
The same deposition contains the following:
Question. "Do you know, or do you now believe that Dr.
Jackson did, on board the packet ship Sully, entertain the idea,
or did you, from any thing then said or done by him, infer that
he then entertained the idea of applying his scientific knowledge
to the invention of an Electro Magnetic Telegraph, or that he
was associated with any other person or persons, in doing so?"
Answer. "I did not then, nor do I now believe ssuch to be the
fact, nor did I infer any such thing from any thing that was said
or done on board the Sully."
Capt. Pell in his deposition in the same case, testifies that "he
always has believed, and still does believe, that Prof. Morse was
the first person and the, only person on board the packet ship
Sully, who suggested the idea of an Electric Telegraph, and that
he alone, among the passengers, brought it to maturity;" that he
"had no recollection that Prof. Morse ever did, on board the packet ship Sully, make the inquiry of any one in regard to what
electro magnetism was; and being shown the Post artticle, he
said "he does not know, nor can he prove the matters therein
stated, in which reference is had to deponent, nor does he recollect the matters therein stated to be in his recollection."




26
And Mr. Rives in his letter of September 21st, 1837, says, "I
suggested difficulties that you met and solved with great promI'titude and confidence "-a fact incompatible with profound ignorance of the subject.
This is the testimony of the witnesses whom Dr. Jackson invokes to prove Prof. Morse's confession of his own ignorance!
We will now show that Prof. Morse could not have been so
ignorant of the sciences of electricity, electro magnetism, and
galvanic batteries, as Dr. Jackson so dogmatically asserts.
Dr. Jackson states in his recent deposition that he is 44 years
old. Of course he was born in 1806. Proff Morse is 58 years old,
and of course, was 14 years of age when Dr. Jackson was born.
In Enfield's Institutes of Natural Philosophy, theoretical and
practical, edition of January, 1802, book 1, chap. 5, in proposition
XXI, we find the following:
"If the circuit be interrupted, the fluid will become visible, and
when it passes it will leave an impression upon any intermediate
body.
"Exp. 1. Let the fluid pass through a chain or through any
metallic bodies placed at small distances from each other. The
fluid in a dark room will be visible between the links of the
chains, or between the metallic bodies.
" Exp. 2. If the circuit be interrupted by several folds of paper,
a perforation will be made through it, and each of the leaves will
be protruded by the stroke from the middle to the outward leaves.
"Exp. 3. Let a card be placed under wires which form the
circuit, when the circuit is interrupted for the space of an inch,
the card will be discolored. If one of the wires be placed under the
card and the other above it, the direction of the fluid may be seen."
Thus it will be seen that the FACTS IN SCIENCE contained in Dr.
Jackson's two first propositions in his letter of 1837, were well
known, and were laid down in an Elementary Book before he was
born! Were they in fact known to Prof: Morse in 1832?
President Day in his deposition in the Kentucky case states:
"In the years 1808, 1809, and 1810, I was Professor of Natural
Philosophy in Yale College, New Haven, and from 1817 to 1846,
was President of that Institution. Samuel F. B. Morse, one of
the above complainants, during the years 1807, 1808, 1809, and
1810, was a student in that Institution, and a member of classes
under my instruction. I verily believe he attended my vwritten
lectures upon Natural Philosophy, which were given to the senior
class, and my experimental lectures upon that subject, which were
given to the junior class. I lectured upon the science of Natural
Philosophy, one branch of which related to electricity; and that
subject was lectured upon and also experimented upon before my
class.




"All the students were required to attend those lectures. I
gave a variety of experiments to the class illustrative of electricity. During his attendance in my class, the text hook of the class
upon the subject of Natural Philosophy, was Institutes of Natural Philosophy, theoretical and practical, by William Enfield, L.
L. D., edition of January, 1802."
He then gives an exact copy of the said proposition XXI, a
part of which we have above quoted, and then says:
"That book was studied and used by the class then under my
instruciion.
"I have examined my note book of the experiments exhibited
by me to the classes in those years, made at the time; and after
having refreshed my recollection, I can now state I did lecture
upon the subject contained in said proposition, XXI, above cited,
and made experiments illustrative of said proposition, and I presented to the class the experiments, No. 1 and No. 2, in said proposition, and presented to them the results stated under the said
head of experiments, 1 and 2."
We will next proceed to inquire whether the facts in science
contained in Dr. Jackson's 3d proposition were new, and whether
they were known to Prof. Morse previous to his seeing Dr. Jackson.
Professor Benjamin Silliman, of New Haven, in his deposition,
is asked the following question:
"Did you know in the years 1808, 1809, and 1810, of any experiments of decomposing substances by the agency of galvanic
electricity."
In answer he says: " Many such experiments were then known.
" The decomposition of water by galvanism was performed in
London by Messrs. Nicholson & Carlyle, almost as soon as Volta's
pile was discovered in 1800 or'1801. I was in England in 1805
and 1806, and was acquainted with Mr. Nicholson and with Mr.
Davy, who in 1807, communicated to the Royal Society in his
celebrated Bakerain lecture, an extensive series of decomposition
by galvanic electricity, and in the. next year, 1808, he made his
brilliant discovery of the metallic basis of potash and soda. These.experiments were repeated in all countries where science was
cultivated, and in my chemical courses for 1807, 1808, and 1809,
and onward in Yale College, New Haven. I exhibited to my
classes the most important of the experiments as fast as they
were made known." He also states in his deposition:
"Samuel F. B. Morse was a student in Yale College and attended on myS lectures in the years 1808, 1809, and 1810. At that
time it is my recollection and belief, that each student attended
two of the courses of lectures delivered by me. Samuel F. B.
Morse resided near me for several years, from 1822 inclusive, and




28
onward. The families were on terms of intimacy, and Mr. Morse
was in the habit of frequent communication with me. At this
time Dr. Robert Hare's splendid Galvanic Calorimater had been
for some time in my possession, and many interesting and beautiful results were exhibited by them, as for example, in the fusion
of charcoal and combustion of metals, &c., Samuel F. B. Morse
was, from his intimate personal relations with me, permitted to
be often present in my laboratory in my private trials and preparatory experiments, and w as thus made familiar with them."
Thus, "the facts in science," about which Dr. Jackson dogmatized on board the Sully, were, to a great extent, discovered before
he was born, and the three processes named in his letter of Nov.
7th, 1837, as proposed by him for telegraphing, had been exhibited
and explained to Prof. Morse before this dog-matist was four years
old! Moreover, Prof. Morse. had enjoyed in Prof. Silliman's
laboratory and conversations, opportunities to beefme acquainted
with all the new discoveries and improvements in these sciences
while Jackson was yet a boy!
It necessarily follows, that those who attended the lectures of
Professors Day and Silliman, and witnessed their experiments in
electricity'and galvanism, must have had some knowledge, from
inspection as well as description, of the batteries then in use.
Professor Silliman, in his deposition, says: "The batteries then
in use, were the pile of Volta. the battery of Cruikshanks, and the
Curonne des tasses, well known to the cultivators of this branch
of science. I always exhibited these batteries to my classes;
they were dissected before them, and their members and arrangements of the parts, and the mode of exciting them, were always
shown." In his next answer, he says " Samuel F. B. MIorse was
an attendent on my lectures."
With " several years" familiarity with Prof. Silliman, and with
the experiments in his laboratory "fiom 1822 inclusive and onwards," Prof. Morse must have become well acquainted with all
improvements and changes in electric and galvanic batteries, up
to the close of that period.
The evidence that Prof. MIrse had kept pace with the discoveries in electricity and electro-magnetism, does not stop here. In
the winter and spring of 1826-7, he attended a course of lectures
on electro-magnetism, given before the New York Athenaeum, by
James Freeman Dana, professor in the New York University,
in which the discoveries in that science, up to that time, were
detailed and illustrated by experiment.  Dr. Jackson's rude
charge of gross ignorance on the subject, called to Prof. Morse's
mind these lectures, with many of the experiments then exhibited,
and the apparatus with which they were performed. Among
this apparatus was an electro-magnet, made by bending a rod of
soft iron in the horse-shoe form, covering it with sealing wax, and




29
coiling around it a naked copper wire. Diligent inquiry enabled
him to find this identical electro-magnet, which had passed into
the hands of Prof. Torrey, now of New York University. He
also procured the manuscript of the identical lectures, which remained in the hands of the widow of Prof. Dana. These he fully
identified, and they were produced in the final trial of the Kentucky case.
The electro-magnet was accompanied by a deposition of Prof.
Torrey, in which he sets forth a letter written him by Prof. Morse,
dated March 4th, 1847, from which the following is an extract:
<"In conversing a day or two since with Mr. Pike and Dr.
Chilton, they informed me that much, if not most, of his (Dana's)
apparatus was purchased by you. Have you the horse-shoe
magnet, covered with red sealing-wax varnish, around which he
made a single coil of uninsulated wire, each turn separated from
its neighbor about - or - of an inch, and with which he illustrated, at his lectures before the New York Atheneum, the electromagnet? If you have, and would like to part with it, I should
be pleased to be the purchaser."
Professor Torrey answered from "Observer Office, New York,
March 8tb, 1847," and said:
"I received your letter on Saturday, and brought down this
morning the piece of apparatus which must be the one alluded
to in your letter. It is, however, covered with'black,' instead
of' red sealing-wax varnish.' If it is of any use to you, I beg you
will accept of it. I am sure it is the one used by Prof: Dana, in
his lectures before the New York Atheneurn."
In his deposition he said, "he was well acquainted with Prof.
James Freeman Dana, prior to his death in 1827."  * " He
became the purchaser of all his apparatus after his death, and
among other articles which he purchased, which Prof. Dana had
at the time of his death, was an electro-magnet," &c. *  *.
" He fully believes, and had no doubt that said magnet was owned
and used by Prof. Dana, in his lectures in the city of New York, in
the spring of 1827. He stw, as he believes, this inagnet in Prof.
Dana's possession, at the timle that he was lecturling on electromagnetism before the New York Atheneumr, in the spring of the
year 1827, and has no doubtt of its identity. This was the first
electro-magnet he ever saw," &c.  *  *  "Prof D-ana had
already minlde important discoveries in electro-itagnetismn, and
was still occupied in his researches on that subject at the time of
his death. iHe freely and with much enthusiasm communicated
his results to those scientific and literary friends wiilh wLhomn he
was associated or intimate."  * * "There were other articles
of electro-ma.gnetic apparatus belonging to Prof. DI)aina which
were covered with red sealing-wax varnish, and this, deponent




30
supposes, is the reason that Prof. Morse was mistaken respecting
the color of the peculiar apparatus alluded to, and so inferred at
the time of writing deponent's answer to him,"
Prof. James Renwick, of the Columbia College, New York, in
his deposition in the Kentucky case, after stating that he had been
acquainted with Prof. Morse more than thirty years, said, that
"Prof. Morse, before his visit to Europe, about the year 1830,
paid much attention to the subject of electricity and magnetism;"
that " he believes that Prof. Miorse was present at the lectures of
Dr. Dana, inasmuch as it was the custom of the lecturers to
attend each other's courses, and any absence would be cause of
remark; that when the interrogatories were put into his hands
by Prof. Morse, he was not positively certain that one of Dr.
Dana's four lectures was devoted to the subject of electro-magnetism, but that in the course of conversation, Prof. Morse spoke
of a permanent magnet caused to revolve on its own axis, by an
electric current, as one of the experiments exhibited by Dr. Dana;
that this deponent thereupon recollected the said apparatus, and
that he has had one made for the apparatus of Columbia College,
which was a copy of the, apparatus of Prof. Dana; that this
recollection has established in the mind of this deponent the certainty, both that Dr. Dana did lecture on electro-magnetisrnf, and
that Prof: Morse was present at that particular lecture; that the
apparatus in question is rare, and was the invention of Dr. Dana;
and that he believes no other have been made than the original
one of Dr. Dana's, and the copy now in the collection of the
Columbia College;" * * "that he saw Prof. Morse for the first
time in London, in 1816, and knows that he was long resident in
that city; that the discovery of Sir Humphrey Davy, on which
the science of electro-magnetism is founded, took place while
Prof. Morse resided there, and made a great noise at the time;
that this discovery, together with the additions made to it by
Oersted, were so familiarly known prior to 1827, that he cannot
believe that Prof. Morse, whose tendency to scientific inquiries
was decided, could have been ignorant of them."
Dr. James It. Chilton, in a deposition, fully confirms Professor
Morse's recollection in relation to the lectures and Dana's electro-magnet, and expresses his entire disbelief that any one who
mingled with scientific characters in 1826-7 could be entirely
ignorant of electro-magnetism.
Mrs. Matilda W. Dana, widow of Prof. James Freeman Dana,
in her deposition in the same case, said:
" My husband and myself resided in the city of New York in
the years 1826 and 1827. My husband died on the 15th day of
April, 1827, in the city of New York. In the year 1827, he delivered a course of lectures upon the subject of electro-magnetism




81
and also upon the subject of electricity, before the New York
Atheneum, in the chapel of the Columbia College." * * * *
"And I further depose and say, that the two papers now produced
and made exibits in this cause  *. are the original lectures
delivered by my husband, James Freeman Dana, before the New
York Atheneum in the year 1827;" * * * "my husband at
the time of their delivery, exhibited to his audience various experiments with an electro magnet illustrative of the subject matter of said lectures, and then had and exhibited to his audience
an electro magnet in a horse shoe form; that after his death, that
identical magnet was sold to his neighbor, Prof. John Torrey.
"Since the funeral of my husband, I have never seen Prof.
Morse until the 19th September, 1849. He then, before seeing
those lectures and before I told him what they contained, stated
to me several of the experiments which were exhibited by my
husband at the time he delivered the same before the Atheneum."
Mrs. Dana also states "that her husband's mind was most intensely interested in the subject of electro magnetism, so much so
indeed that I frequently heard him talk of it in his sleep. I know
that my husband, in the years 1826, 1827, and up to the time of
his death, was on terms of intimacy with Prof. Samuel F. B.
Morse, and was in the habit of visiting Prof. Morse's painting
room." * * * "I have a distinct recollection of visiting Prof.
Morse's room in company of my husband, and of examining some
of Prof. Morse's paintings." I* "I frequently heard my husband speak of his having been on a visit to Prof: Morse's room."
* * - "My husband was so much interested at that time with
electro magnetism, that it was his favorite theme in his conversations with his associates and friends. He was in the habit of
dwelling much upon it, and of explaing to his friends the result
of his experiments in that science. From the terms of intimacy
existing between him and Prof. Morse, I can scarcely believe it
possible that he and Prof. Morse should not have had frequent
and repeated conversations on the subject of electro magnetism.'
* * * " Hle was universally frank and communicative in his
social intercourse." * * * "I cannot now state positively
that I saw Prof. Morse at those lectures before the Atheneum;
but from the intimacy that existed between them and their professional relations to each other, I have no doubt he did attend
those lectures. I should have thought it very sinigular if he had
not, and presume that his absence would have been a subject of
remark."
Mrs. Dana also states, that on the death of her husband, she
received "a very kind note of condolence" from I lof. Morse, and
adds: " I am very sure that Prof. Morse in his letter of condolence,
expressed the pleasure he had in attending my husb.and' lectures,'.




32
The manuscript lectures which Mrs. Dana produces, contain
a concise history of the rise and progress of the science of electro
magnetism up to the date of their delivery, with descriptions and
drawings of apparatus used to illustrate the subject. Of the
electro magnet as then constructed, Prof. Dana says, "a spiral
placed round a piece of soft iron bent into the form of a horse
shoe, renders it strongly and powerfully magnetic when the electric charge is passing through it."
In these lectures, Prof. Dana referred to Oersted and Ampere
by name, and gave some account of their discoveries and experiments.
With these facts before him, who can believe that in October,
1832, Prof. Morse-was so profoundly ignorant, that when Dr.
Jackson mentioned etectro magnetism, he exclaimed " Electro
magnetism!  WIhat is that? How does it differ from other magnetism?" Who can believe that having become familiar with
electric and galvanic batteries under the teachings of President
Day and Prof. Silliman, and witnessed their operations in laboratories and lecture rooms, from 1810 to 1827, he was totally ignorant of their forms and principles?
Let us now examine Dr. Jackson's lofty pretensions to superior
knolwedge in these sciences. His own evidence is sufficient to
prove them as false as his imputations of ignorance to Prof.
Morse. In connection with the facts now proved, it will justify
the conclusion that of the two, Prof. Morse was by far the best
informed on the subject of electro magnetism.
In his letter of November 7th, 1837, Dr Jackson says:
"In thle first place, you will acknowledge that you were at that
time wholly unacquainted with the history and management of
electricity and electro magnetism, while I was perfectly familiar
with the subject, it having been one of my fanorite studies from
boyhood to that time, and I had enjoyed every possible advantage
in acquiring a full knowledge of the subject during my studies in
the scientific schools of PTaris and elsewhere." * -* *  *
"I then asked, if they had not read of' Dr. Franklin's experiment, in which he caused electricity to go a journey of twenty
miles by means of a wire streached up the Thames, the water
being matde a portion of ihe circuit? The answer was from you
that you had not read it."
A,     g      f*     *      *-     *       *
"Now, as to the invention, I beg leave to remark that I -knew
every exp)eriment mentioned from my own freqent practice in
making them. It was to me no unwrought problem, but a nmatter of a'-isolute certainty. I was not making conjectures, but
reporting, the facts of chemical and physical science. Hence,
since I had performed all the experiments in detail, and had here




33
brought them together for a specific purpose, I was, so far as they
are concerned, the true inventor," &c.
This pretension to superior learning, having tried all the experiments, explained everything to Morse, &c., &c., runs through all
his subsequent correspondence, publications, and depositions.
Now, as to the alleged experiment of Dr. Franklin making
electricity "go a journey of twenty miles," &c., Prof. Morse was
doubtless ignorant of it, for we.imagine it never existed except
in Dr. Jackson's prolific imagination. But it made the doctor
appear very learned!
Dr. Jackson said he was not "making conjectures," not propounding " unwrought problems "-all was "absolute certainty;"
he "had performed all the experiments in detail," and was reporting facts.
In his Boston deposition, page 162, the following question was
put to Dr. Jackson, viz:
"Please state whether or not, after your return from Europe,
you constructed any telegraphic apparatus, and if any, what?"
In his answer he says, "in 1834 I took the electro-magnet
which I brought home in the Sully," &c., going on to describe certain appendages which he affixed to it, and stating his object
thus:
"This was a rough and extempore contrivancefor the purpose of
TESTING THE PRACTICABILITY OF WOROKING A LEVER BEAM BY ELECTROMAGNETISM, so as to produce, by the pin point attached to the end
of it, punctures on paper, or other permanent markings or impressions."
Now, here, confessedly, was a problem "unwrought" in 1832,
an experiment not "performed," a fact unknown. Two years
after the conversation on board the Sully, in which he said, as he
alleges, that the thing was perfectly easy, " there is no difficulty
about it," he swears that he was trying an experiment to test its
"practicability." In the same deposition, he says he declared, on
board the Sully, "there is no dificulty about it," and yet he was
employed two years afterwards in experiments to test its practicability 
There is another fact, which shows that this very learned man
had, after all, taken very little pains to inform himself on the subject of electro-magnetism, and in reality knew very little about
it. He has himself furnished evidence, that in 1832 he was totally ignorant of important facts and suggestions in relation to
this science which had been made public ten years before! In
his letter to Prof. Morse, dated November 7th, j837, he says:
"I have searched the archives of science and find that the first
idea of such an instrument was conceived by Soemering, who
3




34
proposed an Electro-Magnetic Telegraph. Oersted, of Copenhagen, also invented one. Ampere says it is easy to construct an
Electro-Magnetic Telegraph. See Ampere, Expose de Nouvelle
Decouvertes sur L'electro Magnetisme. Paris, 1822. Page 71."
And in a postscript to that letter, Dr. Jackson said:
"I did not read this in Ampere until about three years since,
although I have owned the book since 1832, and when I saw you
last I forgot to mention to you that he had conceived the idea of
such a Telegraph. I had read portions of the book before, but
not that section."
In the version of the same letter given in his Boston deposition,
Dr. Jackson says, page 174:
" Now, as to the first origin of the idea of an Electro-Magnetic
Telegraph, I can assure you, that on looking over my books which
I had with me on my return from Europe, (but some of which I
had not then read,) I find that two or three other persons had
thought of such an instrument long before we had made our invention, and that Soemering and Oersted had actually put one in
operation, but without succeeding to their satisfaction. Ampere
also says it is easy to construct an Electro-Magnetic Telegraph;
and these observations were made in 1822, and published by
Ampere. Now, 1 was not acquainted with these facts until my
attention was aroused by the movements of certain English inventors, who certainly have no more claim than we have to the
first idea, or discovery."
In his Boston deposition, page 163, the following question was
put to Dr. Jackson, viz:
" Please state, if you are able, by whom the idea of transmitting intelligence by electro-magnetism, or by electricity, was first
conceived, and what information, or means of information, you
possessed when on board the Sully."
He answered:
"So far as I know, the idea of transmitting intelligence by
electro-magnetism was first suggested by Ampere, of Paris, as appears in a work, entitled'Expose des Nouvelles Decouvertes sur
L'electricite et le Magnetisme de MI. M. Oersted, Arago, Ampere,
H. Davy, Biot, Erman, Shiveger, de ]a Rive and al.' par M. M.
Ampere and Babinet, published in Paris in 1822. I had this work
on board the Sully, but had not read it at that time."
On the same occasion, he was asked directly when Soemering's
and Oersted's plans of telegraphing first came to his knowledge,
and he replied:
"I had Ampere's account of Oersted and Soemering's plan of a
Telegraph Electro-Magnetique on board the Sully, in my trunk,




35
but did not read it until I reached home and unpacked my books,
soon after my arrival."
In his letter of 1837, he said he.read that portion of the work
which related to an Electro-Magnetic Telegraph only three years
before, or in the year 1834.
What follows? Why, that this omni-scientific gentleman, who
was perfectly acquainted with all that had been said and done
on the subject of electricity and electro-magnetism when he undertook to instruct Prof. Morse in October, 1832, had not read
Ampere's important work, then ten years old; and did not, until
two years afterwards, know that Ampere had suggested the idea
of an Electro-Magnetic Telegraph as early as 1822. From Ampere's work Dr. Jackson appears to have obtained his first information as to what had been said or done by Soemering and
Oersted from 1809 to 1820, without a knowledge of which no
man in 1832 was fitted to give instruction to others on the subject of electro-magnetism. And while he was, by his own showing, wholly ignorant of the experiments and deductions of Oersted
and Ampere, Prof. Morse was measurably instructed in relation
to them by Prof. Dana as early as 1827.
From these facts it is apparent that Dr. Jackson, in 1832, had
read little or nothing upon the subject of electro-magnetism, and
had only such a smattering of knowledge as he had picked up in
fugitive lectures and conversations. Yet, while admitting that he
had neglected even to read the prominent authors on the subject,
and remained for twelve years wholly ignorant of experiments and
facts announced by them, feeling so little interest in the science
and in his pretended invention on board the Sully, that he did not
read Ampere's work until two or three years afterwards, though
all that time in his possession, he now has the assurance to say
that electricity and electro-magnetism had been "favorite studies
from boyhood;" that he was perfectly familiar with the origin and
progress of discovery in those branches; that he communicated to
Prof. Morse the first idea he had on the subject; that has "familiarity with the subject enabled him to suggest plans and details
at once, with premeditation, as soon as his attention was called
to it;" and that when Prof. Morse and his fellow-passengers
evinced doubts on the subject, " my (his) earnestness increased in
proportion to their apparent incredulity /!"
Strange, is it not? that not a single passenger can be found who
recollects any thing about his "earnestness"-passing strange,
that to a man, as far as consulted, they do remember that Prof.
Morse was the only one who seemed to manifest any earnestness
on the subject!
Let us' now see how many times Dr. Jackson has located the
"first idea" of an Electro-Magnetic Telegraph.




36
He first assigned it, on board the Sully, to Mr. Rives or Mr.
Fisher.
Next he claimed it for himself.
Finally, he assigns it to one of the passengers; whose name he
does not recollect.
The first conception of the idea at large, he assigned, in his letter of November 7th, 1837, to Soemering.
In the version of that letter embraced in his deposition, he gives
it to Soemering and Oersted.
And finally, he swears in his deposition, that so far as he knows,
it was first suggested by Ampere!
The progress and accuracy of Dr. Jackson's memory are beautifully illustrated by another circumstance of little importance in
itself, but of great weight in the inferences whichit justifies.
In his early correspondence, Jackson did not pretend to have
exhibited or made on board the Sully any drawings of an ElectroMagnetic Telegraph. No such pretension is set up in his letters
to Prof. Morse, S. E. Morse, or Mr. Rives, or in his letter to the
member of the French Academy, his article in the Boston Post,
or in his reply to Prof. Morse's strictures upon that article, prepared in 1829, but for the first time published in his Boston deposition.
The omission of so imposing a fact on all those occasions is
very remarkable.
His memory seems first to have recovered a faint recollection
of that subject when he wrote the letter to Mr. Fisher dated June
6th, 1847; for in that letter he says:
" Morse made sketches and minuted facts in his note-book. I
also drew the plan or rough sketch of the lifting magnet in my
note book, and showed it to Prof. Morse, and we from that time
discussed the subject every day, and Morse followed me about the
ship with his note-book in hand, noting down all 1 told him on the
subject."
This was Dr. Jackson's first recollection on this point, about
fifteen years after the occurrence! All he then recollected was,
that he drew a sketch of the lifting magnet in his sketch book
and showed it to Morse. One year later, however, his memory
became much clearer and more comprehensive, and in his letter
to Mr. House, dated January 15th, 1848, he states the matter in
this wise, viz:
"Then I proposed the use of the electro-magnet, (invented by
Prof. Henry,) making use of a lever beam and point, which was
to make permanent markings on paper, by pricking holes through
it every time the electro-magnet moved the lever beam. This
latter plan is the one I fixed upon and most fully described to Mr.
Morse on board the Sully. I made rough sketches on my note




37
book, and Mr. Morse being an artist, drew them off better in his
memorandum book."
The improvement in this version of the story is, that it was not
the "lifting magnet" only which he sketched, but the lever beam
and pen point, as now used, and that it was not only shown to
Prof. Morse, but that he copied it into his memorandum book.
In his first Kentucky deposition, Dr. Jackson said he thought he
gave the drawing to Prof. Morse.
In his second deposition he stated positively that he gave it to
Morse.
In his Boston deposition he says that when Prof. Morse exclaimed, " Electro-magnetism! How does that differ from other
magnetism?" "I explained it to him, making drawings of electromagnets and a galvanic battery for that purpose."
He also says, that " next morning" I spoke of having an electro-magnet on board, and two galvanic batteries, which were
stowed away between decks. I made drawings, rough sketches,
as I do not profess to be a draftsman, of the electro-magnet,
which I gave to Mr. Morse, who copied them into his note book
in an artistic manner, asking of me explanations as he made the
drawings."
In the taking of his Boston deposition he was asked to produce
the note-book in which he had made these drawings, when he replied:
"The leaf containing the drawing of an electro-magnet applied
to telegraphing, I gave to Mr. Morse on board the Sully; on another leaf of the book there remains a drawing of an electromagnet lifting weights, which I still have and will exhibit."
So, prior to 1847, this man, "blessed with a very retentive
memory," remembered no drawings worth mentioning.
In that year he thinks it pertinent to mention, that he drew the
lifting magnet in his note-book and showed it to Mr. Morse.
In 1848 he remembers that he made rough sketches on his
note-book of Morse's entire register, pen point and all, which Mr.
Morse copied into his note-book!
~In one deposition of 1839, he thinks he gave his sketches to
Prof. Morse.
In a second deposition he knows he did.
In 1849, he remembers two sets of drawings, including batteries as well as electro-magnets. And when asked to produce the
note-book from which he said to Mr. Fisher and Mr. House, Prof.
Morse copied his drawings, behold! there is the drawing of the
"lifting magnet" he mentioned to Mr. Fisher; but all the rest are
missing! There is no trace of the lever beam or pen point, or
any telegraph machinery. What has become of it? Why, this
man of remarkable memory, now for the first time remembers



38
almost eighteen years after the occurrence-that he had torn out
the leaf and given it to Prof. lJIorse!!
Who can doubt that he told the whole truth to Fisher; that his
sketch book never contained a "drawing of an electro-magnet
applied to telegraphing;" that " an electro-magnet lifting weights"
is all that he ever drew: and that the rest is the creature of a
memory which becomes more vivid as events recede, and manufactures facts and circumstances to sustain the claims and gratify
the ambition of its all-grasping master-changes whatever he
wishes to have changed, and forgets whatever it is his desire to
have forgotten.
As to Dr. Jackson's alleged experiments with the electro-magnet in the spring of 1834, his own evidence presents a very curious aspect.
In his genuine letter to Prof. Morse, dated 7th November, 1837,
he merely said in relation to that matter, " I have proof enough to
show that I had produced a lever beam motion with mine (electromagnet) as long ago as the spring of 1834, and as I wrote you in
my last letter, I could mark with real type."
In the false version of that letter set forth in his deposition as
a true copy, he says:
"You will now understand that I have invented a new ElectroMagnetic Telegraph, the principles of which I have put in action,
and the date of the operation is fixed to the spring of 1834, when
I made an exhibition of the instrument to scientific gentlemen and
to a class of twenty-five ladies and gentlemen attending my lectures in Hanover street. I do not know what sort of a machine
you have constructed, not having seen any description. My invention was alluded to in my last letter."
Recurring to his last letter, we find all he says on the subject is
embraced in the following words:
"In the application of the electro-magnet, I had proposed to
mark in actual type, having a packet of 24 wires for conductors
to tne several magnets, each of which moved a letter and pressed
with great power."
This, then, was the invention, and the only invention claimed
by Dr. Jackson in 1837. But now he sets forth this false version
of his letter to Prof Morse, and in connection with it, states that
his main invention was marking with a pen point attached to the
end of a lever beam, and not only leaves us to understand that
"several scientific gentlemen" and "a class of twenty-five ladies
and gentlemen," witnessed this operation, but names Mr. Francis
Alger as one to whom he exhibited and described it.
Now, where is Mr. Francis Alger, that he is not produced to
sustain Dr. Jackson? We had his deposition in the Kentucky
case, but he remembered nothing of this marking with a pen point.




39
For that reason, we presume, it was not thought proper to produce his testimony in the Boston case.
Where are the "several scientific gentlemen" and the " class of
twenty-five gentlemen and ladies" to whom Dr. Jackson says he
showed his telegraph instrument in action? The following question was put to the Doctor on his recent examination in the Boston case, viz:
"Please name some of the persons who made the class of
twenty-five to whom you exhibited your new Electro-Magnetic
Telegraph in 1834, and explain the method of its action and how
the type were impressed?
He replied:
"1 only showed the electro-magnet with the keeper in action at
that time. It was Mr. Geo. B. Emerson's school of ladies who
attended my lectures. It would not be proper for me to give
their names. I remember exhibiting the machine, with the lever
beam, to Mr. Francis Alger, as stated in chief in my deposition."
In his letter he said he had exhibited "the instrument"-his
"new Electro-Magnetic Telegraph "-" to a class of twenty-five
ladies and gentlemen;" but when asked to name some of them he
says " it would not be proper for me to give their names," and admits that it was no telegraph instrument, but only an "electromagnet with the keeper in action," which he exhibited!
Again he is asked:
" Did you show the telegraph instrument and type to any ladies
or gentlemen, and if so, to whom? and whether to Mr. Alger and
to what other gentlemen and when?"
He answered:
"I do not remember showing the combination to the class of
young ladies, but I recollect showing it with the lever beam and
point to Mr. Alger in the spring of 1834, and putting it in action
before him. I also think Judge Halliburton, of Nova Scotia, saw
it. I do not remember now to whom else I showed it. I exhibited it to many who came in."
Strange that this man, "happily endowed with a strong and retentive memory," who in 1837, "remembered every word of the
conversation that took place in the cabin of the Sully" in 1832,
cannot remember one of "the many who came in" to see his
wonderful invention. Stranger still, that not one of the "many "
does not come forward voluntarily (as more than one has done in
the case of Morse) to sustain his pretensions. And strangest of
all, that he should name Mr. Alger as having seen his lever beam
and point in action in 1834, when he knows Mr. Alger recollects
no such thing!




40
It will be recollected, that the perforation of paper by the electric spark, was one of the modes of telegraphing which Dr. Jackson says, in his letter of 1837, he described to Prof. Morse on board
the Sully. The charitable supposition is, that his mind, in its
morbid desire for fame, has confounded that mode of perforation
with the mode he afterwards discovered to be used by Prof.
Morse; and, as often happens, even to persons not reputed as
absolutely insane, he now really believes the conception of marking with a metallic point was his own! It was but a step further
in the same direction, first to imagine, and then to believe, that he
had actually affixed such a point to a lever beam, and shown it
in action in 1834!!
But it seems not to have occurred to him that his imagination
had not travelled far enough to make out a perfect or even plausible case. The marking with a metallic point is but a part of
Morse's system, which contemplated the use of but one wire.
That mode of marking was devised for one wire, and if not inseparable from it in practice, is so peculiarly adapted to it as to
render it highly improbable that it would ever have been thought
of in any other combination. It is in that combination, that
Morse conceived it, and in no other has it ever been used.
Now, Dr. Jackson admits, that he did not know Morse proposed
to use but one wire until after the correspondence of 1837, and
he virtually concedes to him that part of the invention. In his
letter to House, he says, "Perhaps he (Morse) can also maintain
his claim for one wire and connection with the soil." The following question was put to him in his recent examination, viz:
"When, if ever, did you first learn that Prof. Morse did in fact
design using but one wire and one magnet, with proper connections for telegraphic purposes, and was entitled to the credit of
that invention?"
He replied:
"I never learned that he was entitled to such credit at all. I
think he mentions the use of one wire in his letter to me. I don't
know when I learned he was about using one wire, &c., with
proper connections, as asked. It was after our correspondence had
ceased."
Now, the last letter in that correspondence is dated December
7th, 1837. It follows, from his own showing, that Dr. Jackson
knew nothing of Prof. Morse's real mechanical combination until
after the 7th December, 1837. The "one wire" is an essential
part of Morse's invention; the metallic point for marking was
specially adapted to the one wire; they are parts of the same
invention-the one wire first, and the pen point next-and it
would be singular, indeed, if Dr. Jackson had in 1834 a distinct
conception of the second part without having the least idea of
the first!




41
It can scarcely be necessary to pursue this witness further, but
those who wish to see a specimen of falsehood and prevarication
never equalled by a man claiming the respect of society, are referred to his cross-examination in the Boston case, pages 167 to
194.
He says, in allusion to the correspondence of 1837, "Professor
Morse wrote to me that he had received a patent," when he had
only written, " My invention, the invention on board the Sully,
has, for some time, been entered at the Patent Office." This falsehood is the more remarkable, as it constitutes afalse reason given
by him for not opposing the granting of a patent to Prof. Morse.
In speaking of his letter of the 7th November, 1837, to Prof.
Morse, he says, " The principal object of my letter was to claim
distinctly the application of electro-magnetism to telegraph purposes
by permanently marking on paper," when, in the letter received
by Prof. Morse, there is not a shadow of such a claim!
One of the most extraordinary portions of Jackson's deposition
is the setting forth of a false version of his letter of November,
1837, as a true copy, when he must have known it to be false.
His " strong and retentive memory " must have told him it was
false.
The true letter had been in evidence long before, in the Kentucky case, by virtue of a stipulation by counsel, doubtless entered
into after consultation with Dr. Jackson, to the effect "that the
original letters, of which those marked D and E are copies, (E
being the letter of 7th November, 1837, were written by Dr.
Charles T. Jackson, of Boston, to Prof. Morse, at their respective
dates, and were, at or about their respective dates, mailed by said
Jackson to said Samuel F. B. Morse, and were received by said
Morse within a few days after their respective dates, and that
said Jackson and Morse did not have any other direct correspondence with each other, and that said copies are true copies of
said original letters."
Notwithstanding all this, Dr. Jackson, without a word of explanation, now sets forth another version of that letter as a true
copy. which he knows is not a true copy.
It is false in its date, which is the 5th November, when the true
copy is dated the 7th.
It is false, in omitting material matter, which the true copy
contains.
It is false, in containing matter which the true copy omits.
The true letter, after setting forth the three modes of telegraphing, adds:
" The second and third projects were finally adopted for a future
trial, since they could be made to furnish permanent records."
This is entirely omitted in the version now produced.




42
Now, this omission is very important. The passage omitted,
distinctly shows in what Messrs. Morse and Jackson uould have
been mutual inventors, had the projects been tested and carried
out to any useful result. And as neither of them had any connection with electro-magnetism, it affords the strongest kind of
negative testimony that Dr. Jackson had nothing to do with the
invention of an Electro-Magnetic Telegraph.
We have heretofore shown that Dr. Jackson's reference in the
false version to the "class of twenty-five ladies and gentlemen,"
as witnesses to the operation of his Electro-Magnetic Telegraph
instrument in 1834, is wholly omitted in the true letter.
The true letter is about a third longer than the false version,
and there are many other discrepancies. They may both be
found in the Boston case; the false version at pages 172-'3-'4;
the true letter in appendix at 75 A, to 78 A.
What are the conclusions which are to be drawn from the facts
and circumstances now developed?
1. That Prof. Morse and Dr. Jackson had much conversation
on board the Sully in relation to an Electric Telegraph; that
Prof. Morse devised a system of signs adapted to the simplest
practicable machinery; and that it was agreed that Dr. Jackson
should experiment, with the view of ascertaining how they could
be best made by an electro-chemical process.
2. That Dr. Jackson never tried the experiments.
3. That Prof. Morse devised and suggested a mode of marking
his signs by the power of electro-magnetism, which Dr. Jackson
pronounced impracticable.
4. That Prof: Morse proceeded to perfect that plan and bring
it into use without any aid from Dr. Jackson.
5. That having read the project of 24 wires and 24 magnets in
the New York Observer, and been informed by Prof: Morse that
he accomplished his markings by an electro-magnetic power, Dr.
Jackson supposed the 24 wires to be Morse's plan, and set up a
claim to it on no better foundation than that he had talked about
electro-magnetism on board the Sully.
Or, having conceived such a plan himself, he had cherished and
experimented upon it without communicating it to Prof. Morse,
intending to claim it as his own exclusive invention, as in fact he
does in the false version of his letter of November, 1837.
6. That his alleged experiments with the metallic point in
1834, are mere fiction.
7. That his assumptions of superior learning in himself, and
imputations of profound ignorance in Prof. Morse, are in themselves totally false, and can be considered only as evidences of
excessive vanity, partial insanity, and a reckless disregard of truth
and justice.




43
8. That Dr. Jackson's persistence in his absurd claims, and his
progressive enlargement of them as he became better acquainted
with the letails of Morse's invention, after finding his own memory so miuh at fault, after being repelled by every passenger on
board the Sully, and unsupported on any material point by a single witness or a single fact, evinces a mental or moral obliquity
which deprives him of all claim to confidence or belief.
That Dr. Jackson is insane upon this subject is the charitable
conclusion; and it is fortified by two considerations not yet adverted to.
FIRST. He says he told Prof. Morse on board the Sully that it
was easy to make an Electro-Magnetic Telegraph; that "there
was no difficulty about it;" and he repeats this assertion in his letters and depositions. Yet he says, in his Boston deposition, "At
the time that these conversations took place, and for some years
afterwards, I was aware that the Electro-Magnetic Telegraph
could not be rendered commercially valuable for want of a sustaining battery, or one that would keep up a steady and uniform
current, no such battery being then known." And when asked,
"When the law of diminuton and the law of speed were ascertained, what remained in applying electro-magnetic power to
telegraphing?" he replied, "Nothing but the idea of using the
electro-magnet for the purpose, as described by me to Prof. Morse,
and the use of a constant battery, subsequently invented by Daniell
^ Grove, to give a steady current of electricity."
After all, then, notwithstanding his positive assertion that
"there was NO difficulty about It," there was a most serious difficulty in making a Telegraph of any value, and this very learned
and consistent savan perfectly well knew it! In other words,
when he asserted " there was no difficulty about it," he knew perfectly well that the assertion was false! He admits it himself.
SECONDLY. When Dr. Jackson asserted in his deposition, that
"' NOTHING" but the application of the electro-magnet and a constant battery were wanting in 1832 to render electro-magnetism
available for telegraphing, he knew the assertion (as understood
and intended to be understood) to be absolutely false. He knew
that the combined circuits of Morse's Patents were wanting, and
that there could be no available marking Telegraph without
them. He had just stated, that the extent of Prof. Henry's experiments was to prove that "electro-magnets could be acted
upon at the distance of a quarter of a mile by a galvanic current," and he knew in 1832 that without something beyond those
experiments to extend or renew the power, no marking Telegraph,
like Prof. Morse's, was practicable; and he knew it just as well
in 1850.  How, then, could he virtually say and swear, that
"nothing" of the sort was wanting?




44
This man must be insane.         If, in sound mind, he had determined
to rob Prof. Morse of the honor of his invention, he would have
"gone the whole," and claimed the           single wire and the combined circuits, both of which are essential parts of Mork's invention.   But the single wire or circuit he concedes to Morse, and
the combined circuits he never mentions.          Without them, all his
claims amount to nothing; and if, in sane mind, he had planned
this attempted robbery, his claims would have been adapted              to
his end. That they fall so far short of it, is of itself the strongest
evidence of insanity-of a madness without system-of a mind
incapable of clear perceptions or sound reasoning-blind to contradictions, and unconscious of absurdities-mistaking fancies for
facts, and seizing on the property of others as its own, without
the slightest consciousness of robbery or theft. Let us, then,
draw a veil over the infirmity now rendered harmless, and leave
its victim to the enjoyment of the ideal world which his own
fancy creates, peopling it with inferior intelligences, who, in his
imagination, receive instructions from his lips, and profit by his
wisdom.*
We think it almost useless to consider what would be the legal
effect of this testimony upon Morse's patents, if every claim set up
by Dr. Jackson were well founded; but it may not be amiss to
consider that point.
1. If Dr. Jackson were in his right mind to swear that he had
invented every part of Morse's Telegraph just as it is, it would
not invalidate Morse's patents; for it has been judicially established
that the oath of one witness shall not outweigh the oath of the
patentee. Upon the same principle, his unsupported oath could
not invalidate any part of Morse's patents.
* There is a very singular coincidence between the circumstances of Dr. Jackson's
claims to the Ether, or Chloroform discovery, and to the Electro-Magnetic Telegraph.
He says that Prof. Morse, when he mentioned electro-magnetism, exclaimed, " Electro-Magnetism!  What is it?  How does it differ from ordinary magnetism?
In his controversy about the Ether discovery claimed by him, he attempted to prove,
that when he mentioned Sulphuric Ether, Dr. Morton, his adversary claimant, exclaimed,
" Sulphuric Ether!  What is it? Is it agas?"
This fact is shown in the Report of a Committee of the U. S. House of Representatives,
No. 114, 23d February, 1849. The committee, after investigating the case, state in
their report, page 13, that "he (Jackson) did not himself prove the result which was
new, or by his information convey knowledge in that direction beyond the point it had
already reached. He was a safe and reliable guide to its then utmost limit in that direction, the Calpe and Abyla of scientic research, but left the sea beyond to be explored
by others."
In relation to the Telegraph, we have shown that he had not, in 1832, explored seas
long known, and had not read accounts of explorations by others, which had been ten
years published to the world! He says himself, in his last letter to Morse, " I was not
making conjectures, but reporting the facts of chemical and physical science." In the
matter of the Telegraph, therefore, he was not " even a safe and reliable guide to the
utmost limits of science in that direction."




45
2. If Dr. Jackson had said and done all that he says he said
and did on board the Sully, it would have constituted no patentable invention. He says, first and last, that he described six
modes of telegraphing, viz:
By counting the electric sparks.
By perforating paper with the electric spark.
By marking paper by the electro-chemical process.
By the ignition of charcoal points.
By 24 wires and 24 electro-magnets, marking in real type,
By wires and electro-magnets, perforating paper with a metallic point.
Now, if he invented a telegraph of any of these descriptions,
he invented six telegraphs, and nobody could afterwards rightfully patent a telegraph on any of those plans. But speculative
ideas, however correct, are not inventions in the sense of the patent law. It is he only who reduces the idea to practice in a nmanner useful to society that is entitled to a patent. He alone is the
" inventor" in the sense of the patent law.
3. If Dr. Jackson had, as he pretends, experimented with the
lever beam motion and metallic point in 1834, he does not pretend
that he either published his experiments, communicated them to
Prof. Morse, or carried them out to any result practically useful
to society. He, therefore, neither acquired a right to patent himself, nor did any thing to prevent Prof Morse or any one else who
had pursued the same line of experiments to an useful result, from
obtaining and maintaining a patent for it.
4. Were it admitted that every word Dr. Jackson says claiming the honor of Morse's invention is true, still he would fall short
of the end at which he aims; for the single wire and combined
circuits, which he does not pretend to claim, are essential parts of
Morse's invention and of his patents.
Finally, Dr. Jackson admits, substantially, in his Boston deposition, all which is essential, in a legal point of view, that Prof.
Morse ever claimed. He says:
"I would add, that I neither have, nor have had, any disposition
to deny to Mr. Morse great credit for mechanical ingenuity and
facility in applying the successive inventions in the arts, such as
the batteries above mentioned, to the purposes of the telegraph.
He did mature and put into operation a telegraph, either by his own
ingenuity, or with the aid of others, and improved the system of
characters and signsfor an alphabet."
Now, it is the maturing and putting into operation which constitutes a patentable invention; and as to the signs, Jackson's letter of November 7th, 1837, concedes not only the improvement,
but the suggestion of them to Prof. Morse. And it is settled law,
that an inventor does not impair his claims by invoking "the aid
of others" in maturing his plans.




46
We feel that so detailed an exposition of Dr. Jackson's inaccuracies and inconsistencies was not necessary to set aside his testimony in this case; but we thought it due to the public, whose
servant he is, thoroughly to expose the obliquities of his mind.
Giving due weight to the facts herein established, who can rely
on Dr. Jackson for the truth in any matter of science or exploration? His vanity amounts to insanity; and there is no falsehood
touching that vein of his mind, which it will not induce him
readily to believe and confidently to announce as an unquestionable truth.
We annex the correspondence of 1837, between Prof. Morse
and Dr. Jackson, marked A, B, C, D, E, and F.
Also, the Post article of 1839, prepared by Dr. Jackson, and the
correspondence between him and Sidney E. Morse, with Professor
Morse's reply, marked G, H, I, and K.
(A.)
From Professor Mlorse's Letter Book.
Copy of a letter to Dr. Jackson, Capt. William W. Pell, Francis
J. Fisher, Esq., Hon. William C. Rives, EI. C. Palmer, Esq., the
captain of the Sully, and my fellow-passengers:
NEW YORK CITY UNIVERSITY, Aqz. 27, 1837.
DEAR SIR: You may have seen some notice in the papers of
an Electric Telegraph, of which I am the inventor. There is to
be a contest, it seems, for priority of invention of this Electric
Telegraph between England and France, Germany and this
country. I claim for myself, and consequently for America, priority over all other countries in the invention of a mode of communicating intelligence by electricity. My object in writing you
is to ask whether you remember my conversing on the subject of
the Electric Telegraph as my invention when a fellow-passenger
with you board the ship Sully, Capt. Pell, in the month of October, 1832. If you do, please inform me as soon as possible, and
state precisely what you remember concerning it. Your testimony to the fact of my having invented it at the time will be important in establishing the priority of the American invention.
With sincere respect, sir, your obedient servant,
S. F. B. MORSE.
To Dr. Jackson's, I added, "My plan of marking by means of
an electro-magnet has proved completely successful."
To Mr. C. C. Palmer, I added, "If those of your family who remember any thing of the matter would testify to the same, it.would
be doing me an essential service."
To Capt. Pell, I added the question, " Have you ever spoken of
my inventtion to passengers in subsequent passages?"
In lieu of the above letter, Dr. Jackson has produced the following:




47
(B.)
NEW YORK, August 28, 1837.
Dr. C. T. JACKSON.
Dear Sir: I regret exceedingly that you were not in town when
I was in Boston a few weeks since. I called to have a long talk,
and tell you the success of my telegraph. I send you an extract
from one of the papers respecting it. I accomplished the marking.
by means of an electro-magnetic power. Let me hear from you
and tell me where you have been, and what new word you have
discovered. I hear of you through the journals of science, and
always good accounts.
In greatest haste, but truly yours, as ever,
SAM'L F. B. MORSE.
It has been argued, that Professor Morse never sent the letter
A to Dr. Jackson, but substituted the letter B, because, knowing
Jackson to be the real inventor, he knew better than to ask him
for such a statement! The truth undoubtedly is, that both letters
were sent to and received by Dr. Jackson. The facts and circumstances which sustain this conclusion are the following, viz:
1. Letter A is in the nature of a circular prepared for several
persons. Having had more conversation with Dr. Jackson than
with any of the rest, Professor Morse desired to say to him more
than he said to them. Hence, in addition to the circular, he wrote,
the private note marked B, and sent them together.
2. The argument presupposes that Prof. Morse was capable of
planning and executing a deliberate fraud, and forging a copy of
a letter to Dr. Jackson to sustain it, and at the same time placing
in the Doctor's hands the means of detection. To say nothing of
the folly of such a proceeding, there is nothing in Prof. Morse's
character to give color to the assumption that he is capable of
such wickedness.
3. Though Dr. Jackson produces the letter B, he does not deny
that he received the letter A, but says he thinks a part of his correspondence with Prof. Morse was destroyed by a fire which had
occurred in his house.
4. Both Prof. Morse and Dr. Jackson refer to letter A, as sent
and received, in their subsequent correspondence.
In his letter of Sept. 18, 1837, (see L, post,) Prof. Morse says to
Dr. Jackson:
"My object in writing you the last time was not only to inform
you of my success, which I thought would be gratifying to you as
a friend, and the means I employed in effecting my object, but I
was in hopes of your testimony to the fact that I invented and
elaborated it on the voyage from France in 1832. I desired this
testimony, that I might successfully claim for our country the
priority of invention which is its due, and I cannot but yet hope




48
that you will furnish me with this evidence to put side by side
with that of the other passengers of the Sully, who have furnished me with full testimony to that effect."
As the request is here repeated which was made in letter A,
(there being no such request in letter B,) it is conclusive that the
former had been sent.
Dr. Jackson, in his letter of November 7, 1837, (see post, E,)
says to Prof. Morse:
"It seems by your request that I should certify as to the time
of the discovery and invention, that you have in your mind the
instrument contrived on board the Sully," &c.
Here is a distinct admission that the request contained in letter
A was received; for if no request prior to Morse's letter of September 18 had been received, he would have said so.
We deem this evidence conclusive that both letters, A and B,
were sent and received.
(C.)
Dr. Jackson's reply.
BANGOR, September 10, 1837.
S. P. B. MORSE, Esq.
"Dear Sir: Mrs. Jackson has forwarded to me your favor of
the 28th ultimo, in which you give me some account of the success of our Electric Telegraph. I have seen several notices of it in
the newspapers, but observe that my name is not connected with
the discovery. I am greatly rejoiced to learn that you have been
successful in the trials of its power. This, I felt confident, would
be the result, as there are various ways of marking at any distance required. In the application of the electro-magnet, I had
proposed to mark in actual type, having a packet of 24 wires for
the conductors to the several magnets, each of which moved a
letter and pressed with great power. I have several other applications of electro-magnetism that I shall soon bring to bear on
the useful arts. Nothing but the urgency of my present avocations could have prevented me from making public exhibitions in
the lecture room, of my new applications. I have drawings of
several instruments, and hope next winter to make public trials
of the experiments, and shall not publish anything until the work
is done and perfected.
"I suppose that the reason why my name was not attached to
the invention of the Electric Telegraph, is simply that the editor
did not know that the invention was our mutual discovery. It is,
I supposed, an accidental inadvertency of the editors; I trust you
will take care that the proper share of credit shall be given to me,
when you make public all your doings. In the mean time it will




49
give me great pleasure to aid in forwarding this great work as
far as my time will allow.
"I should suppose from what I see in the newspapers, that animal magnetism was going to compete with us in carrying on
distant communication.
"Very truly, your friend,
"C. T. JACKSON.
(D.)
Professor Morse's Rejoinder.
NEW YORK CITY UNIVERSITY, September 18, 1837.
To Dr. CHARLES T. JACKSON:
My dear Sir: Yours of the 10th instant, from Bangor, I have
received, and I lose no time in endeavoring to disabuse your mind
of an error into which it has fallen, in regard to the Electro-Magnetic Telegraph. You speak of it as " out Electric Telegraph,"
and as a "mutual discovery." I am persuaded that when you
shall recall the circumstances as they occurred on board the ship,
and shall also be informed of the nature of the invention of which
I claim to be the sole and original inventor, you will no longer
be surprised that your name was not connected with mine in the
late announcement of the invention. I have a distinct recollee,
tion of the manner, the place, and the moment, when the thought
of making an electric wire the means of communicating intelligence, first came into my mind, and was uttered. It was at the
table in the cabin, just after we had completed the usual repast
at mid-day; you were on one side of the table and I upon the
other. We were conversing on the recent scientific discoveries
in Electro-Magnetism, and the experiments of Ampere with the
Electro-Magnet; you were describing the length ofwire in the
coil of a magnet, and the question was asked by one of the passengers if the electricity was not retarded by the length of wire.
You replied, no; that electricity passed instantaneously over any
known length of wire, and you then alluded in proof; to the experiment by Dr. Franklin, who had made many miles in circuit near
(London in) Philadelphia, to ascertain the velocity of electricity,
but could observe no difference of time between the touch at one
extremity and the spark at the other. I then femarked, this being
so, if the presence of electricity can be made visible in any desired
-part of the circuit, I see no reason why intelligence might not be
transmitted instantaneously by electricity. You gave your assent
that it was possible. The conversation was not diverted by this
remark of mine, frbm the details of the experiments you were describing, which was! the obtaining of a spark from the magnet, nor
was this: thought of the telegraph again mentioned, until I intro4




50
duced the subject the next day. While your own mind was, du.
ring the voyage, more occupied with other branches of science, of
geology and anatomy, the thought which I had conceived took
firm possession of my mind, and as you well know, occupied the
wakeful hours of the night; for I used to report occasionally to
you and to several of the other passengersmy progress, and to ask
you questions in regard to the best mode of ascertaining the presence of electricity. I had devised a system of signs, and constructed a species of type which I drew out in my sketch book, by which
to regulate the passage of electricity; but I had not settled the
best mode of causing the electricity to mark. Several methods
suggested themselves to me, such as causing a puncture to be
made in a paper by the passage of a spark between two disconnected parts, &c., which I soon discarded as impracticable. I
asked you if there was not some mode of decompostion which
could be turned fo account. You suggested the following experiment, which we agreed should be tried together, if we could meet
for that purpose. It was this: to decompose, by the electricity,
glauber salts, upon the paper which was first to be colored with
tumeric. This, to me, seemed so simple and easy a mode, that I
fell in with the idea, and we agreed to try this experiment as soon
as possible after our landing. In my occasibnal visits to Boston,
since my return from Europe, I have always endeavored to see
you, and never saw you, as you well know, without introducing
the subject of the telegraph, and expressing a wish that the experiment we had talked of might be tried. You were always
otherwise busily and necessarily engaged, and the experiment
was never tried. I really do not see the ground of your claim to
be a mutual discoverer, even if we had tried the experiment proposed and it had been successful. This fact would not have constituted you a mutual discoverer, but it might have made you a
partner in a certain sense of the invention. The discovery is
the original suggestion of conveying intelligence by electricity.
The invention is devising the mode of conveying it. The discovery, so far as we alone are concerned, belongs to me, and it must
of necessity belong exclusively to one; and, if by an experiment
which we proposed  t try together, we had mutually fixed upon a
successful mode of conveying intelligence, then might we with some
propriety be termed mutual or joint inventors. But as we have
neither tried any experiment together, nor has the one proposed to
be tried by you been adopted by me, I cannot see how we can be
called mutual inventors. You are not aware, perhaps, that the
mode I have carried into effect, after many and various experiments with the assistance of my colleague, Prof. Gale, was never
mentioned, either by you or to you. The plan of marking by my
peculiar type, and the use which I make of the electro magnet, was
entirely original with me; all the machinery has been elaborated




51
without a hint from you of any kind, in the remotest degree. I am
the sole inventor; indeed had you been aware of these facts, I am
sure you would not have preferred a claim to be a co-inventor in
an instrument wholly mine. You say " I trust that you will take
care that the proper share of credit shall be given me when you
make public your doings." This I have always done, and with.pleasure I have always given you credit for great genius and acquirements, and have always said, in giving any account of my
telegraph, that it was on board the ship, during a scientific conversation with you, that I first conceived the thought of an Electric
Telegraph. Is there really any more you will claim, or that I
could in truth or justice give? I have acknowledgments of similar kinds to make to Professor Silliman and Professor Gale, to the
former of whom I am under the same obligations, in kind and degree, as to yourself, and to the latter, I am most of all indebted for
substantial and effective aid in many of my experiments. If any
one has a claim to be mutual inventors, on the score of aid by hints,
it is Professor Gale,'but he prefers no claim of the kind. I certainly have no cause of complaint because you were never at leisure when I was in Boston, to try the experiment which we agreed
together to try; but you will see in a moment that I should have
just reason to complain, if after repeated disappointments in this
respect, and after having availed myself of a different method, and
one entirely my own, to carry into effect my original invention,
you should prefer a claim to partnership in it, because we had
once conferred together on an experiment never tried.
But I need not reason with you, my dear sir; I am sure it is
only necessary to present you this statement of the facts in the
case, to induce you at once to perceive the injustice you would
lo me by persisting to prefer any claim to a partnership in my invention. My object in writing you the last time, was not only to
inform you of my success, which I thought would be gratifying to
you as a friend, and the means I employed in effecting my object;
but I was in hopes of your testimony to the fact that I invented
it and elaborated it on the voyage from France, in 1832. I desired this testimony that I might successfully claim for our country
the priority of invention which is its due; and I cannot but yet
hope, that you will furnish me with this evidence, to put side by
side with that of the other passengers of the Sully, who have furnished me with full testimony to that effect. Let me know your
intention, for your letter has embarrassed me much, and I will
trust to your honor and sense of justice to relieve me from suspense with as little delay as possible.
Believe me, dear sir, as ever,
truly your friend and servant,
(Signed)         SAM'L. F. B. MORSE.




52
(E.)
Dr. Jackson's Answer,
" BOSTON, I'ovember 7, 1 S7<
"SAM'L. F. B. MORSE 
"My dear Sir: On my return from the forests of Maine last
Friday I found your letter of 18th September last, which contains
a claim to the Electro-Magnetic Telegraph as your own exclusive invention. This claim of yours is to me a matter of surprise
and regret, for I have always entertained the highest opinion of
your honor and fairness, and should be very sorry to have any
reason to change my opinion of your character. It becomes me,
however, to claim and to sustain that portion of the honor of the
discovery and invention which is my due, and I cannot think that
you would wilfully endeavor to deprive me of any thing that
properly belongs to me, but that you have led yourself into the
erroneous belief that you had a right to more than I think you
can justly claim in this invention. This I suppose may have
arisen from your having thought of and talked so much on this
subject. I trust to your candor and sense of justice to make
suitable amends, and, if I am not mistaken in yourscharacter, you
will certainly do so when you have taken a retrospective glance
again to the history of the invention. It seems, by your request,
that I should certify as to the time of the discovery and invention,
that you have in your mind the instrument contrived on board
the Sully during our passage in company, in your return voyage
from France in October, 1832. But you subsequently insinuate
that there is another and wholly different instrument in contemplation now, which you pretend that I know nothing about.
"This is a strange inconsistency which I cannot reconcile. I
will, however, confine my remarks to the invention made on
board the Sully. You say that you'have a distinct recollection
of the'manner, time, and place, and the moment when the thought
of making an electric wire the means of communicating intelligence first came into your mind and was uttered.' If you have
this vivid recollection you cannot refuse your assent to the following remarks, for I remember, too, and am happily endowed
with a strong and retentive memory as to the facts. In. the first
place, you will acknowledge that you were at that time wholly
unacquainted with the history and management of electricity
and electro-magnetism, while I was perfectly familiar with the
subject, it having been one of my favorite studies from boyhood
to the present hour, and I had enjoyed every possible advantagein acquiring a full knowledge of the subject during my studies in
the scientific schools of Paris and elsewhere. Now, in what manner did the discovery and invention arise, and to whom are the
suggestions due? I was enthusiastically describing the curious
and wonderful properties of electricity and electro-magnetism,




53
before yourself, Mr. Rives, Mr. Fisher, and others, at table after
dinner, while the company were all listeners, and, as appeared to
me, were somewhat incredulous, they knowing little or nothing
of the subject. I mentioned, among many other things, that I
had seen the electric spark pass instantaneously without any
appreciable loss of time, four hundred times around the great
lecture room of the Sorbonne. This evidently surprised the
company, and I then asked if they had not read of Dr. Franklin's
experiment, in which he caused electricity to go a journey of
twenty miles by means of a wire stretched up the Thames, the
water being made a portion of the circuit? The answer was.from yourself, that you had not read it. After a short discussion
as to the instantaneous nature of the passage, one of the party,
either, Mr,Rives or Mr. Fisher, said it would be well if we could
send news in the same rapid manner. To which you replied,'Why, can't we?' I then proceeded to inform you, in answer to
your questions, how it might be done:
" st. I observed that electricity might be made visible in any
part of the circuit by dividing the wire, when a spark would be
seen at the intersection.
"2d. That it could be made to perforate paper if interposed between the disconnected wires.
" 3d. Saline compounds inight be decomposed so as to produce
colors on paper.
"The 2d and 3d projects were finally adopted for a future trial,
since they could be made to furnish permanent records. The
saline substances mentioned were certa'in salts of lead, such as
the acetate and carbonate, which an interrupted electro-galvanic
current would decompose, and leave a black mark on the prepared paper.
"Next, tumeric paper was to be dipped in a neutral salt, say
sulphate of soda, and then acted upon by a galvanic current.
This would produce brown marks, from the presence of free disengaged alkali. Platina points were proposed to effect the
changes of color. I then observed, that it would be easy to devise a method of reading the markings. Here the conversation
changed for a while, and was resumed by you the next day, after
breakfast. You then questioned me again on every point of the
conversation, and said that you had been thinking much about it;
and, pencil in hand, proposed a method of decyphering the marking, the dots and marks being made regularly. This was a subject of discussion, and we both took part in it, but I acknowledge
that you did most in planning the numeration of the marks. You
at first proposed, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,, 7, 8, 9, 0, and subsequently reduced
the number to five figures and a 0. Now, as to the invention, I
beg leave to remark, that I knew every experiment mentioned,
from my own frequent practice in making them. It was to me
nb unwrought problem, but a matter of absolute certainty. I




54~
was not making conjectures, but reporting the facts of chemical
and physical-science. Hence, since I had performed all the experiments in detail, and had here brought together for a specific
purpose, I was, so far as they are concerned, the true inventor,
and I do claim to be the principal in the whole invention made on
beard the Sully. It arose wholly from my materials, and was put
together at your request, by me. This you certainly will not
pretend to dispute. I give you full credit for your ingenious suggestions as to the divisions in the markings, which you certainly
did propose. You will not, I presume, venture to maintain that
you at that time knew any thing about electro-magnetism, more
than what you learned from me. If I wanted any other proof,
beyond your own confession, I should only have to recall to mind
your futile attempt (after your arrival in New York) at making
a galvanic battery, and the plan of types, levers, &c., which were
wholly impracticable, and demonstrated to me that you did not
understand the subject. I pointed out to you your errors, and
promised, as soon as I should, have time, to take up the subject
with you, and perform this part of the invention. I have ever,
when I met you, been free in my communications, and only
wanted leisure to devote a few weeks to our invention. You
know why I have not been able to have any spare time. The
trouble brought on me by an unfaithful agent while I was absent
from home plunged me in pecuniary difficulties at my outset in
practice, and kept me for a year or more embroiled in lawsuits
occasioned by his'frauds. Then the struggle in the outset in
medical practice; since then, the charge of a high and responsible duty to the governments of two States as their geological
surveyor. These are sufficient reasons. I never lost sight of the
Telegraph, and have done more towards it than you are perhaps
aware. I do not know how or where you used the electro-mag-,
net for marking, but I have proof enough to show that I had produced a lever-beam motion with mine for that purpose as long
ago as the spring of 1834, and, as I wrote in my last letter, I could
mark in real type. I am certainly desirous of doing you justice
to the fullest extent, and have always spoken of your merits as I
hope I shall always have occasion to do. I am also anxious that
our country should bear a due proportion of honor in every useful
invention, when she deserves the credit by the labor of her men
of genius. But I will not do wrong to any one, either for man,
friends, country, or myself. Honor to whom honor is due shall
be my motto, and I must, I believe, fail in this duty, if I should
say that the first idea of an Electro-Magnetic Telegraph was
conceived by an American citizen. I have searched the archives
of science, and find that the first idea of such an instrument was
conceived by Soemering, who proposed an Electro-Magnetic Telegraph. Oersted, of Copenhagen, also invented one. Ampere
says, it is easy to construct an Electro-Magnetic Telegraphs




55
(See Ampere, Expose des Nouvelles Decouvertes sur L'electricite
et le Magnetisme. Paris, 1822. Page 71.) The discovery* is
not, then, to be claimed by us. I have invented a new instrument; so perhaps you have, for I do not yet know what your new
one is, since you say I have not seen it, nor heard about it beyond
your announcement. If yours is new I congratulate you upon
the invention, but I can give no certificate beyond what you will
find in this letter.
"Most respectfully, your friend,
"C. T. JACKSON.
"P. S. I did not read this in Ampere until three years since,
although I have owned the book since 1832, and when I saw you
last I forgot to mention to you that he had conceived the idea of
such a telegraph. I had read portions of the book before, but not
that section."
(Post marked November 8, directed, "Prof. Sam'l F. B. Morse,
New York city.")
(F.)
Professor Morse's Second Rejoinder.
NEW YORK CITY UNIVERSITY, December 7, 1837.
To Dr. CHARLES T. JACKSON:
DEAR SIR: When yours of the 7th November arrived in New
York, I was absent in New Jersey, and coniled by (sudden severe) illness to my bed for several days. I take the earliest opportunity to reply to it, which my various engagements would
allow.
It is with the deepest regret after the attempt I made in my
last to disabuse your mind of its errors on the subject of the telegraph, that I perceive the danger of a collision with you to be more
imminent than at first. Unless I can succeed in convincing you
how entirely without foundation is the claim to be a "mutual inventor," which in your first letter you set up; and still more, unless you retract from your recent further encroachment, in claiming to be "principal in the invention" on board the Sully, colision is inevitable, and it will then be impossible, in the present
state of my invention, to settle the matter without such an appeal
to the laws as must be made public, and which, in whatever way
decided, will be attended with consequences of a very unpleasant
character to both of us. These results I would avoid if possible,
and in hope of adjusting matters, privately and amicably, I venture once more to argue the case with you, and will endavor to
convince you that you are under a most serious delusion on this
subject; the origin of which delusion I think I can show you.
* "In your sense of the word, refer to your letter."




56
Your memory and mine are at variance in regard to the first suggestion of conveying intelligence by electricity. I claim to be the
one who made it, and in the way which I stated in my letter to
you. You acknowledge that the suggestion was made by one of
the company and not by yourself, and so doubtful are you by
whom it was made, that, although your memory serves you up to
the point of giving it to one of two others, rather than to me, yet
your memory there fails, and you do not know which of the two it
was. Now, sir, it was neither Mr. Fisher nor Mr. Rives who
suggested that thought. I suggested it, and in consequence proceeded to found upon it my whole invention. Had not the thought
been original with me, I could not have dwelt upon it with any
satisfaction. The idea that I had made a brilliant discovery, that
it was original, in my mind was the exciting cause, and the perpetual stimulus to urge me forward in maturing it to a result.
Had I supposed at that time that the thought had ever occurred
to any other person, I could never have pursued it; and it was
not till I had completed my present invention, that 1 was aware
that the thought of conveying intelligence by electricity had occurred to scientific men some years before. This thought was
suggested to my mind by a well known fact, recalled to my mem-'
ory in your account of a magnetic experiment; a fact of which
you say I confessed ignorance, to wit: The experiment of Franklin on the velocity of electricity. If, indeed, you asked the company if they had not read of Franklin's experimet with 20 miles.
of wire, &c., and that the reply was from myself, that I had not
read it, your memory is doubtless correct; for I had not read it,
and bave not read it, nor can I find, after much inquiry, any one
except yourself who ever heard of it; but if you alluded, as I
think you did, to Franklin's experiment of about 4 miles, at
Shooter's Hill, this fact was familiar to me, probably before your
birth.
After having given my suggestion to another, you make me
answer it by asking you "why can't we;" and to this question
you represent yourself as having immediately given a methodical
answer, which implies that the whole idea of an Electric Telegraph was then, not only perfectly familiar with you, but that
the modes of carrying it into execution were also as familiar as
any common chemical experiment. Now, if your memory is good,
you must be conscious that this is altogether incorrect; that it is
impossible that it should be correct, since the very thought was
new to all, and required at least a little time to devise modes of
carrying it into effect. You must be sensible that my suggestion
of the possibility of conveying intelligence by electricity, was
episodical; it did not change the current of your remarks from
electro-magnetism, upon which you were discoursing, nor did you
make a remark concerning a-telegraph, until I called your attention to it the next day; as the thought was suggested by me, so it




57
dwelt in my mind; I cherished it as an antidote to ennui, maturing
my invention principally in the sleepless hours of the night. With
this invention I was so absorbed, that I thought of little else, and
I was in the habit of reporting progress almost daily to the Captain and to several of the other passengers beside yourself. To
you, as a man in whom I thought I could confide, I more especially explained my plan of numbers, intervals, types, &c., and the
machinery for using them.
I had already invented these, and was reviewing in my mind
the various modes of marking at least ten days after my first thinking of the subject, when I consulted you to ascertain if there were
not some sabstance easily decomposed by the simple contact of a
wire in an electric state. It was then, and not till then, that you
suggested tumeric paper dipped in a solution of sulphate of soda.
It was then, and not till then, that you took any interest in
the invention. I proposed to you to try this experiment with
me when we should arrive at home, and here, sir, is the origin of
your error, in thinking yourself entitled on this account to be a
co-inventor. This experiment we were to try together, and if you
had tried it, and had otherwise aided me in the invention, I should
have been willing to share both honors and profits with you.
But you very well know you never tried this nor any other experiment in relation to the telegraph, which you ever reported to me.
You very well know that you never entertained, until lately, since
my invention has been publicly announced, and since the subject
of telegraphs has excited the attention of foreign nations, any interest in it, while I always pressed the subject of the experiment
to be tried when I met you in Boston. You were full of other engagements, and by your manner of always dismissing it as soon
as you could, whenever I introduced it, you showed to me that you
esteemed the matter as of little importance.
Thus it has been for nearly five years. You must be aware,
too, that while you considered my invention as impracticable,
you did not suggest a single hint of any other mode of applying
it. You spoke of my invention of numerals, intervals, levers, type,
&c., which I had drawn out in my sketch book as ingenious, but
impracticable; indeed, in your last letter you assert that my mode
of permanently recording is impracticable, and that you corrected
my errors. How you corrected my errors you don't say, nor what
mode you proposed as a substitute. If you did propose any, you can
doubtless tell what it is. In the letter which I first wrote to you,
informing you of the public announcement of my telegraph, and
requesting the favor of your certificate that I invented it on board
the Sully, in 1832, that I might be prepared against any foreign
claimants-a favor which I expected would have been granted,
I told you as a friend that I had invented a mode of marking by
means of an electro-magnet. You would have me to understand
by your answer that for some three years past you had secretly




58
devised the same plan. I allude to this fact to show you that you
did not then conceive yourself to be a mutual inventor, otherwise
you would not have allowed three years to elapse without disclosing so important a discovery to your partner in the invention.
This is a point that needs explanation; if you considered me a
partner in the invention, you were bound, in honor, at least, to inform me of it. But if you were contriving secretly to supplant
mine, your course is consistent. I shall be loth to adopt the latter
supposition, but if I refuse to adopt it, I cannot think you believed
yourself to be a mutual inventor.
Another cause of your delusion in this matter, is your entire
misconception of the nature of the invention on board the Sully.
You seem not to have asked yourself whether any or how much
knowledge of chemical science was requisite to an Electric Telegraph. You describe a variety of experiments in chemical decomposition, and claiming to be perfectly familiar yourself with
chemical analysis and charging me, not very courteously, with
being entirely ignorant, you have persuaded yourself that the argument is irrefutable in favor of your being the principal inventor. You say that you had collected the materials for that purpose, I being only ignorant, except as you enlightened me. The
invention, you affirm arose wholly from your materials, and this
I would not attempt to dispute. Now, sir, I not only deny that all
the materials were furnished by you, but I deny that I am indebted to you for any single hint of any kind whatever which I have
used in my invention. I go further, sir; I assert that all the consultation I have hitherto had with you on the subject, has had
only the effect to retard my invention, by holding out expectations
that you would try an experiment which you never tried, but
which was necessary to be determined one way or the other, before I cofld advance, conveniently, a single step. I do not charge
you with intentional neglect. I readily allow your excuses for
not trying the experiments, but these excuses do not alter the fact
that your neglect retarded my invention, and compelled me, after
five years delay, to consider the result of that experiment as a
failure, and consequently to devise another mode of applying my
apparatus, a mode entirely original with me. This I have done,
and now you lay your claim to be a partner in the invention.
The only service which could have given you any claim to a share in
the invention you neglected to perform, and then you make your
demands as if you had performed it, and performed it successfully.
My invention on board the Sully is mechanical and mathematical; it had no more to do with chemical science than with geology or anatomy. The single scientific fact ascertained by Franklin, that electricity can be made to travel on a conductor any distance, instantaneously, is all that I needed to know, aside from
mathematics and mechanical science, in order to plan all I invented on board the ship, as any one will be able to see from a mo



59
ment's inspection of my machinery, as there planned. This
machinery consisted chiefly, as you well know, of a system of
signs which were numerals, to be read by intervals; types, and
apparatus to arrange the numbers for transmission, a lever to mark
on the register by closing and breaking the circuit, and a register
moving by clo'ck machinery to receive the marks at the proper
times. So much for the invention at least you very properly concede to me-you allow explicitly in your letter that I invented
these, and now what has chemistry or electro-magnestim to do
with any of them? But these, you say, were "wholly impracticable;" and, as you "pointed out my errors," you, perhaps,
brought your superior knowledge of chemistry and electro-magnetism into the new mode which you suggested, and which was
practicable of course; you can point out then, doubtless, this practicable improvement, or rather substitute for mine. The apparatus which I invented on board the Sully was gradually matured,
and was constructed for and adapted to the use of one wire, or a
single circuit. Now, this you have often asserted to me to be im-'
practicable; and, although you never devised, to my knowledge,
any other method, until I informed you of mine with an electromagnet, you now talk in your letters of using 24 wires and 24
magnets, and of marking in real type. Now, what have these
to do with my invention on board the Sully? The use of 24 wires
was probably adopted by you from a hint of mine in the very outset, for it was my first and most natural thought; but having devised what I considered a much more simple and less expensive
mode, to wit-using one wire-I almost immediately relinquished
the first for my new mode; whether you derived the hint or not
from me, is to me of little consequence, for, provided you use
nothing that was invented by me upon the packet of 24 wires,
you are-at liberty to use them as you please. If you have invented a telegraph of 24 wires, and a "mode of marking in real
type," why do you claim to be a mutual inventor of mine, which
is adapted to one wire or a single circuit, and which you at the
same time pronounce "impracticable?" Your claim to any share
in my impracticable mode is, to say the least, very singular. Unfortunately for the sustainment of your claim, the plan which I
devised on board the ship, the plan of numerals, type, levers, &c.,
which you pronounce wholly impracticable, and the use of one
wire or a single circuit, which you pronounce impracticable, is
the very plan I have now in successful operation. This assertion
you will perhaps again say is inconsistent with what I have said
in my former letter, for you charge me in your last with strange
inconsistency which you cannot reconcile, "because I stated that
in consequence of your not testing by experiment a mode of marking, which we had devised together, I had carried into effect
another mode entirely original with me." The only inconsistency
is in your own misapprehension of my letter. You apply my re



60
mark without any warrant tohe whole invention, whereas, my
letter limits it expressly to a small part, to that only which relates
to the chemical experiment we proposed to try together, to a mode
of marking.
From a review of the whole matter, it is very evident to me
that you have'been led to project, since your arrival home, a telegraph of your own, founded on the intercourse with me on board
the ship, and the free imparting of my invention at that time to
you. I will not complain, although under the circumstances I
might complain, of your intrusion upon my ground. But you will
have to use great circumspection. By this intrusion you have
produced a most delecate position of matters. For by persisting
in your unfounded claim, you will not only deprive me of my rights,
but you necessarily imply a charge against me of depriving you
of your right. On this point, sir, you must perceive the necessity
of treading very cautiously. You will, I hope, publish nothing
which shall implicate me in the slightest degree. A public vindication I should wish to avoid not less on your account and the
general account of science than my own, and I shall avoid it unless you compel me to it by the course you adopt in announcing
your own invention. My invention-the invention on board the
Sully-has for som'e time been entered at the Patent Office. I
have made contracts and formed partnerships in virtue of the rights
secured by me; any infringements of those rights will oblige me
to take a course which, were I unconnected with others, I might
not pursue. For such is my aversion to a difference with any
man, especially a man of science like yourself, that I would, personally, rather suffer the wrong, than by vindicating my rights,
give any occasion for reflection upon the character or disposition
of those whose time and talents ought to be employed in enlarging the bounds of science, and not in settling the merits of mere
personal claims.
Whatever, therefore, I might personally wish, I am so associated
with others that justice will demand a prompt vindication of my
own rights if they are attacked. I have chosen to ascribe your
motives, in asserting so unfounded a claim to my labors, to honest
forgetfulness of the circumstances as they occurred on board the
Sully, and to a misconception of the nature of my invention. And
I trust that no measures on your part will compel me to adopt any
other lesg favorable explanation of your conduct. I therefore yet
hope that this matter can be settled in private, (I have written
plainly for this very end,) and I also hope, if you are determined to
present another Electro-Magnetic Telegraph to the world, you will
do it without clashing with my prior claim. Hoping to have such
an answer as shall clear up rather than increase difficulties,
I am, as ever, in respect for your genius and acquirernerits,
Your most obedient servant,
SAMUEL F. B. MORSE.




(G.)
DriJackson's Article in the Boston Post,
"ELEctRO-MAGNETIC TELEGR.AP.- We are informed that the invention of the Electro-Ma.gnetic Telegraph, which has been claimed by Mr. S. F. B. Morse, of New York, is entirely due to our fellow-citizen, Dr. Charles T. Jackson, who first conceived the idea
of such an instrument during his return voyage from Europe in
the packet ship Sully, in October, 1832.
"Mr. Morse being his fellow-passenger, and having pretended
to feel a great interest in the invention, and a desire to participate in the. experimental trials of the machinery, Dr. Jackson
freely communicated to him and to all the cabin passengers his
various plans for effecting the telegraphic communications.
"Subsequently, Mr. Morse undertook to monopolize the credit
of the invention, when Dr. J. wrote him a friendly remonstrance,
to which a long sophistical reply of a very unsatisfactory character. This was followed by a severe reprimand from Dr. J. with a
detail of all the circumstances of the invention, and of the conversation which took place on board the Sully, when an impudent
answer was returned, giving Dr. J. to understand that Mr. Morse
had taken out a patent for the invention, and was the only inventor known to the laws, and cautioning him as to his proceedings,
In the mean time Mr. Morse was informed, that if he pretended
to publish an account of the instrument in the American Journal
of Science, as he had attempted, that a disclaimer would follow
it, whereupon he withdrew his article. The origin of the idea of
the new Telegraph, as above stated, can be proved by a number
afi the passengers on board the Sully at the time, and Mr. Rives,
the American ambassador to France, Mr. Fisher, of Philadelphia,
and Capt. Pell, of the Sully, having listened to the conversation,
will recollect that Mr. Morse acknowledged himself wholly unacquainted with electro-m;Lgnetism, and that Dr. J. freely informed
him of every particular discovery applicable to the case."
(u.)
S. E. Morse to Dr. Jackson.
"NEW YORK, January 8, 1839.
"DR. CHARLES T. JACKSON:
"Dear Sir: My attention has been called to an article published
a few days since in the Boston Post, in which you are represented
as claiming the invention of the Telegraph, for which my brother
(MTr. S. F. B. Morse) has obtained a patent. My brother, you
may perhaps know, is in Europe, and as it may still be several
months betfre he returns, it naturally devolves on me, in his absence, to protect his reputation and interest when assailed as they
have been in the paper to which I refer. The article in the Post
appears to be editorial, (I have seen it only as copied in the pa



62
pers in this city,) although the statements are of'such a nature
that every reader regardsthem as made,by your authority. If
you are willing to assume the responsibility of the article, I ask
you to give it the sanction of your name. If there is any part of
the article calculated to affect my brother unfavorably, for.wich
you are not willing to be responsible, I ask you to disclaim it. If
you assume the responsibility of the article I will thank you to
specify the part or parts which you claim as your invention.
"I must trust to your sense of justice to give me a prompt answer to this letter, and subscribe myself
"Your obedient servant,
"SIDNEY E. MORSE, 142 Nassau st."
(I.)
Dr. Jackson's Reply.
"BOSTON, January 23, 1839.
SIDNEY E. MORSE 
"Sir: I have the honor of acknowledging the receipt of your
favor of the 18th inst., to which I now reply.
"Thinking it due to the public, and to my own scieptific reputation, that an erroneous account of the origin of the discovery
and invention of an Electro-Magnetic Telegraph, which. was
conceived on board the Sully, October, 1832, should be corrected,
I furnished some data to the editor of the Post, which he was
pleased to put in'his editorial department.
" having no unfriendly feelings towards your brother, and
wishing to correct some wrong opinions which I thought he entertained with regard to his share of the discovery, I wrote a letter, in which all our conversation which took place on board ship
was recapitulated, so that he is in full possession of the facts on
which my claim is founded.
"I had never any intention of confining the right of using the
instrument to myself, for I do not think it evinces a liberal scientific spirit, and hence have never availed myself of the patent
law. I am therefore disinterested, so far as concerns any pecuniary emolument to be derived from the machine. I supposed, by
the movement made in New York, that your brother had returned, and I wished to remind him that he had neglected to give me
the justice I deserved. I stated that an Electric Telegraph could
be easily made, furnished hint with all the necessary data for
making an Electro-Magnetic Telegraph; and I had seen or tried
every experiment to which I referred, while Mr. Morse, I doubt
not, will acknowledge that those principles were then entirely
new to him. I also described certain electro magnets, one of
which I had packed in baggage on board ship, and which I
thought could be used for the above purpose. The idea of using
electricity for telegraphic purposes is somewhat ancient, for in




63
Ampere, (Expose des Nouvelles Decouvertes sur L'electrite et la
Magnetisme, published in Paris, 1822,) it is mentioned, in page
71, that Soemering proposed to act by this, however, on magnetic
needles marked by letters of the alphabet. He also proposed to
observe the decomposition of water in separate vessels, commnunication in both cases being effected by wires. What I claim as my
peculiar discovery is the application of a galvanic current to the
effecting of permanent marking upon paper, either by producing
certain chemical changes on substances laid upon it, or by the use
of electro-magnets to print distinct characters, which may be done
at indefinite distances by means of wire communicalions. I also
proposed several other methods in addition, which it will be ntnecessary for me to enumerate again, as they are included in my letter-to vour brother with the above. If I understand your brother
correctly, he includes the above principles in his specifications, and
if such is the fact he should have given me the credit which is my
due. If you will send me a copy of his specifications, and 1 find
therein any essential principles which I did not propose, or any
parts which 1 did not describe to him, I will cheerfully acknowledge
the same in a public manher, provided he makes acknowledgments in a like manner satisfactory to me.
"Your obedient servant,   "CHARLES T. JACKSON."
(Post marked Boston, Jaruary 25; directed Sidney E. Morse,
Esq., 142 Nassau street, New York.)
(K.)
Prof. Morse's Reply to Dr. Jackson's Article.-From the Boston
Morning Post.
"THE ELECTRO-MAGNETIC TELEGRAPH.
"Mr. EDITOR: In the month of January last, during my absence
in Europe, an article appeared in your journal, and was thence
copied into other papers, claiming for Dr. Charles T. Jackson, of
Boston, the invention of an Electro-Magnetic Telegraph. Dr.
Jackson, in a letter to my brother, acknowledges himself the author of that article, and has thus made himself responsible for its
calumnious statements. He states that he invented the Telegraph on board the packet ship Sully, on her voyage from Havre
to New York, in the autumn of 1837, and for the truth of his
assertions he appeals to Capt. Peel, of the Sully, and to our
fellow-passengers, the Hon. Mr. Rives, of Virginia, and Mr.
Fisher. of Philadelphia. These gentlemen have heard of this
claim of Dr. Jackson with astonishment. 1 have a letter from
each of them, asserting unequivocally my exclusive claims to the
invention, and one of them, at least, has expressed not only surprise but indignation at the reference made to him by Dr. Jackson; for, as he observes, it was notorious that the Telegraph was
the subject of conversation at almost every meal during the latter




64
part of the, voyage; that I was spoken to, and, spoken of, as the
Inventor, and tha, too, constantly, and in presence of Dr. Jackson, who put forth at that time no claim to any participation
whatever in the invention )r. r Jackson, in his article in the
Post, seems desirious ofleaveing the impression that he must have
been the inventor of the Telegraph, because he was so much
better acquainted than myself with chemistry and electro-magnetism. I have no disposition to deny Dr. Jackson's superior
knowledge in these branches of science, but every one acquainted
with my machine knows very well that it did not require any
profound knowledge of these sciences to invent it. I needed only
to know such facts as are contained in the elementary treatises
on these sciences. It is true that these facts were recalled to my
memory in conversation with Dr. Jackson, as also with others of
my fellow-passengers. In a particular instance, I inquired of Dr.
Jackson if there were not some substances which would be so
easily decomposed by the electric fluid that simple contact with
a wire in an electric state would show a mark. I wished to use
it to mark the signs I had planned to convey inteligence. He
suggested, that if tumeric paper, dipped in a solution of sulphate
of soda, were brought in contact with my wire when in an electric state, the salt might be decomposed, and leave a brown mark
on the paper. I was pleased with the suggestion, and proposed
that on our arrival we should try the experiment together. Accordingly, on exery visit to Boston for several years afterwards, I
called on Dr. Jackson and proposed trying the experiment, but he
always made his numerous and pressing engagements a reason
for postponing it, and whether he has tried the experiment to this
day I know not.
"It is sufficient for me to say that it is not the mode of mark-:
ing which 1 use in my machine, and I am at a loss, therefore, to
conceive on what ground Dr. Jackson can claim to be a participator in my invention; for certainly he did not suggest and one of
its mechanical movements, and every one acquainted with my
Telegraph knows that its merit is entirely mechanical.
"If tfrther evidence were needed of the absurdity of' Dr.
Jackson's claim to my invention, it may be found in the correspondence he had with me on the subject in 1837, in which he
pronounces the essential parts of my invention, which are now in
successful operation "impracticable," and proposes a mode of his
own, not only bearing no resemblance to mine, but so awkward
and complicated as to convince every one wivo has read his letter
that he could not have been the inventor of my Telegraph.
"With respect, your obedient servant
SAMUEL F.B. MaORSE,
"Editors who have copied Dr. Jackson's article are requested
to publish this reply.
"NEW YORK CITY UNIVEESITY, May, 14, 1849."