W'X SHAFFNER’S 1 TELEGRAPH COMPANION, DEVOTED TO THE SCIENCE AND ART OF THE MORSE AMERICAN TELEGRAPH* vot. i. JANUARY, 1854. No. 1. Art. I—THE AMERICAN ELECTRO-MAGNETIC TELEGRAPH. By Hon. Amos Kendall, An extract from an Argument submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States. to Seldom, if ever, lias a more important case been brought be- ^ fore ^e Supreme Court of the United States for its decision. It is important on account of the pecuniary interests in¬ volved in it; it is important as involving the fame of a dis¬ tinguished citizen, and through him, to some extent, the fame h of our c °mnion country. It is transcendency important in the y principles of patent law which it presents for final decision bv . this tribunal. J It is now to be tested whether Prof. Morse is to share the fate of so many distinguished inventors, who have gone before him, whether individuals or the public, eager to possess the : fruits of his mental labor before they rightfully become public Property, shall be permitted to gratify their cupidity ; whether ' ^ rof - Morse, like the inventor of the cotton gin, is to lose the ^profits of his invention, while thousands of his instruments the originality of which no man doubts, resound throughout the land, almost in the presence of the tribunal which must decide upon his patents. S 11 1S n ow to be tested, whether American courts are here- . ^ alter to consider patent privileges as the price paid by the Go- vernment for the fruits of mental labor, to be held as sacred iom piracy, theft, or trespass, as any other species of private propei ty ; or whether, like the English courts for a long period now happily at an end, they are still to confound them with 343641 2 shaffner’s telegraph companion. odious monopolies, of what, before the issue of the special grants, had become the property of the public. It is now to be tested, whether American courts, as the English courts so long did, are hereafter to look to machinery or instrumentalities as the only objects to be protected by pa¬ tents, and avail themselves of errors or variances in structure or description, not fatal to the result, for the purpose of annulling patent rights; or whether they shall look through the means to the end, as the real object of protection, and in their decisions secure the results to the inventor, if arrived at by any mode in¬ telligibly described by him, especially if the process be new. We confidently assert, that if this court come up to the prin¬ ciples established by the highest courts in England, enough is admitted by our adversaries to entitle us to a decree in our favor. A leading principle decided in England is, that when an inventor has by a new principle or a new application of a known principle, power or substance, produced a new result, or an improved result, and has intelligibly described the man¬ ner in which he uses those means, they being of his own inven¬ tion, and has patented his means, nobody can deprive him of the exclusive use of his new principle, or new application, or new result, by any improved or different means. At page 11 of Mr. Chase’s printed argument, he asks, “ What Morse actually invented ?” and he proceeds to reply, “ He invented the first practically useful marking Telegraph .” “The evidence in this case,” says he, “I freely admit must satisfy the court, that though his patent and the practical appli¬ cation of his invention, were subsequent in date to some foreign patents and to the actual construction of some foreign tele¬ graphs, still, his was the first practically usefully marking tele¬ graph. For that telegraphy beyond a doubt , he was entitled to a patent .” It is also admitted, that Morse invented the means by which this new and useful* result was accomplished. “ Morse,” says the learned counsel, attached a marker to the armature of the magnet. He brought the paper and its revolving cylinder within the stroke of the marker. He adopted a contrivance for withdrawing the marker from contact with the paper at the instant of the cessation of the magnetic impulse. The combina¬ tion of these contrivances, with the known means of operation from the distant station, enabled him to produce marks at a dis¬ tance, &c.” Again: “It occurred to him [Morse] that the motion which previous discoverers and inventors had been able to produce by means of electro-magnetism, might be made to mark dots and horizontal lines. A simple contrivance sufficed for this.” THE AMERICAN ELECTRO-MAGNETIC TELEGRAPH. a Though we by no means concede, that these admissions cover all of Morse’s invention, or any considerable part of it, yet they cover enough to secure to him not only those means, but the new result obtained by their use. Having been the first to invent a practically useful marking Electro-Magnetic Tele¬ graph by any contrivances, however simple, which “ occurred to him,” or were by him invented, and which he has intelligibly described in his patent, he is entitled to the exclusive use of marking for telegraphic purposes by any mode in which Electro- Magnetism is the essential agent. There are in fact two distinct grounds on which his general claim rests. First . He makes a new application of a known power to pro¬ duce an useful result. Secondly. He produces a useful result never before produced by any power. But for one branch of our argument, the two may be re¬ solved into one ,—a new result produced, by a new application of a known power ,—a result which our adversaries admit to be new and produced by means of contrivances which they admit to be his. There are many cases in the English books tending to estab¬ lish the principle that an inventor, who has produced a new result or a result in any degree useful by a new application of a known agent, may, by giving to the public an intelligible descrip¬ tion of the means he uses, those means being of his own inven¬ tion, secure to himself through a patent for the means, an exclu¬ sive right to the new application and its result against inter¬ ference by any other means. The leading case, and the only one it is necessary to present in any detail, is that of Neilson’s Patent for what was called the Hot Air Blast. Cold air injected by a bellows had previously been used to produce heat in furnaces employed in the production and manu¬ facture of iron. Neilson perceived that a large portion of the heat generated in the furnace, was absorbed in heating the cold air, and he conceived the idea that if the air could be heated before it went into the furnace, the heat of the furnace-fire ab¬ sorbed in that process, would be saved, by which means the furnace could be made much hotter. To carry out his idea he constructed and patented a clumsy iron box placed between the blower and furnace through which the air must pass, and under the box he put a fire to heat the air in its transit. His patent was denominated, a patent “for the improved appli¬ cation of air to produce heat in fires , forges , and furnaces where bellows or other blowing apparatus are required the only instru¬ mentality described being the iron box with a fire under it be¬ tween the blowef and the furnace. 4 shaffner’s telegraph companion. The discovery proved to be of vast public utility, and his mode of heating the air was greatly improved by various devices, among which was the substitution of iron pipes for his clumsy iron box. The parties who had substituted other modes for heating the air, maintained, as the appellants in this case do, that Neilson’s patent was for his mode of heating the air only , and as they used different modes, they were not infringers. Neilson on the other hand maintained, that being the first to conceive the idea, and having rendered it useful by one mode of his own invention, he was entitled to the exclusive right of using the hot blast by all modes during the existence of his patent. The opposing Council in that case, as our adversaries do in this, insisted that the patentee was entitled only to the mode described in his patent, that a patent covering all modes would be a pa¬ tent for a principle ; and they were alert as our adversaries are in this case, to point out how very little the patentee had invented. And little indeed it was in that case. The manufacture of iron was old ; the furnace was old ; the fuel was old; the blower was old ; hot air was old ; iron boxes were old;—not a single new thing was used by him—nothing equal to the “ simplest contri¬ vance ” in Morse’s Telegraph. He did nothing whatever in the way of invention, but to put a few old things together, and that not in a very satisfactory manner. The reported litigation upon this patent occupies upwards of 150 pages in Webster’s Keports of Patent Cases. It was con¬ tested with all the talent, zeal and perseverance which unlimited means could command: after appearing in various shapes in the English Courts, a case involving its validity and extent went by appeal from the Court of Sessions in Scotland up to the House of Lords. A long, lucid, and most able charge was given to the Jury by the Court below, to which exceptions were taken; and upon those exceptions, the case was taken up. To show dis¬ tinctly that the House of Lords decided upon the question now at issue, we are obliged to quote somewhat extensively from this charge to the jury. In that address the learned Judge spoke as follows: viz. “It is quite true, that a patent cannot be taken out solely for an abstract philosophical principle: for instance for any law of nature, or any property of matter apart from any mode of turn¬ ing it to account in the practical operations of manufacture, or to the business, and arts, and utilities of life. The mere discov¬ ery of such a principle, is not an invention in the patent law- sense of the term. Stating such a principle in a patent, may be a promulgation of the principle, but it is no application of the principle to any practical purpose; and without that application of the principle to a practical object and end, and without the THE AMERICAN ELECTRO-MAGNETIC TELEGRAPH. 5 application of it to human industry, or to the purposes of hu¬ man enjoyment, a person cannot in the abstract, appropriate a principle to himself. But a patent will be good, though the sub¬ ject of the patent consists in the discovery of a great, general, and most comprehensive principle in science or law of nature, if that principle is by the specification applied to any special purpose, so as thereby to effectuate a practical result and bene¬ fit not previously attained. “ The main merit, the most important part of the invention may consist in the conception of the original idea—in the dis¬ covery of the principle in science, or of the law of nature, sta¬ ted in the patent, and little or no pains may have been taken in working out the best manner and mode of the application of the principle to the purpose set forth in the patent. But still, if the principle is stated to be applicable to any special purpose, so as to produce any result previously unknown in the way and for the objects described, the patent is good. It is no longer an abstract principle, it comes to be a principle turned to account, to a practical object, and applied to a special result. It becomes then not an abstract principle, which means a principle considered apart from any special purpose or practical operation, but the discovery and statement of a principle for a special purpose, that is, a practical invention, a mode of carrying a principle into effect. That such is the law, if a well-known principle is ap¬ plied for the first time to produce a practical result for a special purpose, has never been disputed. “It would be very strange and unjust to refuse the same le¬ gal effect, when the inventor has the additional merit of discov¬ ering the principle, as well as its application to a practical object. The instant that a principle, although discovered for the first time, is stated, in actual application to, and as the agent of, pro¬ ducing a certain specified effect, it is no longer an abstract prin¬ ciple ; it is then clothed with the language of practical applica¬ tion, and receives the impress of tangible direction to the actual business of human life. Is it any objection then, in the next place, to such a patent, that terms descriptive of the application to a certain specified result, include every mode of applying the principle or agent so as to produce that specified result, although one mode may not be described more than another ? Although one mode may be infinitely better than another, although much greater benefit would result from the application of the princi¬ ple by one method, than by another—although one method may be much less expensive than another? Is it, I next inquire, an objection to the patent, that in its application of a new princi¬ ple to a certain specified result, it includes every variety of mode of applying the principle according to the general state- 6 shaffner’s telegraph companion. ment of the object and benefit to be attained? Yon will ob¬ serve that the greater part of the Defendant’s case is truly di¬ rected to this objection. This is a question of law, and I must tell you distinctly, that this generality of claim, that is, for all modes of applying the principle to the purpose specified, accord¬ ing to, or within a general statement of the object to be attained, and of the use to be made of the agent to be so applied, is no objection whatever to the patent. That the application or the use of the agent for the purpose specified, may be carried out in a great variety of ways, only shows the beauty, and simplicity, and comprehensiveness of the invention. But the scientific and general utility of the proposed application of the principle, if directed to a specified purpose, is not an objection to its becom¬ ing the subject of a patent. “ That the proposed application may be very generally adopt¬ ed in a great variety of ways, is the merit of the invention, not a legal objection to the patent.” * * * -x- * * % 11 1 state to you the law to be, that you may obtain a patent for a mode of carrying a principle into effect; and if you sug¬ gest and discover, not only the principle, but suggest and invent how it may be applied to a practical result by mechanical con¬ trivance and apparatus, and show that you are aware that no particular sort, or modification, or form of the apparatus is es¬ sential in order to obtain benefit from the principle, then you may take your patent for the mode of carrying it into effect, and are not under the necessity of describing and confining your¬ self to one form of apparatus. Tf that were necessary, you see what would be the result. Why that a patent could hardly ever be obtained for any mode of carrying a newly discovered principle into practical results, though the most valuable of all discoveries. For the best form and shape, or modification of apparatus, cannot, in matters of such vast range, and requiring observation on such a great scale, be attained at once; and so the thing would become known, and so the right lost, long be¬ fore all the various kinds of apparatus could be tried. Hence you may generally claim the mode of carrying the principle into effect by mechanical contrivance, so that any sort of apparatus applied in the way stated, will, more or less, produce the benefit, and you are not tied down to any form!” ****** tc I have to tell you in point of law, that under this patent not claiming any or the best contrivance for heating the air, and at the least expense and trouble, the result which actually followed, viz.: that persons in the trade and acting on the patent, contriv¬ ed from time to time, a great variety of contrivances more or less valuable or costly, and at last came to settle generally into THE AMERICAN ELECTRO-MAGNETIC TELEGRAPH. 7 one form as better than others, was exactly the result which might be expected to follow under a patent of this general char¬ acter, and that if the patent is good in law, then it gave no form of apparatus for heating air, but claimed the contrivance gener¬ ally, of heating the blast for the effect and end of producing heat in the furnace. The only point for you is, will any con¬ trivance which heats the blast, produce that beneficial effect and end ?” The subject was fully discussed by Counsel before the House of Lords, and by the Lords themselves, and that august Tribu¬ nal, so far as appears, without a dissenting voice, decided the law to be as laid down in the foregoing extracts from the charge to the Jury. On that o'ccasion Lord Campbell made the following remarks, viz.: 11 The other exceptions, till we come to the 11th, turn upon the construction of the patent. How in one stage of these pro¬ ceedings, I certainly did entertain some doubt on that subject. But after the construction put upon it by the learned Judges of the Exchequer, sanctioned by the high authority of my noble and learned friend now upon the woolsack, when presiding in the Court of Chancery, I think the patent must be taken to ex¬ tend to all machines of whatever construction, whereby the air is heated intermediately between the blowing apparatus and the blast furnace. That being so, the learned Judge was perfectly justified in telling the Jury, that it was unnecessary for them to compare one apparatus with another, because, confessedly, that system of conduit pipes was a mode of heating air by an inter¬ mediate vessel between the blowing apparatus and the blast fur¬ nace, and therefore it was an infraction of the patent.” Thus it was decided by the Courts of England and Scotland, including the House of Lords, substantially in the language of the exceptions, that the patentee, being the discoverer of a new principle, and the inventor of means, however simple and imper¬ fect, by which he has rendered it in some degree useful , may ‘ 1 claim or maintain that his patent is one which applies to all varie¬ ties in the apparatus which may he employed in heating air while under blastf and is “ not limited to a particular apparatus described in the specification ”—that it is “ in point of law no objection to the validity of such a patent that it included every mode of applying the princi¬ ple or agent so as to produce the specified result, although one mode may not be described more than another, although one mode may be infinitely better than another , although much greater benefit would result from the application of the principle by one methodl, than another; although one method be much less expensive than an¬ other, and that this generality of claim, that is, for all modes of ap¬ plying the principle to the purpose specified , according to, or within 8 shaffner’s telegraph companion. the general statement of the object to be obtained , and of the use to be made of the agent to be applied , is no objection whatever to the patent .” But it is distinctly laid down in tlie same case, that the pat¬ entee, if he wishes to enjoy his invention thus broadly, must take care in his specification not to confine himself to the single mode described by him ; otherwise he will be confined to that mode. Webster' 1 s Patent Cases j pp. 679, 682, 688, 698, Ex. 6. As well in the facts as in the law, there is a remarkable analo¬ gy between Neilson’s patent for the hot air blast and Morse’s patent for the Electro-Magnetic Telegraph. In Neilson’s case the idtimate result was the manufacture of iron which was old. In Morse’s case, the ultimate result was the telegraphic com¬ munication of ideas from one mind to another, which was old. In Neilson’s case, the furnace, the fuel, the fire, the ore, the hot air, the blower and iron boxes, were old. In Morse’s case, the clockwork, the paper, dots and dashes, galvanic electricity, the battery., the circuit, the electro magnet, and the key were old. Neilson put the old parts together in such manner as to heat the air in its transit, though he did not claim heating the air, without even a “ simple contrivance” of his own invention. Morse put the old parts together, by a port rule to regulate the pulsations of the electric current so as to make the dots and dashes of any desired length, by a contrivance to regulate the motion of the paper to receive them, by the pen or pencil in the first patent to delineate them, and the pen-point and grooved roller in his second patent to indent them, and by combined and local circuits. In ISTeilson’s case, the clumsy iron box in his combination, which was the only patentable part of his invention, was immedi¬ ately abandoned in practice, being superseded by coils of pipe in which the air could be heated to a higher degree of tempera¬ ture ; but in the case of Morse, it is his own invented forms and combinations now in use unimproved, which make his Telegraph. True, his port rule which forms a part of his invention, is not used, because, in common business, the end can- be better attain¬ ed without it; but this constituted a small part of his patenta¬ ble invention. Though the whole of Neilson’s patentable invention was abandoned in practice, yet the British Courts of highest resort sustained his claim to the exclusive use of hot air applied to fur¬ naces : And on what ground? On the ground, that he was the first to devise and describe the means of applying the hot air , no mat¬ ter how bungling or imperfect those means were, if they were such as to make the application to any degree useful. They decided that he was entitled to the whole principle and effect , because that was his real invention, and although it was THE AMERICAN ELECTROMAGNETIC TELEGRAPH. 9 necessary for him to devise and describe some plan by which the object could be attained, when he had described one such mode, it carried with it all modes. They do indeed lay down one excep¬ tion to this rule, dependent however, on the patentee himself. It is where the patentee so frames his specification as to imply that he intends to confine himself to the mode described by him. In that event he is entitled to nothing beyond that particular mode. Neilson avoided that restriction, by declaring in his spe¬ cification, that the size and shape of the box in which the air was to be heated, and the manner of heating the air, were im¬ material. Morse avoids it by directly declaring, after he has de¬ scribed his machinery, that he does not propose to confine him¬ self to it, but claims all modes wherein the same application of power is employed to attain the same end, both the application and end being new. And the Court will not fail to remark, that such a declaration, or something equivalent to it, was ab¬ solutely necessary to bring Morse’s invention within the protec¬ tion of the law as laid down in Neilson’s case. With this exposition, we confidently submit, that, upon the admissions of our adversaries, that by a few simple contrivances of Morse’s invention, described in his specification, he has pro¬ duced “the first practically useful Electro-Magnetic Marking Telegraph,” he is entitled to the protection of this court against all other Electro-Magnetic Marking Telegraphs, whatever may be their form or modes of operation. But our adversaries while admitting facts sufficient to en¬ title us to protection under the law as laid down m Neilson’s case, resolutely contest the law itself. They sing us the old song with all its variations, that principles , effects , and results cannot be patented. So, in the same sense, Machines , or means cannot be patented. An abstract machine is no more patentable, than an abstract prim ciple or result. Go to the Patent Office with the most beautiful machine ever devised, seeming to perform evolutions more wonderful and sublime than those of the Heavenly spheres, and tell them you want a patent for it. They will ask you the very commonplace question, “ of wliat use is your beautiful machine? What useful result do you accomplish by it f” If you reply “I don’t know, I have not yet studied that out,” they will tell you “you must know,—you must not only study that out, but you must give us an intelligible description of it before we can give you a patent.” Go to the Patent Office and tell them, that you have dis¬ covered a principle , or achieved a result , more important to the wealth, comfort, and happiness of mankind than all discove¬ ries and inventions which have been made from creation down to this day, and ask a patent for it. They will ask you how you 10 shaffner’s telegraph companion. apply the principle so as to produce any useful result, or how you produce a result so astonishing? If you answer that you do not choose to tell, or have yet to study that out, they will tell you, that you must not only study it out, but give them an intelligible description of it, before they can give you a patent for it. Every cause has its effect, and every effect its cause. Ma¬ chines and their results in the eye of the patent law, cannot be separated. They come into existence together, and march, pari passu , hand in hand. They are the body and the soul. With¬ out the soul the body is dead, and protection would be useless; without the body, the soul needs no human protection. It is body and soul united , which need the protection of human laws, and it is only body and soul united that such laws are designed to protect. In the beginning of invention, every new machine produced a new result. They formed the basis of all subsequent improve¬ ments. By the principles of justice as well as patent law, the first inventor was entitled to be protected both in his machine and his result , in the one as well as in the other, both being his property, the fruits of his mental and manual labor. The second inventor by an improved machine might produce an im¬ proved result , and would be entitled to protection for his improve¬ ment and for his improvement only. It would be as unjust to let him deprive me of my result because he has improved it, as of my machine because he has improved that. He cannot build on my foundation without my leave, but having purchased my machine and results, he adds his improvements, and enjoys the whole together. The first inventor is entitled to the whole re¬ sult ; the second to his improvement upon it; so also the third, and so on. But gradations in results are not so easily distin¬ guished as alterations in machinery, and as they both go to¬ gether, the law attempts to define and protect an improvement in the result, through the improvement of machinery by which it is produced. When it speaks of a new and useful machine, it means a machine which produces a new and useful result; and when it speaks of a new and useful improvement, it means one that produces an improvement in the result. To under¬ stand the meaning of the law, we must look upon the machine and its result as one ,—one in origin, one in object, and one in the eye of the law. But our adversaries, like multitudes of others, separate ma¬ chines from their results, and seem to think the former the only objects which the patent laws are designed to protect*. We hold, on the contrary, that the ultimate object of the patent laws is, the protection of results , and so far as they are applicable to the protection of machines, the object is to protect the result through THE AMERICAN ELECTRO-MAGNETIC TELEGRAPH. 11 protection of the machine . Of what use is protection of the ma¬ chine, if the result be not protected ? Of what value is the machine to the patentee, or the public, except for the results it produces? We need not tell this court, that patents in England were originally for new results, “ new manufactures ”—without re¬ gard to the manner in which they were produced. No specifi¬ cation of means or machinery was required. The fact that a man produced an useful result, was all that was required; and for the result only the patent was granted. This patent pro¬ tected him against any person who should produce the same result by any means whatsoever. What was the object of the specification afterwards required? Not, certainly, to enable others to deprive the patentee of his result by improving upon his means or substituting others; but simply to enable others to understand how he arrived at that result, that the public might have the full benefit of it after the expiration of his exclusive right. The first expedient re¬ sorted to for the purpose of enabling the public to avail itself of the invention after the patent had expired, was to require the patentee to instruct a certain number of apprentices in his art and mystery, who might go out and teach it to others. This was made a condition on which the exclusive use was guaran¬ teed by a patent. This gave place to the written specification which was an improved mode of arriving at the same end. There is a contract between the inventor and the public. The inventor says, I have accomplished an object never before accomplished, I have produced a result—“ a new manufacture” —never before produced, of vast public utility. The govern¬ ment says to him, if you will make known the means by which you attain that end, so that the public will have the benefit of it after your patent expires, we will secure to you all the bene¬ fits of your result for fourteen years. The bargain is struck. The inventor reveals his secret; the government gives him a solemn contract of protection ; and then, nine times out of ten, suffers him to be plundered, if not ruined by the uses made of the very secret he discloses! Morse comes to the government with his ribbon of paper, imprinted with letters Koman, Greek, Hebrew or Morsaic , and says, I have produced this new and astounding result instanta¬ neously, standing a thousand miles distant from the printing apparatus, and I ask a patent for it. A patent under the old English law would have given him'the exclusive benefit of his result for the patent term; but the government says to him, “you must inform the public how you do this wonderful thing, and then we will give you a patent securing to you the exclu¬ sive use of it for fourteen years.” Morse says u if I inform the 12 shaffner’s telegraph companion. \ public bow I do it, you will let others, who perchance get their notions from my description, come in by some improvements real or pretended, and take from me all the benefits of my in¬ vention.” The government assures him that the only object and legal effect of his description will be to enable the public to use his art after his patent expires. How far that assurance has been verified is shown by the open use of his invention on thousands of miles of line, in bold defiance of his patented rights. It takes a long time to change the current of the public mind when it becomes concentrated in one deep channel, how¬ ever devious from the line of right. You might as well attempt to make the Mississippi run straight by throwing pebbles, into its curves, as to think by one or a hundred arguments to over¬ come unjust prejudices and opinions impressed on the public mind by the precedents of ages. In no portion of human affairs is this fact so conspicuous as in the profession of law, where¬ in most judges believe it their duty to think just as their pre¬ decessors did, and it is the pride of the lawyer that he is able to array a consecutive file of precedents extending back to black- letter age, since which a trifling error then originating, has, by the natural effect of adding precedent, accumulated like the rolling snow-ball, until it has become an enormous wrong. We need not enter into a history of the English patent laws which are the ancestors of our own. It is sufficient to sav, that the granting of patents for new inventions and for monopolies in trade and manufactures were in ancient times a royal prero¬ gative in England, and there was no recognized distinction be¬ tween patents for old things and for new. The royal preroga¬ tive was so enormously abused as to create a general abhorrence of patents of every sort, and the judges of England sought every pretext for declaring them void. At length they were all swept away with a few exceptions, by an act of parliament, and the prerogative of the king was limited to grants of exclusive privileges for limited terms to those only who devised or in¬ troduced some new manufacture, useful to trade, and beneficial to the public. But the current of the judicial mind in England had long been running against all patents, and could not be suddenly changed. It still set against patents for new inventions, as it had done against the old monopolies ; and when the specification was in¬ troduced, it was immediately perverted from its true object and used as a means of destroying a right, the protection of which was the sole object of the inventor in making it public. Even now, though a great change has been wrought in the judicial mind of England and America, the odium of the old mono¬ polies in some degree attaches to patents, and something in- THE WINDS AND THE CURRENTS, ETC. . 13 eluded in the specification which ought to have been omitted, or something omitted, which ought to have been included, though that instrument enables everybody distinctly to under¬ stand the invention, and how to use it, is seized upon as a pre¬ text for annulling the grant altogether. These are hard cases. The man’s invention is his own ; the government buys it of him for a price, and on a condition. He complies with the condition as well as he knows how, and under B the instructions of officers of the government itself, ap¬ pointed to advise and correct him if there be anything wrong in his papers. But some error is discovered by an astute lawyer in the specification, an error never thought of by him, nor sus¬ pected in the Patent Office, and his patent is declared void. The protection of the government is withdrawn from his inven¬ tion, but his property is not restored. It is gone for ever, not from any fault of his, but because two public authorities, one in the Patent Office, the other in the courts, differ in opinion upon some point of his specification. We trust the day is passed when pretexts were sought to get rid of these contracts between government and citizen. Morse comes and exhibits the result of his invention —the print¬ ing of telegraphic characters at any distances. All he asks is, that protection which the law would give him if no specification of means had ever been required. It is just that, and nothing more, which he has attempted to secure through his specifica¬ tion. It is just that, and nothing less, which his government has promised him. It is protection for his art —his embodied art, and our adversaries admit that “without doubt” such “an art can be patented,—the statute says so expressly.” Art. II.—GEOGRAPHY OF THE ATLANTIC OCEAN.* THE WINDS AND THE CURRENTS-TIDES AND THE SEAS—DEPTH OF THE OCEAN—OCEAN TELEGRAPH PRACTICABLE. The time is probably not far distant when the popular will, no less than the enlightened good sense of the statesmen of the country will settle practically how far the government of the Union may be permitted “ to provide for the general welfare,” by the encouragement of science. Custom in such matters, whence no further usurpations can possibly arise, becomes • almost as authoritative as a constitutional sanction ; and unless we greatly misapprehend the character of the American people, few will be disposed to blame herein a leaning to the liberal * From De Bow’s Review. 14 . shaffner’s telegraph companion. side. The temptation to aid the national genius in the acquisi¬ tion of those unfading laurels, awarded by universal consent to the successful discoverer of what is truly great and widely use¬ ful in these fields, might tempt the most rigid constructionist to relax here his rules, and admit, if possible, an exception to his political creed. The fame of one illustrious philosopher, one of the founders of American independence, is already blended with the history of human thought as well as political enfranchise¬ ment ; and whether the spirit in which he pursued knowledge, or the magnitude of his additions to the common stock, are con¬ sidered, it must be admitted that his example still modifies all legitimate inquiry into the august secrets of nature. The era of Franklin was but the dawn of modern science. The laws, the modifications, and the analogies of light, heat, chemical affinities, and electricity, in its Protaean forms, were then just emerging to human ken. The stone tables, on which, as on the leaves of a book, the earth’s history are imprinted, were at that time united by unbroken seals. Observation had not yet accumulated a mass of records, nor been sufficiently extended to trace the varying intensities of the great powers of nature over the surface of the earth, and thus create a true philosophic geography. It is worthy of mention, that one of the most im¬ portant features of our planet was pointed out by the great Franklin, and that he traced that portion of the ocean stream which rushes past our shores, and bestows on Western Europe its genial and temperate climate, its fertilizing showers, and abundant harvests. Since that period there have been travel¬ ers like Humboldt and Yon Buch, who have measured moun¬ tains and gauged streams, watched the fires of the volcano, and explored the causes of those powers that sweep the surface or shake the depths of the earth. Every year the number of ob¬ servers is increased ; the circle of stations at which these inves¬ tigations are prosecuted is continually widening; while com¬ merce, allured by the promises of greater and more certain gains, bids fair soon to be pressed into the zealous service of science. Physical geography, the most attractive of the departments of the study of Nature, embracing the view and discussion of her phenomena on the widest field that man can grasp, by the aid of all the senses, and presenting subjects at once uniting the enjoyments of the imagination and the reason, and gratifying the passion for knowledge and the desire of profit, is now for the first time possible. The various meters , the delicate instru¬ ments of modern research, the product and realization in art of ‘ scientific progress, are now in the hands of every traveller. He reads off their scales the temperature of the air, the earth, and the ocean, the heights of mountains, the quantity of moisture contained in the air, and many similar relations are by their 15 THE WINDS AND THE CURRENTS,' ETC. means accurately ascertained and measured, at every point whither man can penetrate. Governments have rivalled each other in fitting out expeditions for research and exploration; and if the cultivation of the sciences under the direct patronage of our own,-notwithstanding such precedents, be questioned, as on another long vexed subject, we may suppose that the popular voice will incline to advance this cause, whenever it can be done in an incidental way. The valuable volume of “ Sailing Directions, by Lieutenant Maury,” is but among the first fruits of what we may reasonably expect from the patriotic and liberal character of the officers of the navy and army. The younger officers are now as a class, admirably qualified, by their tastes and education, to second an}^ system of scientific observation that may be adopted by the national authority. The Coast Survey and the Naval Observatory were the first steps made in this direction by the government, and they have already well repaid all that has been laid out in their maintenance and prosecution. The equipment and mate¬ riel of the Washington Observatory may be inferior to the im¬ perial endowments of Pultowa or Greenwich, but the genius and untiring industry of its, superintendent has already given it a world wide celebrity. When the exacting and ceaseless duties of his station are considered, it is astonishing how he should have accomplished so much for the geography of commerce and navigation, as may be inferred from the articles in the “ Sailing Directions,” or when he found time for the arrangement and tabulation of the observations contained in thousands of log¬ books, the results of which gigantic labor we find in the same volume. We propose to look at what has been thus accom¬ plished by Lieutenant Maury for commercial geography, under the three heads: first, the establishment of a regular system of observation, to be carried out by the various national and com¬ mercial marines of the world ; second, the contributions already made to science by the materials collected under the direction, and arranged by the author; and third, the practical rules and directions which are therein laid down for the guidance of the navigator, with the results already obtained by following them. These undertakings have received the sanction of the most distinguished physicists of the age, among them the illustrious Humboldt, who, in writing to a friend, (Dr. Flugal, U. S. Con¬ sul at Leipzic,) says,— “I beg you to express to Lieut. Maury, the author of the beautiful charts of the winds and currents, prepared with so much care and profound learning, my hearty gratitude and esteem. It is a great undertaking, equally important to the practical navigator, and for the advance of meteorology in general. It has been viewed in this light in Germany, by all 16 shaffner’s telegraph companion. persons who have a taste for physical geography. In an analo¬ gous way, anything of isothermal countries, (countries of equal annual thermal temperature,) has for the first time, be¬ come really fruitful. Since Dove has taught us the isotherms of the several months chiefly on the land—since two-thirds of the atmosphere rests upon the sea—Maury’s work is so much the more welcome and valuable; because it includes at the same time, the oceanic currents, the course of the winds, and the tem¬ perature.” It is comparatively easy to map out the course of rivers over the land, and follow them from the glacier of the mountains to the ocean estuary, through their channels. This is but the visible half of the ceaseless circle which the waters make over the land. A far more difficult task it is, to track the viewless winds, and weigh the watery freights they carry from the ocean, and lay down so lowly and gradually in the fog, the dew, the shower, and the noiseless snow; or to pursue the oceanic currents that feed these thefts of the winds, and map out their path— Parietibus textum cascis iter. The solution of the grand problems of physical science con¬ nected with navigation do not rest there; they overflow to other branches of human labor and interest. Agriculture, and the health and happiness of mankind, are blended with the course of the winds and the distribution of heat and moisture. The farmer as well as as the mariner, looks up and watches the appearance of the heavens; and plentiful crops and prosperous voyages equally depend on the agencies which set in motion the winds, and uplift the clouds from the ocean. The beauty and impressiveness of these signs, in which Nature addresses Man, render them worthy of the poet. Happy he who can read them aright. The Language of Nature. —•“ The wind and rain, the vapor and the cloud, the tide, the current, the saltness, and depth, and temperature, and color of the sea, the shade of the sky, the temperature of the air, the tint and shape of the clouds, the height of the tree on the shore, the size of the leaves, the brilliancy of the flowers—each and all may be regarded as the exponent of certain physical combinations, and therefore, as the expression in which Nature chooses to announce her own mean¬ ing; or, if we please, as the language in which she writes down the operation of her own laws. To understand that language, and to interpret aright those laws, is the object of the under¬ taking which those who co-operate with me have in hand. INo fact gathered in such a field as this, therefore, can come amiss to those who tread the walks of inductive philosophy ; for in the THE WINDS AND THE CURRENTS, ETC. 17 hand-book of Nature, every such fact is a syllable ; and it is by patiently collecting fact after fact, and by joining together syllable after syllable, that we may finally seek to read aright from the great volume, which the mariner at sea, and the philosopher on the mountain, see spread out before them. Among the friends and collaborators of Lieut. Maury may be mentioned Dr. Buist, a distinguished savant of India, who an¬ nounces, in the transactions of the Bombay Geographical So¬ ciety, that the Assistant-Secretary, Mr. Macfarlane, “ has made considerable progress in the construction of wind and current charts, founded on the information supplied by ships’ logs, and on the principle of Lieut. Maury.” What has been done for the Indian and the Northern Atlantic Ocean reveals the value of con¬ cert of observation among the navigators and meteorologists of the world. In a letter to Lieut. Maury, dated 17th November, 1851, Dr. Buist, after alluding to a vast mass of facts collected by observers in the Indian seas, observes:— u Three years since, I began to perceive that we had certain classes of storms that occurred periodically, not only all over India, but all over the regioji to which my information extended, and that these were synchronous, or nearly so. I then began a series of maps, illustrative of the matter.” A system of stations and the co-operation of navigators is naturally suggested by what has already been done. It must be seen that a true science of meteorology is impossible from local observations. We may watch the height of the barometer, and record the amount of moisture in the air, set rain gauges for ever, and yet be merely accumulating facts that in themselves have no significance. The relations of the river, the rain, and the ocean, are not local; they belong to universal geography, and are, literally, “ General, as the casing air,” the atmosphere which forms the invisible link in the mighty orbit of the waters about the earth. Nature herself seems here to refuse to be evoked by the efforts of the individual mind, and demands for the revelation of her secrets to be everywhere watched. Towards the end of the year 1851, the idea of a conference between the meteorologists of Russia and those of the United States was suggested by Kupffer, a laborious meteorologist of the former country ; and about the same time a proposition was made by the British Government that that of the United States should co-operate in making these observations at certain foreign stations, and according to instructions prepared by General Burgoyne, Inspector-General of Fortifications. This was felt to 2 18 shaffner’s telegraph companion. be an auspicious moment to secure concert of action among me¬ teorologists on shore, and co-operation among navigators at sea everywhere; and Lieut. Maury then, in reply to the British pro¬ position, suggested that sea and land should be included as the field, and that a general conference of meteorologists and navi¬ gators should be held to discuss the plans, draw up the forms, fix the standards, and select the instruments to be employed on this grand field of research. A Universal System of Observations. —The basis origi¬ nally proposed by the British Government to that of the United States, is contained in the instructions drawn up by order of the Inspector-General of Fortifications, Sir John Burgoyne, the cir¬ cular letter of Lord Palmerston to British consuls, and that of Lord Glenelg to Colonial Governors. Nineteen principal sta¬ tions in the colonies of Great Britain were selected as the points of regular record. These were to be supplied with sets of in¬ struments of similar construction. Twenty sets were to be sent to India, by the Board of Directors of the East India Company, and provision made of the same character for observations at Ascension, Kio de Janeiro, Callao aijd Valparaiso. The circular addressed to the officers of the government of India, desires them— “ Upon the occurrence of any hurricane, gale, or other storm of more violence than usual, to note accurately the time of its commencement, the direction from which the wind first blows, whether in gusts or regular, and whether accompanied with rain, thunder and lightning, or other phenomena. Also, to note, with as much accuracy as possible, the changes of direction in the wind, and the time of occurrence of each; and lastly, the duration of the gale, and in what quarter the wind is when it ceases. The variations of the thermometer and barometer at each period noticed will also be of importance, if the means are forthcoming of making such observations.” On the transmission of these instructions to the United States government for the purpose of securing its co-operation in the plan, Lieut. Maury brought forward as an amendment a system of universal observation on sea as well as on land, and securing the assistance of the commercial marines of the civilized nations of the earth in carrying out its details. We copy the following from the paper of Lieut. Maury, on this subject: “ The importance of concert among meteorologists all over the world, and of co-operation between the observer on the shore and the navigator at sea, so that any meteorological phe¬ nomenon may be traced throughout its cycle both by sea and land, is too obvious for illustration, too palpable to be made plainer by argument; and, therefore, the proposition for a gene¬ ral conference to arrange the details of such a comprehensive THE WINDS AND THE CURRENTS, ETC. 19 system of observations, addresses itself to every friend of sci¬ ence and lover of the useful in all countries. “ The domain of this science of the atmosphere : its bounda¬ ries embrace the land and cover the sea. To comprehend the laws which govern the movements of a machine so vast as it is, requires that its operations should be observed in all its parts and watched from all points at the same time. Its motions are freer and less obstructed over the water, than they are by the land and across the mountains. Indeed, the ocean itself may, in one sense, be regarded as a grand expression of meteorolo¬ gical agencies ; therefore the good-will and friendly co-opera¬ tion of private ship-owners and masters, in all maritime coun¬ tries, is considered of great importance to the cause in hand.” The proposition for a universal system of observation, as suggested by Lieutenant Maury, was soon after submitted to the Koyal Society, and, so far as an extension of these to the sea is concerned, it received a warm approval. The report adopted by the society recommends that instructions similar to those given to American shipmasters, according to the scheme sub¬ mitted by Lieutenant Maury to the Bureau of Ordnance and Hydrography in 1842, be given “ to every ship that sails ” from British ports, with a request to transmit the results of them to the Hydrographer’s Office of the Admiralty. The labors of the two greatest naval and commercial nations of the world, it is hoped, may be thus united in promoting the interest of navi¬ gation. The additions that have been made to geographical science since American shipmasters have been engaged, under the guid¬ ance of Lieutenant Maury, in the business of watching and recording the course of the winds, the clouds, and the currents, have not been few or unimportant. The power of such disco¬ veries in changing the course of trade is well illustrated by the influence of the Gulf Stream on the trade of Charleston. | During the colonial times, the course of trade was to make that port the half-way house for vessels bound from England to the northern ports. If driven off the coast during the winter by gales and snow storms, they returned to Charleston, and there remained until spring. When Dr. Franklin taught the mariner to know when he crossed the banks of this ocean river, by dipping a thermometer into the water, it was, to use the graphic words of the navigators, as if blue and red lines were drawn on the ocean. This discovery shortened the passage to the west from sixty to thirty days. It changed the course of trade. Vessels, instead of running to Charleston to avoid a snow-storm, now stood off for a few hours, thawed out the ship and her crew in the warmth of the Gulf, and were ready for another attempt to make their port. 20 - shaffner’s telegraph companion I The view of the general circulation in the atmosphere, as traced by the investigations of Lieutenant Maury, is of the highest interest. The trade winds of the tropical seas have long been known, and form two links in the circuit of the winds around the earth. The ocean scenery of the region of the trades is among the most beautiful to the thoughts and the senses that can be conceived. The machinery of nature aiding so palpably the objects of man, and uniting lands divided so widely by the ocean; the canopy of flying clouds; the fresh and exhilarating breeze blowing day and night in one direction; the charming temperature and the moderate swell of the waves, make it the elysium of the mariner. The gentle spirit of the earth seems to be there bodily present; and the picture of a fleet hanging in the clouds, always an impressive object, becomes exquisitely poetic in its associations, when— They on the trading flood, Through the wide Ethiopian to the Cape, Ply stemming nightly towards the pole. These trade winds are the great evaporating winds of the ocean; and, as we learn from the investigations of Lieutenant Maury, the belt of the S. E. trades in the South Atlantic is not only more extensive than theN. E. trades in the South Atlantic, but the winds themselves are fresher in the south. The very natural conclusion is, that the increased water thus taken up goes to feed in part the rivers of the northern hemisphere. At the equator these surface winds meet, and form a belt of calms, a node of upward winds, the northeast trade wind becoming a northwest upper current, and the southeast trade a southwest wind in the upper regions of the atmosphere overlying the north torrid zone. At the tropics, two other nodes of calms and of downward currents are met, with the two descending nodes of the orbit of the winds. The prevailing surface winds should now blow in spirals from the southwest towards the north pole, and in similar spirals from the northwest towards the south pole. At the poles the upward current produces another region of calms, whence the winds begin from north and south other revo* lutions towards the equator. And this system of winds is the source of The Raixs. —“ To evaporate water enough annually from the ocean to cover the earth, on the average, five feet deep, with rain ; to transport it from one zone to another, and to precipitate it in the right places, at suitable times, and in the proportions due, is the office of the grand atmospherical machine. This water is evaporated principally from the torrid zone. Supposing it all to come thence, we shall have, encircling the earth, a belt of ocean 3,000 miles in breadth, from which this atmosphere 21 THE WINDS AND TIIE CURRENTS, ETC. evaporates a layer of water annually 16 feet in depth. And to hoist up as high as the clouds, and lower down again, all the water in a lake 16 feet deep, and 3,000 miles broad, and 24,000 long, is the yearly businesss of this invisible machinery. What a powerful engine is the atmosphere! “ In some parts of the earth the precipitation is greater than the evaporation; thus, the amount of water borne down by every river that runs into the sea may be considered as the ex cess of the precipitation over the evaporation that takes place in the valley drained by that river. In other parts of the earth the evaporation and precipitation are exactly equal, as in those inland basins such as that in which the city of Mexico, Lake Titicaca, the Caspian Sea, etc., etc., are situated; which basins have no ocean drainage. If more rain fell in the valley of the Caspian than is evaporated from it, that sea would finally get full and overflow the whole of that great basin. If less fell than is evaporated from it again, then that sea, in the course of time, would dry up, and plants and animals would all perish there for the want of water. In the sheets of water which we find dis¬ tributed over that and every other inhabitable inland basin, we see reservoirs or evaporating surfaces just sufficient for the sup¬ ply of that degree of moisture which is best adapted to the well¬ being of the plants and animals that people such basins. In other parts of the earth still, we find places, as the Desert of Sahara, in which neither evaporation nor precipitation takes place, and in which we find neither plant nor animal. “ In contemplating the system of terrestrial adaptations, these researches have taught me to regard the great deserts of the earth as the astronomer does the counterpoises to his telescope —though they be mere dead weights, they are, nevertheless, necessary to make the balance complete, the adjustments of this machine perfect. These counterpoises give ease to the motions, stability to the performance, and accuracy to the workings of the instrument. They are compensations .” A strong corroboration of the hypothesis that the south¬ eastern trades are deflected into the upper regions of the atmos¬ phere, is the fact that the occasional showers of dust to be met with in the Atlantic not far from the belt of calms of Cancer, and in the neighborhood of the Cape de Yerd Islands, and some¬ times extending to the northern coasts of the Mediterranean, contain the remains of infusoria, whose habitat is not Africa, but South America, and the southeast trade-wind region of South America. These remains cause the red fogs and sea-dust of the North Atlantic, the Cape de Yerd Islands, and the dust-winds of southwestern Europe. The Equatorial Cloud-Ring. —The graphic essay on the above subject, by Lieut. Maury, is well known ; it forms part of 22 shaffner’s telegraph companion. his theory of the circulation of the atmosphere, and the follow- ing is his explanation of its formation: “ In a clear day at the equator, this cloud-ring having slid to the north or south with the calm belt, the rays of the sun pour down upon the crust of the earth, and raise its temperature to a scorching heat. The atmosphere dances above it, and the air is seen trembling in ascending and descending columns with busy eagerness to conduct the heat off, and deliver it to the regions aloft, where it is required to give momentum to the air in its general channels of circulation. The dry season con¬ tinues ; the sun is vertical ; and finally the earth becomes parched and dry; the heat accumulates faster than the air can carry it away; the plants begin to wither, and the animals to perish. Then comes the mitigating cloud-ring. The burning rays of the sun are intercepted by it. The place for the absorp¬ tion and reflection, and the delivery to the atmosphere of the solar heat, is changed; it is transferred from the upper surface of the earth to the upper surface of the clouds. “Radiation from the land and the sea below the cloud-belt is thus interrupted, and the excess of heat in the earth is delivered to the air, and by absorption carried up to the clouds, and there delivered to their vapors to prevent excess of precipitation. “In the meantime, the trade winds north and south are pour¬ ing into this cloud-covered receiver, as the calm and rain-belt of the equator may be called, fresh supplies in the shape of ceaseless volumes of heated hair loaded to saturation with vapor, which has to rise above and get clear of the clouds before it can commence the process of cooling by radiation. In the mean¬ time, also, the vapors which the trade winds bring from the north and the south, expanding and growing cooler as they ascend, are being condensed on the lower side of the cloud stra¬ tum, and their latent heat is set free to check precipitation and prevent a flood. “ While this process and these operations are going on on the nether side of the cloud-ring, one not less important is going on on the upper side. There, from sunrise to sunset, the rays of the sun are pouring down without intermission. Every day, and all day long, they operate with ceaseless activity upon the upper surface of the cloud stratum. When they become too powerful, and convey more heat to the cloud vapors than the cloud vapors can reflect and give off to the air above them, then with a beautiful elasticity of character, the clouds absorb the surplus heat. They melt away, become invisible, and retain, in a latent and harmless state, until it is wanted at some other place and on some other occasion, the heat thus imparted.” The Geological Agency of the Winds. —The geological relations between the wind, the land, and the water, are shown THE WINDS AND THE CURRENTS, ETC. 23 to have an intimate connection with the fertility and habitable quality of each region. The largest portion of the surface swept by the southeastern trades is water; but those regions which lie to the northeast of South America and Africa, in the northern hemisphere, are deserts, and were it not for the inland seas of Europe and Asia, these regions would be still more extensive. In like manner, Australia occupies in the southern hemisphere a position opposite to the continent of Asia, and, being swept by winds borne over a vast extent of land, while in contact with the surface, is found to be mostly a desert. If this contental mass were removed so as to occupy the space in the South Pacific swept by the southeast trades, which blow as southwest winds over the basins of the great rivers and lakes of North America, the channel of the Mississippi would resemble that of the Australian rivers, and present a dry and dusty trough in the midst of a desert, the great lakes would be drained, and Niagara no longer resound with the whirl of its world of waters. If ever there was a time when the Andes and the Continent of South America were submerged, then the ancient winds that fell on the region of Central Asia, and the basins of the Caspian and Aral, were swelled with the waters that now are discharged, in part, by the Amazon and Orinoco into the ocean, and those seas were united, forming a Mediterranean of vast extent, and probably discharging its waters by an estuary more magnificent than the St. Lawrence. According to the circulatory scheme of the atmosphere, the winds that play over the torrid zone of one hemisphere become the surface winds of the temperate zone of the other hemisphere. Fill up the south torrid zone, the region of the southeast trades, with land, and the north temperate zone would become one vast Sahara. Such, in brief, is the aspect of the dry season in the geological cycle, happily not co-existing with man’s possession of the planet. “The Saltness of the Sea,” is the title of another of the series of interesting papers contained in the present volume. We are unable to do more than to state that it is to this quality, in con¬ nection with the evaporation caused by heat and the passage of the winds over the water, that the currents of the ocean owe their extent and depth. By these agencies, a general circula¬ tion of the waters of the sea is maintained; and so complete is it, that the per centage of its salt is found to be nearly the same in every part of the globe. Following the discussion of a general circulation of the waters through the entire ocean, is the argument so intimately con¬ nected with it, and now so deeply interesting both to philan- throphy and science, that a permanently open sea exists in the Arctic basin. The study of the currents of the ocean have led Lieut. Maury strongly to the conclusion, that the pole is sur- I 24 shaffner’s TELEGRAPH COMPANION". rounded by this sea instead of being piled by everlasting bar¬ riers of thick-ribbed ice. The report of Lieut. De Haven, the commander of the Grrinnell Expedition, the first of the noble enterprises set on foot from the United States to aid in the dis¬ covery and rescue of the lost ships.of Sir John Franklin, follows; and in the midst of the dangers of the dreary cruise during the long nights of those two polar winters, a ray of hope, faint though it be, hangs over the track of the intrepid Kane, who has dared again the perils of the Arctic Sea, at the joint com¬ mand of humanity and national glory. Deep Sea Soundings. —To determine the depth of the ocean, and approximately the outline of its abysses and shallows, will furnish data of the utmost value in completing the theory of the tides. We believe that American officers have been the fore¬ most, and, with a few exceptions, the only investigators in this problem. Already they have contributed euough to make out a chart of the bottom of the Atlantic, which gives a general idea of the slopes and hollow's of that ocean valley, and its trans¬ verse branches, the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico. The first cruise of the “Fanny,” the schooner despatched on this service of making these’explorations, cleared up all doubts as to the non-existence of certain fancied rocks and shoals wdiich had been long enough bugbears to navigators. The following is the list of rocks found to be purely imaginary during the cruise. Latitude North. Longitude West. Ashton Rock. . 33o 50'. . 71° 40' False Bermudas. . 32 30 . . 58 40 Nye’s Rock. . 31 15 . . 55 50 Van Keulen s Vi-The Companion. 104 Scientific American on Patents. 104 Regulations of Companies. 104 Batteries. 105 New-York and Boston Line... 105 Engravings and New'Register. 105 National Lines.. 105 Heavy Business in Telegraphing. 106 Another Great Telegraphic Feat. 10G Wonders of the Telegraph. 106 Complimentary—Presentation to T. S. Faxton, Esq. 106 Great Discovery—A Universal Telegraph. 108 New-York, Buffalo, and Chicago Range.-. 109 Telegraphic Feat. 109 Pictorial Life of a Telegrapher. 109 Maysville Submarine Cable. 110 Halifax and Boston Line. 110 Sandy Hook Telegraph. 110 Notices of the Companion and Tariff Scale. Ill Notices of the Telegraph Companion. Ill SUBMARINE TELEGRAPH GABLES. The undersigned, having had much experience in Submarine Telegraph Lines during the past five years in the United States, and having perfected Electric Cables to meet the necessities of any river in America, he is prepared to construct them upon the most reliable plan known to science and mechanics. He will warrant any Cable made under his orders, if desired, as to strength for the locality, perfect insulation, or preservation from atmospheric electricity. With a view to secure the best workmanship, the undersigned has engaged with him in the construction of Cables, Mr. J. B. Sleeth, who is an expert mechanic, and skilled in nautical life. Mr. S. has been engaged in laying several Cables across the V estern waters, and his mechanical improvements are superior in their proper construction. TAL. P. SHAFFNER, Washington , D. C 3^4 S-^-13 SHAFFNER’S TELEGRAPH COMPANION, DEVOTED TO THE SCIENCE AND ART OF THE MORSE AMERICAN TELEGRAPH. VOL. I. FEBRUARY, 1854. jVo. 2. Art. I.—THE AMERICAN ELECTRO-MAGNETIC TELEGRAPH. By Hon. Amos Kendall. Argument submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States. Continued. OERSTED SCHWEIGER — ARAGO—STURGEON—HENRY—MORSE. DISCOVERIES RESPECTIVELY. MORSE THE INVENTOR OF THE RECORDING TELEGRAPH. We propose now to take np the case somewhat in detail, and show the Court by the evidence what it was that Morse invent¬ ed. hirst, however, it is necessary to correct some errors of fact contained in the printed argument of the opposite Counsel. At page 7, Mr. Chase, after giving an account of the inven¬ tion of the Electro Magnet by Sturgeon in 1825, says, “ It was now certain that mechanical results could be produced at any distance from the operating station to which the Electric Cur¬ rent could be transmitted.” USTo such fact is established by the evidence, nor was there any such certainty. Again at page 28, after giving an account of Prof. Henry’s experiments made known in 1831, Mr. Chase says “the fact that by the use of Electro Magnetism thus developed, any me¬ chanical effects, capable of being produced by any ordinary motive power of like energy could be wrought at any distance from the operating Station to which the Electric Current could be transmitted, was also established.” Again says he, u It was also established that the electric current generated by a proper battery, could be sent, through a Circuit of indefinite extent without any sensible diminution of its power to excite an flec- tro Magnet , or to deflect a needle placed at the remotest point from the operating Station.” There is no evidence tending to establish either of these 5 66 shaffner’s telegraph companion. alleged facts, other than unwarranted inference from an experi¬ ment by Prof. Henry, exhibiting a result not verified by exper¬ iment or experience, before or since. Of that we shall say more hereafter. At page 13, Mr. Chase says, “ Morse was unacquainted with electricity and electro magnetism.” It is in evidence that he attended a series of lectures on elec¬ tricity and electro magnetism delivered by Prof. Dana in 1827 during which one of Sturgeon’s Electro Magnets was exhibited. That identical Electro Magnet, as well as the original manu¬ script of Dana’s Lectures, hunted up through Morse’s recollec¬ tion of that science as then explained by the learned Lecturer, were in evidence ; but the mvsterious fire in the Clerk’s Office has disposed of those lectures, though the Electro Magnet is still in Court.* At page 26 Mr. Chase says the decision of Judges Grier and Kane in Philadelphia amounts to this, that Morse was the “proprietor of the electric current for telegraphic purposes and that without discovering any new principle whatever.” There is no warrant for such a broad assertion either in that decision or in Morse’s claims. They do not touch Wheatstone’s nor any other, except marking telegraphs. Page 43, Mr. Chase says “ I pass, barely mentioning it here, Prof. Henry’s contrivance for breaking and closing a second circuit used in 1833 or 1834, which left nothing new in point of principle to be invented by Morse or any body else for extend¬ ing telegraph circuits.” Nobody testifies to such use in 1833 or 1834. Henry himself, so far from testifying to any use at any time , is not certain that he explained it to his class before he went to Europe in 1837, and does not say that he ever did it afterwards. Now let us see what had been done before Morse took up the subject, and in this we shall, in all sincerity, attempt to mete out exact justice to every one whom it is necessary to mention. Electricity, Galvanism, sundry modes of generating them, the circuit, and modes of breaking and closing it, were known. Oersted in 1819 discovered that the electric current, passing on the Circuit wire, would deflect a magnetic needle brought in proximity to it. This was the discovery of Electro Magnetism ; a mechanical effect was then produced. Schweiger conceived, that if the current could be made to pass several times around the needle, the mechanical effect would be increased. With insulated wire he made a coil of many turns in a shape somewhat elliptical, which he embraced in the Circuit and suspended the Magnetic needle within it. A spe- * There is another mystery in the non appearance upon the Record of a deposition of Prof. Silliman, touching this matter. THE AMERICAN ELECTRO-MAGNETIC TELEGRAPH. 67 cimen of tliis contrivance has been exhibited to the Court, and it is called Schweiger’s Multiplier. The result was as he expected. Arago discovered that the Electric Current passing upon a wire would attract iron tilings. Sturgeon conceived, that if a part of the Circuit wire were made to pass several times around a piece of iron, the same influence which moved the needle and iron filings, would pro¬ duce Magnetism in the iron. He insulated a piece of iron rod, coiled the circuit wire spirally around it, and on applying the current, found that the iron became Magnetic. This was the invention of the Electro Magnet. It occurred to Prof. Henry, that by applying Schweiger’s Multiplier to Sturgeon’s iron bar, a much more powerful Mag¬ net might be produced. He tried the experiment and succeeded. By multiplying the turns of wire around the iron, it was found that the Magnetism was increased somewhat in proportion to the number of turns added, so that mechanical effects could be produced at greater distances on the electric circuit than with the Magnet as arranged by Sturgeon. Henry did not invent the Multiplier, nor the Electro Magnet. His merit so far as the Electro Magnet is concerned, consists in combining together the inventions of two other men, and pro¬ ducing a more powerful mechanical action. He does not in his article published in Silliman’s Journal in January, 1831, claim to have discovered any new principle in respect to the Electro Magnet; It is entitled “ On the application of the principle of the galvanic Multiplier to Electro Magnetic apparatus , and also to the development of great Magnetic power in soft iron with a small galvanic element ,” meaning small battery. The application of known principles in such manner as to produce an improved result, was all he claimed. If O’Reilly and his associates had an interest in depreciating Prof. Henry’s experiments, they could doubtless employ Coun¬ sel to say as has been said of Morse’s invention, that this com¬ bination of Schweiger’s Multiplier, with Sturgeon’s Electro Magnet was u a very simple contrivance”—one so obvious and natural, that it might have occurred to anybody, and must “ inevitably”have soon occurred to somebody. Nevertheless— it was an important accession to the mass of material out of which a telegraph was to be constructed. But Prof. Henry, as he says himself, was not in pursuit of a Telegraph, or any other particular j^ractical result useful to society. Having made his improvement, he threw it into the mass furnished by Oersted, Schweiger, Arago,' Sturgeon &c., to be employed by anybody else who had the inclination to make it useful to his fellow-men. Henry’s experiments were made with little more than one-fifth of a mile of wire, and although 68 shaffner’s telegraph companion. they conclusively showed that mechanical action could be pro¬ duced by means of his improvement at greater distances from the battery than was before possible, they by no means showed that it could be produced at the distance of 100, 20, or even ten miles, and especially they did not show that it could be pro¬ duced with a sufficient force, to mark or indent paper. After what has been said, written and printed, on the other side, it may surprise the Court to learn, that it was not his improvement in the Electro magnet, which Prof. Henry said in his article of 1831 was “ directly applicable to Mr. Barlow’s pro¬ ject of forming an Electro-Magnetic Telegraph,” but it was the result of an experiment to ascertain the effect of currents from batteries of different descriptions, a result apparently incon¬ sistent with all experiment and experience before and since, but in which at the time Prof. Henry seems to have had great con¬ fidence. To place this matter in an unquestionable light, we quote the entire passage which relates to it in Henry’s article in the 19th volume of Silliman’s Journal, page 403, it being in evidence in this case, viz: “ Experiment 7. The whole length of the wire [over one- fifth of a mile] was attached to a small trough on Mr. Cruik- shank’s plan, [a battery] consisting of 25 double plates, and presenting exactly the same extent of zinc surface to the action of the acid as the battery used in the last experiment. The weight lifted in this case was 8 oz. When the intervening wire was removed and the trough attached directly to the ends of the wire surrounding the horse shoe, it lifted only 7 oz. From this experiment it appears, that the current from a galvanic trough is capable of producing greater Magnetic effect on soft iron after traversing more than one-fifth of a mile of intervening wire, than when it passes only through the wire surrounding the Magnet. It is possible that the different states of the trough with respect to dryness, may have exerted some influence on this remarkable result, but that the effect of a current from a trough, if not increased, is but slightly diminished in passing through a long wire, is certain. A number of other experiments would have been made to verify this, had not our use of the room been limited, by its being required for public exercises. “ On a little consideration, however, the above result does not appear so extraordinary as at the first sight, since a current from a trough, possesses more projectile force, to use Prof. Hare’s expression, and approximates somewhat in intensity to the electricity from the common machine. “ May it not also be a fact that the galvanic fluid, in order to produce the greatest magnetic effect, should move with a small velocity, and that in pasing through one-fifth of a mile, its velo- THE AMERICAN ELECTRO-MAGNETIC TELEGRAPH. 69 city is so retarded as to produce a greater magnetic action? But be this as it may, the fact that the magnetic action of a cur¬ rent from a trough is at least not sensibly diminished by passing through a long line directly, is applicable to Mr. Barlow’s pro- jent of forming an Electro-Magnetic Telegraph, and also of ma¬ terial consequence in the construction of the galvanic coil.” “ 8 From this experiment,’ says Prof. Henry, 8 it appears that a current from a galvanic trough, is capable of producing greater magnetic effect on soft iron after traversing more than one-fifth of a mile of intervening wire , than when it passes only through the wire surrounding the magnet .’ ” After attempting to account for a result so extraordinary and apparently so absurd, he adds, 88 but be this as it may, the fact that the magnetic action of a current from a trough is, at leasts not sensibly diminished by passing through a long wire, is directly applicable to Mr. Barlow’s project of forming an Elec¬ tro-Magnetic Telegraph, &c.” Had this result been verified by subsequent experiment or ex¬ perience, it would have saved Prof. Morse the necessity of inventing combined and local circuits, and Receiving magnets with all their delicate adjustments. And it would be a day of joy and rejoicing among Telegraphers throughout the Union, if Prof. Henry were now able to come forward with his Telegraph of a Single Circuit, the longer the better , running through their Register magnets, and saving the perpetual adjustment of Re¬ ceiving magnets arising from the feebleness and variableness of the currents, though great improvements have been made in batteries since 1831; it would form a new era, not less distin¬ guished than that which witnessed the introduction of the more complicated system of Prof. Morse. Unfortunately the result of this experiment turned out to be utterly delusive. The de¬ ductions of Barlow and others from previous experiments, that the magnetic force ol the current diminishes somewhat in proportion to the increased length of the Circuit, became an es¬ tablished fact, as it is an established law of nature, and Henry’s improved Electro magnet, like Sturgeon’s original magnet, and the magnetic needles used by other experimenters, came under the dominion of that law, no matter what kind of battery was used, though some kinds are better than others. These facts and circumstances show, that Prof. Henry’s idea of an Electro-Magnetic Telegraph in 1831 was a telegraph of a single circuit based on the fallacious conclusion, that he had dis¬ covered means by which the magnetic action could be made great¬ er with the same battery on a long Circuit than on a short one, or 88 at least ” to use his own emphasized expression 88 is not sen¬ sibly diminished by passing through a long wire? If this were a fact, there would be no need of combined circuits to renew the 70 shaffner’s telegraph companion. exhausted power of the electric current. They would he hut a worse than useless complication. There is, however, not the shadow of such a combination in Henry’s Article of 1831, nor is it probable that then, or for a long time afterwards, his mind was directed to the means of removing an obstacle which he did not suppose to exist, particularly as his object was not to invent a Telegraph but to develope general science. In another point of view, however, Prof. Henry’s experiments were of importance. They confirmed the discovery previously made by Prof. Hare, that a current from “ a trough” or from two or more plates, as in his 20th experiment, produces more magnet¬ ism in a long circuit, than a current from one plate presenting the same given surface to the acid. That the discovery was not original with Prof. Henry, is shown by his article in Silliman’s Journal in which he distinctly concedes it to Prof. Hare, in his account of both his 7th and 20th experiments. Yet, Prof. Henry’s experiments confirmed the discovery, and though he did not himself apply it to any useful purpose, he prepared it, so to speak, for practical application by others. It must not be forgotten, however, that this current from this kind of battery, now called a battery of intensity, though it produces more magnetism in long circuits than a battery of one pair of plates now called a battery of quantity, yet both are subject to the same law of reduction of their own magnetic influence, as the length of the circuit is increased. It must be noted, that when Prof. Henry speaks of “ mecha¬ nical action” produced by Electro Magnetism, he means any motion however feeble, such as the motion of the magnetic needle and the motion of the bar in Morse’s Receiving magnet. Such u mechanical action” is wholly insufficient for Morse’s purposes, and was useless to him without means to produce a much greater force. It must also be noted, that the title u Electro-Magnetic Tele¬ graph ” is a general name, not confined to Morse’s Telegraph, but comprehending Wheatstone’s needle Telegraph, and all other Telegraphs of which Electro Magnetism constitutes the princi¬ pal Agent. A force sufficient to vibrate Wheatstone’s needles would be wholly inadequate to give an efficient impulse to Morse’s pen. It does not follow, that when Prof. Henry or others speak of “ the Electro-Magnetic Telegraph,” they mean * Morse’s marking Telegraph. One kind may be practicable by an amount of magnetic force which would be wholly inadequate to give vitality to another. And of all known kinds, Morse’s Telegraph requires the greatest magnetic force. The Counsel on the other side have confounded all kinds of magnetic telegraphs together, by which expedient they give a meaning to some of the testimony which was never intended. THE AMERICAN ELECTRO-MAGNETIC TELEGRAPH. 7l For instance: When Henry says that in 1831 he saw that the Electro-Magnetic Telegraph was possible, he does not mean marking telegraphs, which do not appear ever to have been thought of, but signal telegraphs which had already attracted the attention of scientific men in Europe. This, then is the foundation on which Prof. Morse built: the discoveries and inventions of Oersted, Schweiger, Arago, Stur¬ geon and Henry. It was known that mechanical effects could be produced by Electro Magnetism on a circuit of considerable length, but how long was entirely unknown. Here Prof. Morse commenced his structure. It is in evidence in the case, that as early as 1832, on board the packet ship Sully returning from France, Prof. Morse conceived the idea of his marking Telegraph by the application of Elec¬ tricity or Electro Magnetism. He had the result in his mind, but he could not secure it by patent, because he had not pro¬ duced it, nor could he describe a process by which it could be produced. A patent then would have been a patent for an ab¬ stract principle or result. One portion of his means, however, was matured on that occasion, though afterwards somewhat modified, and that was his alphabet or system of telegraphic signs. Even Dr. Jackson gives him credit for that. See Jackson’s letter of November 7th, 1837. But neither could he patent that system, because he had not yet devised a plan to make them, and there was no Telegraph in existence to which they could be attached as an improve¬ ment. Though new , he had not yet made them useful. They were, however, drawn out in a sketch book fully identified in this case, butwhich perished in the fire which destroyed Dana’s Lectures. It is in evidence, that Prof. Morse contemplated making these characters by means of an Electro-Chemical pro¬ cess, and that he and Dr. Jackson were jointly to make experi¬ ments after their arrival in the United States, to ascertain what solution would best answer the purpose, it being already known that if certain substances were dissolved in some liquid, and a piece of paper saturated with it, the Electric current passing through the paper would leave a visible mark. It is in evidence, that immediately after his arrival in the . United States, Prof. Morse cast certain type, corresponding with the signs or letters he had invented, which, instead of be¬ ing applied to print them directly, were to be set in a port-rule in a straight line, each type representing the letter or sign in¬ tended to be printed at the distant station. These type so arranged, were then made to pass under a metallic point with which each type in its turn came in contact, closing the circuit and keeping it closed a longer or shorter time, as the type re- 72 shaffner’s telegraph companion. presented a dot or a line. The metallic contact being broken as each letter passed, broke the circuit: at the same time the prepared paper at the other end, passing between a stylus and a metallic cylinder, both in the circuit, was to be marked with dots and lines by the chemical action of the current in correspond¬ ence with the type which closed the circuit. This contrivance was equally applicable to the making of marks by the Electro- Magnetic process ; and though not in use because the operators soon learn how to regulate the requisite duration of the current by holding down the key a longer or shorter time, thereby avoiding the necessity of putting the messages in type, it might yet be employed with advantage in cases where great caution should be used to avoid mistakes. The contemplated joint experiments of Morse and Jackson were never made, and Morse sought out separately the means of printing his characters at a distance, by means of Electro Magnetism. In 1835 he constructed a rude machine embodying all the principles and appliances of an Electro-Magnetic Marking Tele¬ graph by means of a single Circuit. It was just such a Tele¬ graph as Prof. Henry supposed to be practicable from the de¬ lusive result of his experiment in 1831. But Prof. Morse was not satisfied that he could get power enough to mark at any considerable distance by means of a single Circuit. lie, there¬ fore, sought for the means of overcoming this anticipated diffi¬ culty, and he found the means in combined circuits, using the mechanical action of the first circuit, to close and break the sec¬ ond, and the second the third, and so on indefinitely. How, indeed, an Electro-Magnetic Marking Telegraph was possible and not before. But, let the witness, Professor Gale, tell the story. The following are extracts of his Deposition, pages 142 and 144-5 of the Record, viz : “ That in the month of January, in the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty six, I w T as a colleague Professor in the University of the City of Hew York, with Professor Samuel F. B. Morse who had rooms in the University building on Wash¬ ington Square in said City. That during the said month of January of the year aforesaid, the said Professor Morse invited me into his private room in the said University where I saw for the first time certain apparatus constituting his Electro-Magne¬ tic Telegraph. .V. ,y. ,y. r y, .v. .y, 7v vv #V VV VV “ It was early a question between Professor Morse and my¬ self, where was the limit of the magnetic power to move a lever ? I expressed a doubt whether a lever could be moved by this power at a distance of 20 miles, and my settled conviction was, that it could not be done with sufficient force to make characters THE AMERICAN ELECTRO-MAGNETIC TELEGRAPH. 73 on paper at 100 miles distance. To this Prof. Morse was ac¬ customed to reply, 4 4 4 If I can succeed in working a magnet ten miles I can go round the globe.’ ” The chief anxiety at this stage of the invention, was to ascertain the utmost limits of distance at which he (Morse) could work or move a lever by magnetic power. He often said to me, 44 4 it matters not how delicate the movement may be, if I can obtain it all, it is all I want.’ ” Prof. Morse often referred to the number of stations which might be required, and which, he observed, would add to the complication and expense. The said Morse always ex¬ pressed his confidence of success in propagating magnetic power through any distance of electric conductors which circumstances might render desirable. His plan was thus often explained to me: 4 Suppose’ said Prof. Morse 4 that in experimenting on twenty miles of wire we should find that the power of mag¬ netism is so feeble that it will but move a lever with certainty a hair’s breadth ; that would be insufficient, it may be, to write or print, yet it would be sufficient to close and break another or a second circuit twenty, miles further, and this second circuit wmuld be made, in the same manner, to break and close a third circuit twenty miles further, and so on around the globe.’” 44 This general statement of the means to be resorted to now embraced in what is called the 4 44 Receiving Magnet,’ ” to ren¬ der practical writing or printing by Telegraph, through long distances, was shown to me more in detail early in the spring of the year 1837, (one thousand eight hundred and thirty seven), and I am enabled to approximate the date very nearly from an accident that occurred to me from falling on the ice formed of late snow in the spring of that year. The accident happened on the occasion of removing to Prof. Morse’s rooms in the Hew York University some pieces of apparatus to prepare a tem¬ porary receiving magnet. 44 The apparatus was arranged on a plan substantially as in¬ dicated in the drawings on sheet 2 accompanying this affidavit. 1 is a battery at one terminus of a line of conductors represent¬ ing 20 miles in length, from one pole of which the conductor proceeds to the helix of an Electro magnet at the terminus (the helix forming part of the conductor), from thence it returns to the battery end terminating in a mercury cup O from the con¬ tiguous mercury cup P, a wire proceeds to the other pole of the battery, when the fork of the lever C unites the two cups of mercury, the circuit is complete, and the magnet B is charged and attracts the armature of the lever A which connects the circuit of battery 2 in the same manner, which again operates in turn [on the] lever E, twenty miles further and so on. 44 This I depose and say was the plan then and there revealed and shown to me by the said Prof. Morse, and which, so far as I 74 shaffner’s telegraph companion. know, has constituted an essential part of his Electro-Magnetic Telegraph from that date, till the present time.” “ It was early a question,” says Prof. Gale, “between Prof. Morse and myself, where was the limit of magnetic power to move a lever.” Of course, it was early in 1836. Prof. Morse could not tell, but he replied “ If I can succeed in wording a magnet ten miles , 1 can go round the globef and he explained his plan to be the use of the first circuit to break and close a second, and so on, now called the combined circuit. And early in 1837, he actually made the combination —Prof. Morse could not have derived this idea from Prof. Hemy, for the following reasons, viz: First. He did not become acquainted with him, as appears by Henry’s evidence, until late in 1837 or early in 1838. We apprehend it was really much later. Secondly. He did not find a trace of it in Henry’s article of 1831. On the contrary, that article, if he had confidence in it, must have tended to convince him that no such expedient was necessary. Thirdly. It was never a topic of conversation between Morse and Henry, at least prior to 1839, for Henry says in his Deposi¬ tion, (Record, p. 424) “I heard nothing of the secondary circuit as a part of Morse’s plan until after his return from Europe, whither he went in 1838.” Although at page 425, he speaks of several visits of Morse to Princeton to confer with him, they were all subsequent to 1837, about the end of which year by his account, their first acquaintance was formed. And it is worthy of remark, that, although Henry says, “ I freely gave him all the information I possessed,” he nowhere intimates that he had given him the least idea of combined Circuits. The reason why this combination was not spoken of by either, may be, that Henry still had faith, that with Cruikshank’s battery, a battery not now in use, a current of electricity might be projected to any distance, if not with an increase “ at least without any sensible diminution” of its magnetic “ influence,” and of course, did not think the expedient of combining circuits worth men¬ tioning ; w r hile Morse believing the same thing, from Henry’s information, also thought his preconceived and perfected plan wholly useless, and never mentioned it. Be that as it may, it is quite evident that the idea was not suggested by either to the other, and was probably original with both. But an attempt is made to deprive Prof. Morse of the merit, if not the profit, of this part of his invention by a misconstruc¬ tion of Prof. Henry’s testimony. It is asserted that he used this very combination, and explained it to his class in 1833 or 1834. Prof. Henry makes no such statement, nor any statement justi¬ fying such an assertion. The following extract from the Re- \ THE AMERICAN ELECTRO-MAGNETIC TELEGRArH. 75 cord, page 42, contains all that Prof. Henry says on the sub¬ ject ; viz. “ In February, 1837,1 went to Europe, and early in April of that year, Prof. Wheatstone, of London, in the course of a visit to him at King’s College, London, with Prof. Bache, now of the Coast Survey, explained to us his plans of an Electro-Magnetic Telegraph, and among other things, exhibited to us his method of bringing into action a second galvanic circuit; this consisted in closing the second circuit by the deflection of a needle, so placed that the two ends projecting upwards, the open circuit wmuld be united by the contact of the end of the needle when deflected, and on opening or breaking the circuit so closed by opening the first circuit and thus interrupting the current, when the needle would resume its ordinary position, under the in¬ fluence of the magnetism of the earth. I informed him that I had devised another method of producing effects somewhat similar. This consisted in opening the circuit of my large quantity magnet at Princeton when loaded with many hundred pounds weight, by attracting upward a small piece of movable wire, with a small intensity magnet, connected with a long wire circuit. When the circuit of the large battery was thus broken by an action from a distance, the weights would fall, and great mechanical effect could thus be produced, such as the ringing of church bells at the distance of a hundred miles or more, an illustration which I had previously given to my class at Prince¬ ton. My impression is strong, that I had explained the precise process to my class before I went to Europe, but testifying now wfithout the opportunity of reference to my notes, I cannot speak positively; I am, however, certain of having mentioned in my lectures every year previously, at Princeton, the project of ring¬ ing bells at a distance by the use of the Electric Magnet, and of having frequently illustrated the principle to my class, by caus¬ ing in some cases a thousand pounds to fall on the floor, by merely lifting a piece of wire from the cups of mercury closing the circuit. “ The object of Prof. Wheatstone, as I understood it, in bring¬ ing into action a second circuit, was to provide a remedy for the diminution of force in a long circuit. My object, in the process described by me, was to bring into operation a large quantity magnet connected with a quantity battery in a local circuit, by means of a small a distance.” It will be perceived, that Prof. Henry calls Wheatstone’s Telegraph, an u Electro-Magnetic Telegraph ,” though it was a signal Telegraph only, which, instead of recording letters like Morse’s, pointed at them by means of magnetic needles. In a preceding part of his Deposition, Prof. Henry, after intensity magnet, and an intensity battery at 76 shaffner’s telegraph companion. giving an account of the results of his experiments upon the single circuit, made public in 1831, goes on to say: (page 421) “In 1832, I was called to the chair of Natural Philosophy in the College of New Jersey, at Princeton; and in my first course of lectures in that Institution in 1833, and in every subsequent year during my connection with that Institution, I mentioned the project of an Electro-Magnetic Telegraph, and explained how the Electro Magnet might be used to produce mechanical effects at a distance.” Now, were all these lectures substantially but repetitions of his article of 1831, or did they embrace the additional idea of combined circuits, as means of effecting these mechanical re¬ sults ? If the latter had been the case, Henry could not so far have forgotten it, as to have any doubt whether he had ex¬ plained the combined circuits to his class before he went to Europe in 1837. It is in the nature of things impossible, that if, during four years’ lectures, he had described this combination of means for accomplishing an end, he should have forgotten those means while he distinctly remembers the end. While he “ cannot speak positively” as to ever having explained the com¬ bined circuit to his class before he went to Europe in 1837, he says “ I am, however, certain of having mentioned in my lec¬ tures every year previously at Princeton, the project of ringing bells at a distance by the use of the Electro Magnet, and of having frequently illustrated the principle to my class by caus¬ ing in some cases a thousand pounds to fall on the floor by merely lifting a ])iece of wire from two cups of mercury closing the circuit.” Now, this is the precise mode for closing and breaking the single circuit then used in experiments, and was not Henry’s mode of bringing into action a secondary circuit. “ This” he saj*s “ consisted,” (not in a forked wire dipped in two cups of mercury but) in opening the circuit u by attracting upward a small piece of movable wire with a small intensity magnet, connected with a long wire circuit.” When, therefore, Prof. Henry says he is certain of having mentioned every year previously at Princeton , the project of ringing bells, &c., and illustrated the principle to his class “ by merely lifting a piece of wire from two cups of mercury closing the circuit,” it is as much as to say “ the piece of movable wire” was not used in the process. The solution of this matter is perfectly easy. The short single circuit used by Henry with his improvements in the Electro Magnet, was competent to all the results he actually exhibited , and he used no other. He does not pretend that he did. His impression is, not that he used , but that he merely explained the combined circuit to his class. As to results not produced by him, such as ringing bells at a distance of one hundred THE AMERICAN ELECTRO-MAGNETIC TELEGRAPH. 77 miles, &c., he only inferred it might be done, basing that infer¬ ence upon his improvements in the Electro Magnet and his sup - posed discovery that the magnetic action from a particular hind of battery “ is at least not sensibly diminished by passing through a long wire.” He could draw no other inference from this supposed fact, and if it had turned out to be a fact, he could have rung bells by a single circuit not only at a distance of one hundred miles, but of ten thousand miles, and combined circuits would never have been thought of for any practical use. Prof. Henry does not state when he first conceived the idea of combined circuits, or say positively whether he had it at all be¬ fore he saw it in operation in England, in 1837. If he explained it to his class, he certainly had it, but he is not positive as to that. If he did not explain it to his class, then it is presumable he did not have it; or considered it of no importance, for he doubtless explained to his class all he knew or thought, which he considered of any importance on the subject. All that Henry proves, therefore, is, that he had the idea in April 1837, saw then an actual combination by Wheatstone in London, and suggested a different mode for breaking and closing the secondary circuit. But prior to that time, Morse had not only conceived but com¬ pleted the combination. It is admitted that Prof. Morse neither invented nor improved the battery. Neither did Prof. Henry. All he did in that respect w r as to test the capacity of known batteries in connection with his improved Electro Magnet. Nor is it any real disparagement to him, that being misled by a single experiment, he should reason that it might be u a fact that the galvanic fluid, in order to produce the greatest mag¬ netic effect , should move with a small velocity ,” a supposition long since proved to be the reverse of the fact, as Prof. Henry’s Deposition virtually establishes. Since 1831, Danielle’s bat¬ tery, and Grove’s battery have been invented, and the latter has nearly superseded all others in the Telegraph Lines. It is composed of cups instead of pairs , and these cups generally without difference in size, are used both in the main and local circuits, so that practically in the Telegraph, the difference be¬ tween what Prof. Henry calls a “ battery of intensity” and a “ battery of quantity” is merely the difference between a big battery and a little battery, “ an intensity magnet” being made magnetic by a big battery, and a “ quantity magnet ” by a little battery; and a big battery very naturally sends out a swifter current than a little one of the same kind. But the distinctive names found in Prof. Henry’s Deposition, do not appear in his article of 1831, and we regret that Science has not clearer ideas on this subject, or more intelligible terms to express them. We feel as if we have gone into this subject with unnecessary shaffner’s telegraph companion. 78 prolixity; for what, after all, does Henry’s testimony amount to in its broadest construction, but that, in common with Oer¬ sted, Schweiger, Arago, Sturgeon and others, he has furnished some of the materials used in the Telegraph, without pretend¬ ing that he produced a Telegraph, or attempted to do so ? He says himself “I left to others what I considered in a sci¬ entific view, of subordinate importance— the application of my discoveries to useful purposes in the artsfi Record, page 424. He further says “I have always considered his [Morse’s] merit to consist in combining and applying the discoveries of others in the invention of a particular instrument and process for tele¬ graphic purposes.” And if this “ particular instrument and process” w T ere the very first that gave to the world a Recording Telegraph , do they not in law entitle Prof. Morse to as full pro¬ tection as if he had discovered every principle, devised every combination, and invented every particle of machinery which he employs ? Patent law does not accord with the idea, that the production of useful results, is of u subordinate importance.” It looks upon mere scientific discoveries as utterly useless until applied to useful purposes in the arts.” Let Henry have “ the consciousness of advancing science, the pleasure of discovering new truths, and the scientific reputation to which these labors would entitle him,” which he says is “the only reward he ever expected,” : but do not deny to Morse the reward which his country has promised him for the more useful if not more glorious labors, of taking in hand Henry’s barren truths , dress¬ ing them up in the garb of utility, and sending them forth to serve and bless his fellow men. Art. II.—MORSE’S ELECTRO TELEGRAPH. By George Gifford, Esq. Argument Submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States. THE INVENTED MACHINERY—PROCESS—ART AND ACHIEVEMENT. May it tlease the Honorable Court : It has fallen upon me to close the argument on the part of the appellees in this important cause, and in entering upon that duty I find myself laboring under the same embarrassment of want of sufficient time, which has been experienced by all the counsel who have preceded me. And although we thank the court for the allow¬ ance of more time for the argument than is fixed by their stand¬ ing rules, yet we did believe and still believe, and after this in¬ itiatory examination of the subject, we think the court must concur with us in the belief, that still more time might have been properly and usefully appropriated to the investigation of morse’s electro telegraph. 79 the vast amount of most difficult matter in this case. We are not unmindful of the other important duties of this court, nor of how great is the value of its time to the country ; but we cannot avoid remembering also, how small is the value of a few days of the time of this or any other court, compared with the vast amount of time which Morse’s Telegraph is daily saving to the country and world. The invention with which we have to deal in this case, is unlike those which have usually been subjects of judicial investigation by the learned members of this court; it is so, both in the agent employed and the result attained. It employs a subtle, imponderable, invisible agent, and this, not for the manufacture of tangible things, but for the trans¬ mission of information. It is not like the changed and varied combinations of levers, wheels, cams, cylinders, eccentrics, pinions, ratchets, and other visible parts of apparatus and mechanical fixtures, constituting improvements and inventions in the machines and devices em¬ ployed in the preparation or manufacture and improvement of food, raiment, implements of husbandry, and a variety of other tangible things, by acting upon and changing the form or quality of tangible substances, wherein an occular inspection of illus¬ trative models of wood or metal exhibits the whole essence of the invention. On the contrary, this invention is chiefly con¬ structed of combinations, relations, and conditions far more subtle and refined, and much more difficult to be understood. The apparatus and machinery of Morse’s Telegraph, sub¬ jected here, by the aid of models, to the inspection of the court, ingenious, novel and important as it is, nevertheless presents but an humble appearance to the mind that understands and appreciates the soul of this Telegraph, imparting the mighty energy w T hich its works alone reveal. Nor is this power and ability a result of chance, but on the contrary it is the legitimate and designed function of a series of combined conditions and intermediate results, sustaining exact and fixed relations to each other, and though intangible, yet wrought, jointed and adjusted with more accuracy, nicety and skill than the smith displays in fitting and connecting the physical parts of his time-piece, and all indispensible to the practical control of this electric messenger, and exhibiting to an investigating mind the most refined, delicate, and effective touches of the conquering genius of the inventor. The power of the invisible constitution of this invention is known best by its works. The unseen atmosphere in a quiesent state gives little indication of power, but when raging in the hurricane, the effects of this invisible agent evince its power. The body of a man gives no indication of the latent power of 80 shaffner’s telegraph companion. reposing passion, and yet passion is the moving power of the race of men, and is known only by its works. The apparatus of Morse’s Telegraph is, comparatively, simple and unosten¬ tatious ; but the conditions and relations which make it a tele¬ graph and the wonder of mankind, are intangible and invisible, and for that reason by a cursory observer, are liable to be stumbled over unappreciated. But when a feeble man, stand¬ ing near a telegraph in this capitol, and by gentle touches of the finger, and within fifteen minutes, can hold converse with the remote parts of the four quarters of the Rupublic—with Maine, Louisiana, Wisconsin, and the Lakes, then it is that its inherent energies and power are exhibited in its triumphant result of intercepting time and obliterating space; and then it is that we are forced to concede that the visible apparatus is but an inadequate exponent to the Telegraph, and then we rea¬ lize the necessity of a further investigation in quest of those parts and features of the invention by which, together with the machinery, it performs its gigantic feats. In this I hope to be of some service to the court. This may be thought by some to be too metaphysical, such notions, however, are not realities, but mere apologies to excuse from the labor of investigation. As has already been stated by my colleague, limitation of time has rendered it necessary to omit comment on any minor points in this case, and for the counsel of the appellees to make a division among them of the main points submitted upon their brief, and for each to confine himself exclusively to the points within his division. The points, on the printed brief of the appellees, cover all material matters put in issue by the pleadings in the court be¬ low, and, therefore, as we suppose, cover all that can properly be controverted here. But the extraordinary course of our learned opponent who opened the argument in behalf of the appellants, in urging his supposed right to originate here, for the first time, other issues—issues not made by the pleadings, nor heard of in the court below, and unknown to the record, and never made at all until recorded in the printed brief of the learned counsel, has given rise to certain other points apper¬ taining to the merits of the case, the importance of presenting or omitting wdiich will depend upon the decision of the court, on the preceding question of practice, that is, whether the ap¬ pellants have a right to a tranformation of this court into one of original jurisdiction in this case, and to so frame new issues to be here tried for the first time. This question of practice fell within the division of my learned colleague, who we think, without much effort, has successfully maintained the negative of such a proposition. And although the appellees would have had nothing to fear morse’s electro telegraph. 31 from the matters involved in any such new issues, now here made and insisted upon by our learned opponents, had such issues been made in the tribunal where they could have been met by the proper testimony, yet they do protest against the right of the appellants to now and here, for the first time, pre¬ sent new issues involving questions of fact, which in whole or in part can be determined only by testimony; and to do this at a stage of the controversy, and in a court where new testi¬ mony cannot be offered; and they protest against this propo¬ sition as being without precedent, and contrary to the rules and practice of this court. Still, as we cannot, with entire certainty, anticipate the conclusion of the court on this question of prac¬ tice, and as evidence taken with reference to other issues can be gathered from the record sufficient to meet and negative even the propositions of our opponents, founded on these new issues, we have resolved to not leave them entirely untouched, but to give them such attention only as may be consistent with a more full consideration of the other issues which were made in the court below, and which we regard as' the only questions properly before this court. Of these new issues it falls to me to consider only those in¬ volving questions made upon the re-issuing of Morse’s patents, the others fell into more able hands, and have been disposed of by my colleagues. The questions appertaining to the merits of the-case properly before the court, and all, as we submit, with which they will find it necessary to tax their attention, are recorded in our brief, and have been referred to and re-stated by one of my collea¬ gues, and it will be unnecessary for me to recapitulate them here; suffice it for me to remind the court that those falling within my division are : 1st. The patentability of the subject matter of the 1st, 5th and 6th claims of the patent of 1810, as re-issued in 1848. 2d. The patentability of the subject matter of the patent of 1846, as re-issued in 1848, in reference to its relation to and difference from anything included in the patent of 1840. 3d. Infringement. 4th. Disclaimer. After disposing of those points, then, if time will permit, 5th. To briefly examine the new questions raised by our op¬ ponents, as to the validity of the several re-issues of the patents. The principles of law which these points involve are so well settled, and are so familiar to this learned court, as to require no parade or exhibition of authorities and cases to maintain them. It will be more useful to dwell upon the relation between the facts and the law. Before taking up these points in their order, and preparatory 6 82 siiaffner’s telegraph companion. to a consideration of them, it will be important to pause and look into the vital parts of the invention of Morse’s Telegraph. No safe conclusion can be arrived at as to whether the claims of a patent for an invention are proper or improper, or whether, and in what there has been an infringement, unless the inven- tion be subjected to an examination sufficiently searching to determine both its quantity and hind of novelty; for as well might one attempt to decide upon a question of trespass upon land without knowing its boundaries, or how far the title of the claimants extended. To follow the course of the inventor’s mind, and make such an examination of many, and indeed of most inventions, is an easy task, while others require the exercise of the best faculties of the mind, and the most enduring patience. Many inventions consist only of a single combination, and that too, of tangible parts of apparatus or machinery, where a slight inspection will possess the mind of all there is of it; others consist of many combinations, and are of a compound character, and therefore more difficult to understand; but the combinations of which, still being limited to parts of tangible apparatus or machinery, can easily be understood from a more careful ocular inspection. But, there are still others consisting, not only of many combinations, but of many classes of com¬ binations ; one class consisting, perhaps, of combinations in apparatus or machinery; another class of combinations of mo¬ tions ; another class of combinations of intermediate results ; another class of intermediate conditions, and finally involving the combination together of the several classes, constituting a complicated whole, in which every element of each class or an equivalent is an efficient and important agent in attaining the ultimate and designed result of that class, and in which also such ultimate result of each class of combinations forms either an indispensable intermediate condition, or effect in attaining the final result of the whole, or an indispensable component part of the whole combination. Inventions of this last character are, of necessity and from their nature,< most difficult to understand—and such, too, bring¬ ing out great and useful results, are the ripest fruits of the longest and most indefatigable efforts of the greatest and most enduring genius; and if genius be not absolutely necessary to even understand them after produced, it is certain, that, at least, a careful, patient, and sometimes long and tedious investiga¬ tion is necessary ; and if any one, called to limit the magnitude of such an invention and define the merits and rights of its author, and to find division lines, and to fix the boundaries thereto, content himself with only a cursory inspection of the morse’s electro telegraph. 83 visible parts of the clothing of the invention, without a patient examination of the parts which enter so vitally into its life and principle, and give it energy, efficiency and utility, he may be expected to be and remain, where he commences, upon the sur¬ face of the thing, unconscious of the grandeur, beauty and order displayed in the superstructure below ; and in such case, too often, it would be by mere accident if the response to the inventor’s call for protection and justice be more than an unin¬ tentional slander upon his merits and his invention. We con¬ gratulate the inventor of Morse’s Telegraph, that, although the spring and summer of his life have been spent in the philan¬ thropic work of his invention, amid alternate hopes and fears, he has lived to be present and see his invention and cause sub¬ mitted to this Supreme Tribunal of his country, whose duty and desire to reward merit by justice will overrule every consider¬ ation of personal inconvenience and arduous labor, necessary for such full, ample and elaborate examination as will exclude all danger of a misapprehension, or a misunderstanding of the nature, character and extent of his invention. Morse’s telegraph partakes of three distinct classes of patent- able subject matter; 1st, apparatus or machinery; 2nd, pro¬ cess ; and 3d, an art • each of which, independently of the others, is a fair and perfect subject, within the law, fora patent, and any of which might have been patented without patenting either of the others, but all of which in this case, and properly too, are patented. It will be found, on attaining familiarity with the details of Morse’s invention, that it is not a want or scarcity of novelty which renders it difficult to be understood, and difficult to fix the limits of his right, but that, on the contrary, this results from the greatness of the amount and the diversity of novelty included in it. If Morse’s invention consisted only of novel apparatus, or only of a novel process, or only of a new art, then it would be comparatively easy for the mind to embrace and identify it, and then there would be less danger of injustice to the inventor from any omission or mistake. As it is, however, it is a severe task to become so familiar with the many things about the in¬ vention, and the character of the objections raised to Morse’s rights, as to avoid error in conclusion. We hear it said by some that Morse is undoubtedly the inventor of his peculiar appara¬ tus or machinery, and ergo, not of a process or art; by others that he is unquestionably the inventor of his peculiar process, and ergo not of the apparatus or an art; by others, that he is the inventor of a new art, and that it is no matter as to the pro¬ cess or apparatus ; by others, that he is evidently the inventor of the process and apparatus, and could not be of an art; by 84 shaffner’s telegraph companion. others, that he must have been the originator of the art and process, and ergo, it is of no consequence about the apparatus ; by others, that he may have discovered the art, but could have invented nothing but the machinery. Now, one difficulty appears to be, that all of them are right in part and all wrong in part; they are all right in their premises, as far as they go, but are all wrong in their conclusions; they content themselves with erroneous conclusions, somtimes from inability to comprehend others, and sometimes from a want of patience to investigate, either of which, in the end, exhibits the same error and mischief. It does not follow, that because Morse’s Telegraph contains many points of novelty within one class of patentable subject matter, that it may not, or does not also partake of other dis¬ tinct classes of patentable matter. The fact is, that Morse’s invention contains novelties of each class ; that is, in machin¬ ery, process, and art; and it were monstrous if the magnitude of the invention were allowed to diminish instead of enhancing acknowledged merit. Nor does it follow that he has no right to claim and patent the novelties of each class because there are others in other classes, nor because of the still additional novelty of the several classes being combined as a whole. Under the first point which I am to discuss, I desire here, as a means of developing the magnitude of Morse’s invention, and exhibiting the rich treasures of his genius, to present four views in relation to his telegraph. 1st.—Preparatory to a due appreciation of the means, I will briefly notice the nature and character of the specific objects to be attained by it. 2nd.—I will next submit an analytical view of the compo¬ nent parts or elements of the process. 3rd.—I will endeavor to present a like view of the essen¬ tial character of the machinery, or physical parts of the invention. 4th.—I shall attempt, and, I sincerely believe shall be able, to demonstrate that Morse’s Telegraph embraces within it a new and patentable art. To be continued. THE ANCIENT AND MODERN TELEGRAPH. 85 Art. IH.—THE ANCIENT AND MODERN TELEGRAPH.* SENTINEL TELEGRAPH—FIRE PILES INDIAN RUNNERS—CARRIER PIGEONS TELESCOPES—CANNON REPORTS—ROCKETS—ELECTRIC—ELECTRO-MAGNETIC. “ Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, ‘ Here we are V ”— Scripture . It is even so. The inquiry has been answered in one grand and magnificent sense. The querist and man of patience little dreamed, when using this grand metaphor to give greater effect to his reproach, and to illustrate the power of Omnipo¬ tence, that he was but uttering a eulogy upon science, while he claimed for the Deity but an attribute within the province of mortal triumphs and mortal genius. “ Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, ‘Here we are? 5 ” That restless and ambitious thing, the human mind, undeterred by the subtlety of divine themes, or the awfulness of ethereal problems, has boldly pushed investigation through¬ out the domain of electrical phenomena, and fettered the hoary potentate of storms on his very throne. ISTay, it has torn away the sceptre of the fierce god, sequestered the elements of his realm, and tamed the spirit of tempests to do the weak bidding of man. Science in this has surpassed itself It has not only accomplished a prodigy, but has worked a mira¬ cle—a miracle so vast, so incomprehensible, that the age, much as it has advanced in knowledge and enlightenment, cannot compass the extent of the discovery to which it has given birth. The lightnings have been trained to utter the language of men ! Can we conceive of anything more sublime or grand ? more thrilling or lofty in the field of imagination ? We aspire in our arrogance to count the suns and planets within the visual range; explore the scope of the physical heavens; transfer light and revealed darkness to canvass ; imitate the works of the Creator in senseless stone ; compress air into dense and powerful bodies ; generate a motive agency from water; follow comets and blazing heralds through trackless wastes; and knowledge and science in these pursuits have acquired immor¬ tal honors. But what is all this to subjugating the lightnings, the mythological voice of Jehovah, the fearful omnipotence of the clouds, causing them in the fine agony of chained submis¬ sion to do the offices of a common messenger—to whisper to the four corners of the earth the lordly behests of lordly man ! From He Bow’s Review'. 86 shaffner’s telegraph companion. But for the present, we shall treat of only one branch of the subject. Telegraphs were doubtless invented coeval with the institu¬ tion of society, or the organization of communities. In prime¬ val days, sentinels stood upon the house-tops, and by gestures and postulary signs, communicated the intelligence with which they were charged. Messages were conveyed long distances by means of trumpeters stationed on contiguous hill-tops, who by minding certain tones from their instruments, could readily and intelligibly convey their tidings from place to place. When in¬ telligence of a peculiar character was desired and expected, piles of combustible matter were prepared on elevated points, and watchmen appointed to guard and light them at the appointed signal. Clytemnestra , in the Agamemnon of JEschy- lus , gives us a beautiful description of these journeying tele¬ graphs. The watchman of the tower has nightly scanned the horizon for ten long years, in vain to catch the gleam that is to announce the fall of Xlion. At last it comes :— A gleam—a gleam from Ida’s height, By the fire-god sent it came ; From watch to watch it leapt, that light, As a rider rode the flame. It shot through the startled sky, And the torch of that blazing glory Old Lemnos-caught on high, On its holy promontory. And it sent it on, the jocund sign, To Athos, mount of Jove divine, So that the might of the journeying light Skimmed o’er the back of the gleaming brine; Faster and farther speeds it on, Till the watch that keep Macistus steep See it burst like a blazing sun 1 Doth Macistus sleep On his tower-clad steep ? No ! rapid and red doth the wild fire sweep : It flashes afar on the wayward stream Of the wild Euripus, the rushing beam! It rouses the light on Massapion’s hight, And they feed its breath with the withered heath. But it may not stay, And away—away— It bounds in its freshening might, &e., &c. Another mode of telegraphing was by employing fleet run¬ ners, who bore despatches with almost incredible celerity. The monarchs of Mexico were noted for their corps of Indian mes¬ sengers, who w T ere able by co-operating together, to carry a message a distance of two hundred and fifty leagues in a day. Primitive European nations had legionaries, who, with elevated spears, sent tidings afar; and succeeding generations substitu¬ ted the telescope, the mirror, the cannon, and the carrier pigeon. THE ANCIENT AND MODERN TELEGRAPH. 87 Rockets came later, then the post-boy, and finally the wooden structures, which may yet be found in many parts of Europe, and which, in some respects, bear a close similarity to the wind¬ mill edifices against which Don Quixote expended so much fruitless ire and aggressive valor. The post-coach, however, despoiled these inventions of much of their importance and utility. Carrier pigeons were wholly dispensed with ; rockets were tossed out of the civil community into the military ranks; the modern colossus, with its ponderous arms, was deemed in¬ dispensable only in extraordinary emergencies, or for marine purposes ; the telescope was valued only for discerning objects at a great distance, or was turned over to the use of philoso¬ phers ; by common consent, the mirror was awarded to the ladies, and became, if not their exclusive, their chief source of delight; and whatever other modes of telegraphing remained, if any, were allowed to become obsolete, or were consigned to oblivion. Science had been active in its researches; and disco¬ very led to discovery, until at length the world was u startled from its propriety” by the introduction of the steam engine and the railway, those stupenduous revolutionizers, that are fast linking, in indissoluble ties of fraternity, nation with nation, and interest with interest, until, anon, in this iron embrace, they u shall know war no more.” But science had yet to achieve a greater, may we not truly say its greatest triumph ? It has been so since the application of the mind to the investigation of great subjects, that in solving an intricate problem, we find that the secret is also the key to the solution of another; and this progress in mental conquest demonstrates the necessity of new and untried instru¬ ments for the hand. On this basis, or by this parity of reason¬ ing, we naturally arrive at this conclusion : that without genius, science would be powerless; without science, ignorance would predominate over knowledge. We are apt to marvel, that in this nineteenth century so many profound truths in philosophy, and secrets in art, have been brought to light, compared with what has been divulged or discerned during the past centuries; but let us not forget, that a fragmentary knowledge of our new electric telegraph had existed in the human mind for hundreds of years ; it needed only a master mind to unite the elements ; a master hand to foro’e the mechanical, instruments, to show to the wondering world the perfect work. And, as one impediment is overcome, all other obstacles are easily surmounteVl. The art of expressing thought with types, perhaps, suggested the idea of conveying to the eye images of nature in print from modern blocks. It may be, that the optician, in attempting to improve the focal powers of spectacles tor the eye, was moved to conceive the idea of the telescope. But what suggested the spectacles, 88 siiaffner’s telegraph companion. if not some previous effort of the mind to unlock the secrets of science, and which mechanical skill turned to permanent and valuable good ? The first telegraph constructed on purely scientific principles, was an instrument closely resembling the common telescope now in use. The author of the invention was Robert TIooke, a philosopher of the seventeenth century. Ilooke, however, fur¬ nished no system of signals with his instrument, and he died disappointed in finding that his genius had attracted so little at¬ tention. But the attempt, abortive, as it had been, to supersede the modes of telegraphing in vogue by some new and untried method, stimulated the philosophers of Germany and France to employ their inventive faculties to the same end. Four years after the death of Hooke, William Amentons, a Frenchman!, of Lisle, brought forward a plan, the details of which he had pla¬ giarized from Hooke; but the principal feature, and that for which he claimed originality, was the table of characters which accompanied it. This table contained the letters of the alphabet, and a key explained to the operator the signs or signals that ex¬ pressed the sense of the letters, or any combination thereof. Persons stationed at appropriate distances along a line or route, could despatch messages with considerable facility by this inven¬ tion. But Amentons came to Paris at a wrong period. He laid the result of his labors before the royal court; but it was a time when vice and debauchery held undisputed sway there—when virtue was jeered at from the throne to the peasant, and genius was left to neglect and starvation. Amentons was not more successful than Hooke had been. But science was not to be deterred from its great purpose, despite the ridicule of royal concubines. Marcel next stepped into the arena of discovery ; then Linguet, Dupuis, Edgeworth, Bergstratter, and a host of others of less pretensions. Marcel pined and labored in poverty, and died without reward in ob¬ scurity, cherishing his fond project to the last. He aimed to perfect his scheme before he divulged it to the world ; but failing to incite confidence, and obtaining no succor with which to prosecute his studies, he burnt his designs, buried his secret, and u wrapping his cloak about him, brooded in silence and despair, until relieved of his burden of life,” which event happened soon after. Linguet had little to lose, and everything to gain by a discovery. He was at this time, and had long been, an inmate of the Bastile, and perhaps after all, his pretension was a ruse by which to obtain his liberty. He, however, asserted that he had invented a telegraph which would supersede all others, and proposed,to exchange the secret for his enlargement. It is not known whether government ever paid any attention to the inventor; at all events, his plan, whatever it was, never enlisted THE ANCIENT AND MODERN TELEGRAPn. 89 the encouragement or patronage of any one. Edgeworth put forward greater claims than all his predecessors or contempo¬ raries ; but meanwhile the German philosophers had inundated Europe with every variety of plan and design of telegraph, so that it would be difficult to particularize in what Edgeworth had been original, or what he had borrowed without credit from his rivals and competitors. Claude Chappe, a French theological student, of Angers, “ who was,” according to a living writer, “ so indolent that his parents thought him fit for no other profession than the church,” was the originator of the telegraph which still bears his name. His brothers were at a school three leagues distant, and Claude had frequent occasion to communicate with them; but he most heartily detested the journey which he was compelled still to undertake before he could reach them. One day he set about cudgeling his brains how T to obviate this difficulty. The result of many experiments was the invention of the upright post, re¬ revolving beam, and circulating arms—those frightful wayside giants which are still to be seen whirling and striking, and gyrating, and rioting in many parts of the Old World. Chappe was inspired with a new idea at the success of his plan. lie cast aside his indolence, and began a series of experiments, the fruits of which have made his name illustrious. As soon as he had improved and systematized his scheme, he repaired to Paris, and explained its principles and operations to the republican assem¬ bly. This was in 1792. France was at war with the great powers, and early intelligence was of the first importance to the authorities of the capital. After an official trial, his project was highly approved, and himself dubbed Ingenieur Telegrajphe. The first message this telegraph conveyed to Paris, was the an¬ nouncement of the surrender of Conde to the Republic. France then wholly adopted the system, and placed the brothers Chappe in the office of general superintendence. When we come to consider the necessities of speedy deliveries of intelligence in our present day—the augmentation of com¬ mercial and maritime interest—and the increased importance of despatch in every department of political and social intercourse —it seems impossible that we can put too high an estimate on the electro-magnetic telegraph discovery. Rational and indi¬ vidual interests, half a century since, might not have required the employment of a more active agency than the horse-express, or the post-coach ; but the steam vessel and the steam carriage have brought nations together, and consolidated states, and it is as ex¬ pedient that continents should now be traversed in an hour, as fifty years since the same distance should not consume more than two months. Electricity—that wondrous power which has succumbed to 90 shaffner’s telegraph companion. the will of man—has two essential properties, both of which have been tried for telegraph purposes; but for a period of two thousand years the skill of man was baffled in determining the distinct nature of these two properties, and in what manner to bring them separately or in combination under control. Thales, the philosopher, and founder of the Ionic sect, discovered, six hundred years before the birth of Christ, that Greek amber, when rubbed, exhibited certain properties of attraction which it did not otherwise possess. Thales, however, was too intent on mathematical problems and astronomical calculations to pay much attention to what may have appeared to him an insignifi¬ cant phenomenon. Besides, it was an age grossly lax in the pursuit of scientific studies. Science was taught, but it was the science of philosophy, and not of art. It was an age when men reasoned from dogmas and abstractions, not from sound theories and natural objects. Electrical phenomena were not unknown to the scholars that succeeded Thales, either in Greece, in Asia, or the islands of the Mediterranean. But no schools, then established, incorporated the study of this branch of philosophy in their classics, and no attempt was made to inform the under¬ standing on a subject which embraces themes the vastest and profoundest of any explanatory of the physical creation. Plu¬ tarch, Pliny, Caesar, Aristotle, Theophrastus, and others, emi¬ nent scholars of antiquity, relate that they have seen electrical phenomena of the most marvelous and unaccountable character, but they have purposely omitted details, owing, without doubt, to their ignorance of the subject; and, indeed, they do not seem to have taken even ordinary pains to master this defect. It was not until near the close of the sixteenth century that the nature of electrical phenomena began to be understood. A German, by the name of Gilbert, published a work entitled Tice Magnet , in which all the then known properties of electri¬ city are treated together, with some observations on the earth and air. Of course, the wildest conjectures are here put forth as sober axioms, while many since ascertained truths—in fact, the primary principles themselves—are unceremoniously dis¬ missed. Gilbert’s work, although an embodiment of errors and absurdities, had the good effect of inducing the philoso¬ phers of the age to think. Institutions of learning were spring¬ ing up everywhere, and rare minds, well stored, were leaving the cloister and academy, prepared to expound and instruct, and to contend for those prizes which the ancients had disdained to touch. Halley was the most prominent of these, who succeeded Gilbert; while Halley in turn was soon to be eclipsed by Otto Guerike, a Prussian, who constructed an electrical machine which consisted of a sulphur globe, made to rotate by means of a winch; and with this simple apparatus, and a cloth pressed MUSINGS OF A TELEGRAPHER. 91 against the globe, he discovered the existence of a controllable electric fluid, and that this electric fluid could be made to pass from one body to another without actual contact. This was a grand and sublime discovery. It was the first real step toward the final establishment of the electromagnetic telegraph. MUSINGS OP A TELEGRAPHER. BY GEO. G. W. MORGAN. Oh, man ! how graciously on thee has Heaven Bestowed its varied gifts to make thee blest; Each element of earth to thee is given, The visible and latent; amongst the rest, The Telegraph, e’er willingly to pay Its service— [Sir, we aint at work to-day.] What hope ! what joy! each day to thee is known, Whilst space, a captive, bound, is at thy door, Brought from the Frigid or the Torrid zone, To yield his tribute and increase thy store, And backward flies the tyrant to his zones— “[Is any answer here for Mr. Jones?]” Speedy o’er earth and sea, ’mid frost and cold, And forests where the untamed brute is free— No slave of man has ever toiled for gold With half the zeal that it has toiled for thee— Asking slight tribute for the service made— “[To send this South, sir, it must be prepaid.]” Affection, Friendship, Love, a mighty debt Owe to this willing, never-failing slave. “All safe and well—pray, write me ; don’t forget.” “ Father is sick—I fear too sick to save” — “Wife’s got a bouncing boy.” All in a breath. Well, such is life, or rather Life and Death. Oh, Commerce, thou art blessed; to days gone by— No power now can hold thee in its chains} Unfettered hence thine outspread wings may fly, And at thine ease can coolly count thy gains. “Please stop my goods, for Buncombe this day failed.” Oh,dear; oh, dear; these Corn’s must all be mailed. 92 shaffner's telegraph companion. [Leaf and Fruit of the Gutta Percha Tree.] Art. IV.—GUTTA PERCHA. ITS DISCOVERY—NATURE—QUALITIES—COMPARED WITH INDIA RUBBER—CHEMI- . CAL PROPERTIES. Gutta Percha—the Malayan term given to a concrete juice taken from the Isonanclra Gutta Tree—is indigenous to all the Islands of the Indian Archipelago, and especially to the Ma¬ layan Peninsula, Borneo, Ceylon, and their neighborhoods, GUTTA PERCHA. 93 where are found immense forests of this tree, yielding this pro¬ duct in great abundance. Its fruit contains a concrete edible oil which is used by the natives with their food. The gutta (or juice) circulates between the bark and the wood of the tree, in veins whose course is distinctly marked by black, longitudinal lines. The natives were originally in the habit of felling the tree when they required a supply, but have been taught by experience that the juice can be obtained by cutting notches at intervals in the trunk, and save the life of the tree for future tappings, as our maples for successive years yield their sap to the sugar manufacturers. The juice consolidates in a few minutes after it is collected, when it is formed by hand into compact oblong masses of from seven to twelve or eighteen inches in length by four to six inches in thickness, and these when properly dried, are what is known as the Gutta Percha of commerce. It is only ten years since the knowledge of the existence of this ductile secretion dawned upon the world. Dr. Montgo¬ merie, an assistant surgeon at Singapore, observed in the pos¬ session of a native, the handle of a wood-chopper of such singu¬ lar material that it awakened his attention, and on inquiry and examination he found it to have been made of the juice of this strange tree,—becoming plastic when dipped in hot water, and when cold regaining its original stiffness and rigidity. Within this brief period, the exudations of these dense forests have assumed, more especially in England, innumerable forms. It is singular indeed, that there should circulate in the veins of the primeval forests of Malacca and the neighboring Isles, a sap or juice so long a stranger to the civilized world, possessing such extraordinary virtues, and in the short period of ten years entering so largely and variously into the service of man, and destined to become his servant in a greater variety of forms than any other material yet discovered. The Gutta Percha of commerce is of a light brown color, ex¬ hibiting a fibrous appearance, much like the inner coating of white oak bark, and is without elasticity. When purified of its woody and earthy substance, it becomes hard, like horn, and is extremely tenacious; indeed its tenacity is wonderful. Mr. Burstall, of Birmingham, refering to some experiments testing the strength of tubes composed of this material, says:—“The tubes were 3-4-inch bore, the material 1-8 thick. They were tested by the Water Company’s proving pump, with its regular load of 250 pounds to the square inch ; afterwards we added weight up to 337 pounds, and I wished to have gone to 500, but the lever of the valve would bear no more weight; we were unable to burst the pipe.” Another gentleman, Mr. Andrew Bobertson, of Stirling, says :— u I am of opinion that no other material is so well fitted for the above purpose (ex- 94 ssaffner’s telegraph companion. tinguishing fires and watering the streets in dry weather,) as Gutta Percha; for, although our pressure is perhaps the great- in the Kingdom, being upwards of 450 feet, not the slightest effect could be discovered on the tube or joints, while the same pressure on our leather hose sends the rivets in all directions.” The application of heat to this crude material makes it soft and plastic, and in a temperature of about 200 degrees it be¬ comes quite ductile, when it is capable of being molded into any desired shape, which it will retain when cool. It can be dissolved by Sulphuret of Carbon, or Chloroform, or if im¬ mersed for a time in spirits of turpentine. It is repellant of and completely unaffected by cold water, but is softened and made adhesive by warm water. It is a non conductor of heat and electricity ; is proof against alkalies and acids, being only affected by the sulphuric or nitric in a highly concentrated state; while the most powerful acetic, hydroflouric or muriatic acids, or chlorine have no perceptible effect upon its structure or capabilities. This gum has qualities entirely differing from the India Rubber. It cannot be worn out. It can be melted and remelted, and repeatedly remolded, without changing its properties for manufacture or losing its virtue. It is lighter than rubber, of finer grain, and possesses certain repellant pro¬ perties unknown to that material; and is extremely tough. It disregards frost, and displays remarkable acoustic qualities. In its crude state, Gutta Percha has no resemblance what¬ ever to India Rubber in appearance, nor are its chemical or mechanical properties the same, nor does the tree from which it is taken belong to the same botanical family, or grow in the same latitudes or soil; yet, from the fact that it could be dis¬ solved and wrought into water-proof wares, many have inclined to the belief that the two materials are identically or nearly the same. Gutta Percha when immersed in boiling water, contracts in bulk. India Rubber when immersed in boiling water, expands, and increases in bulk. Gutta Percha juice is of a dark brown color, and consolidates in a few moments after exuding from the tree, when it becomes about as hard as wood. India Rubber sap is perfectly white, and of about the consist¬ ency of thick cream, when it coagulates, it gives from four to six parts water out of ten; it may be kept like milk, and is fre¬ quently drank by the natives. Gutta Percha first treated with water, alcohol, and ether, and then dissolved with spirits of turpentine and precipitated, yields a substance consistent with the common properties of* Gutta Percha. GUTTA PERCHA. 95 India Rubber similarly treated, results in a substance resem¬ bling in appearance the Gum Arabic. Gutta Percha by distillation yields 57 2-3 per cent of volatile matter. India Rubber by the same process yields 85 3-4 per cent. M Gutta Percha in its crude state, or in combination with other materials, may be heated and reheated to the consistency of thin paste, without injury to its future manufacture. India Rubber if but once treated in the same manner will be destroyed and unfit for future use. Gutta Percha is not decomposed by fatty substances ; one application of it is for oil vessels. India Rubber is soon decomposed by coming in contact with fatty substances. Gutta Percha is a non-conductor of cold, heat and elec¬ tricity, and, in its natural state, is non elastic, and,with little or no flexibilitv. «/ India Rubber is a conductor of heat, cold, and electricity, highly elastic and flexible. The specific gravity of Gatta Percha is much less than that of India Rubber,—in proportion as 100 of Gutta Percha is to 150 of India Rubber. Chemists, who have analyzed them, vary a little as to their chemical proportions, but all agree, that the chemical proper¬ ties and mechanical action of Gutta Percha and India Rubber are so entirely distinct and dissimilar, that they should never be classed under the same head, chemically or mechanically any more than commercially. M. Arppe, a celebrated German Chemist, says Gutta Percha differs in composition from Caoutchouc, and that the products of dry distillation of Gutta Percha are different from those of Caoutchouc. lie considers Gutta Percha to be a mixture of six resins, which have been formed from a Carb- Hydrogen. 96 siiaffner’s telegraph companion. Art. V.—ANCIENT AND MODERN HERALDRY. NUMBER ONE. EARLY HISTORY—ARMORIALS—GREAT SEAL OF MAINE, NEW JERSEY, VIRGINIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, KENTUCKY, MISSOURI, UNITED STATES—TELEGRAPH CONFEDERATION-—KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE—HOS¬ PITALERS—TEMPLARS—ST. ANDREW’S CROSS—=ST. GEORGE'S CROSS—ORDER OF GOLDEN FLEECE. Many of the Electric Telegraph lines of America have adopted peculiar heraldric seals, dies or stamps, representing their indi¬ viduality, upon their official envelopes or message-heads. With a view to be in unison with the majority of the lines in this matter, we have gotten up a seal for the general Confederation, and we propose to give an account of the origin of its heraldric symbols, with their meanings. We had another object in view in having engraved the seal above mentioned, viz.: Many lines were unwilling to believe that arrangements of the Secretary could effect or procure en¬ velopes as well embossed as the respective companies could themselves. The seals of the Confederation excel an} T thing of the kind ever gotten up before, and the impressions, em¬ bossed, will doubtless convince the lines, that the Secretary can not only equal pre-existing arrangements of companies in this particular, but excel them. It will be perceived, that the most splendid dies can be made through the arrangements of the Secre¬ tary, and the most antique and scientific armorials, known in the science of Heraldry, properly grouped and delineated on the dies. We now proceed to discuss the subject of Heraldry generally. We learn from the science of law, that it has been a cus¬ tom from the earliest ages of the world, for the people to have and enjoy various devices, signs, and marks of honor, de¬ signed to distinguish the great and noble from the common or ignoble. In Homer, Virgil, Ovid and other ancient authors, we find notices of these customs, and that heroes on the battle¬ field had figures of different kinds, but, of their own device, re¬ presented on their shields, whereby they might be distinguished one from the other, as well as from those of a lower order of warriors. This custom was the origin of using the shield and device thereon in armorial life, and even at this day they are prominent features in heraldric science. From the earliest ages to the present time nations have adopted symbolical signs as marks of distinction, indicating the nation by a flag, on which was illustrated their peculiar symbolic representation. The flag ANCIENT AND MODERN HERALDRY. 97 of the Athenians had on it the figure of an owl, the Goths a bear, the Egyptians an ox, the Romans an eagle, the Franks a lion, and the Saxons a horse. In modern times w T e see the cus¬ tom adhered to with equal desire among nations : — thus on Great Britain’s flag is represented St. George’s and St. Andrew’s cross; Mexico, the eagle, the serpent and the cactus ; and the United States, the eagle, stripes and stars. These symbols are peculiarities of the respective nations, and the recollection, or sight of them, in the hour of peace or war, infuses into the people a pride and glory for the brilliant renown which may character]; e their own dear flag. Symbolic representation has not been confined to the earliest and modern ages of the civilized world, but we also find it amonff the customs of the North American Indians. We have o seen the otter as the emblem of the Ottaway tribes of Indians, the wolf, the bear, the turtle, and other devices the adopted emblems of the Iroquois and other tribes. They paint them on their bodies, and represent them as a species of idols. An author supposes, that in Europe the Crusades and tourna¬ ments were the cause of methodizing and perfecting into a science the various national, family and individual emblems, to which was given the name of Heraldry / a term which em¬ braced originally not only all that j^ertains to Coats of Arms , but also to the marshalling of armies, solemn processions, and all ceremonies of a public nature. Is is also supposed, that the term, coats of arms , originated from the circumstance that the ancients embroidered various colored devices on the coats they wore over their armor. Also, those who joined the Crusades, and those who enlisted in the tournaments, had their devices depicted on their arms or armor, as on their shields, banners, etc.; and as colors could not be retained, particular marks were used to represent them. All coats of arms, formed according to the rules of heraldry, are delineated on shields or escutcheons, which are of various forms—oval, triangular, heptagonal, etc. The parts composing the escutcheon, or represented on it, are tinctures, lines, borders, charges, etc. By tinctures, we mean the various colors used, the names and marks of which are as follows, viz.: Or means gold or yellow, and is represented by dots or points. Argent means silver or white, is plain. Azure , or blue, is represented by horizontal lines. Gules , or red, by perpendicular lines. Vert , or green, by diagonal lines from upper right corner to the lower left, or to the lower right as you face the shield. Purpure , or purple, from upper left to lower right, being reversed from map rule as to right and left. Sable , or black, by horizontal and perpendi¬ cular lines crossing each other. 98 shaffner’s telegraph companion. Charges are whatever may be represented on the field of the escutcheon ; the* principal of which, in addition to natural and celestial figures, are the Chief, the Pale, the Bend, the Fess, the Bar, the Cheveron, the Cross, and the Saltier; each of which, although occupying its appropriate space and position in the escutcheon, and governed by definite rules, admits of a great variety of representations. The external ornaments of the escutcheon are crowns, coronets, miters, helmets, mantlings, caps, wreaths, crests, scrolls, and supporters. Some escutcheons have none of these ornaments, and others nearly all of them. The supporters are placed on the side of the escutcheon standing on a scroll, and are thus named, because they appear to support or hold up the shield. The great seal of the State of Maine has a shield, supported on the right by a husbandman resting on a scythe, representing agriculture, and on the other is a seaman resting on an anchor, the symbol of commerce and the fisheries. The great seal of the State of Mew-Jersey has a shield supported by the goddess of Liberty on the right with a wand and a cap, those being symbols of independence, because among the ancients the rod was used by the magistrates in the ceremony of manumitting slaves, and the cap was worn by the slaves who were soon to be set at liberty, and hence they have been handed down from time immemorial as symbolical of liberty and independence,— they are fit emblems of the United States! Many of the seals of the States are designed to represent some peculiar era in its history, regardless of heraldric science : thus, Virginia, after the struggles of 1776 , adopted a seal fitly representing the feeling pervading the hearts of her great and chivalrous people. On one side of the seal the goddess of Virtue, — the genius of the Commonwealth —is represented dressed like an Amazon, resting on a spear with one hand, and holding a sword in the other, and treading on Tyranny, which is represented by a man prostrate, a crown fallen from his head, a broken chain in his left hand, and a scourge in his right. Above the goddess is the name of the State, and underneath the words, Sic semper tyran- nis —“thus we serve tyrants.” While this side of the seal re¬ presents exultation over the surrender of Yorktowu and the triumph of the American arms, the other side contemplates some reflection as to future glory and happiness. In the centre is the goddess of Liberty, with her wand and cap; on the right hand is Ceres, with the cornucopia in one hand and an ear of wheat in the other, and on her left side is Eternity, holding in one hand the globe, on which rests the Phoenix, the fabulous bird of the ancients, that is said to rise again from its own ashes. The great seal of South Carolina is another symbolic repre- ANCIENT AND MODERN HERALDRY. 99 sentation of the feelings of the people. The device is a date- tree, or the great palm, emblematical of the State, which is sup¬ ported bj two cross-pieces, to which is attached at the junction or cross a scroll or label. • Branches of the palm were worn by the ancients in token of victory, and hence the emblem signifies superiority , victory , and triumph. On the border of the seal is the name of the State and its motto :— Animis opibusquepo- rati ,— u Beady (to defend) with our lives and property.” The great seal of the State of Kentucky was adopted shortly after the confederation of the thirteen original States, and her people, filled with the good feeling of union and universal good¬ will and peace with all mankind, adopted a very plain symbol, which has ever proved characteristic of the noble and generous- hearted Kentuckian. It is formed of two men, as friends em¬ bracing, with a motto in plain English: “United we stand, divided we fall.” Such were the sentiments entertained by the sires of that great State,—renowned for having the names of the greatest men of the world recorded with golden capitals upon her bright and glittering escutcheon. The great seal of the State of Missouri, being of more modern origin than those heretofore mentioned, is somewhat classical in its arrangement. It is composed of “ Arms parted per pale; on the dexter side, gules, the white or grizzly bear of Missouri, passant, guardant, proper ; on a chief engrailed, azure, a cres¬ cent, argent; on the sinister side, argent, the arms of the Uni¬ ted States;—the whole within a band inscribed ‘United we stand, divided we fall.’ ” For the crest, over a helmet full faced, grated with six bars, or a cloud proper, from which as¬ cends a star,* argent, and above it a constellation of twenty-three smaller stars, argent, on an azure field, surrounded by a cloud proper. Supporters on each side, a white or grizzly bear of Missouri, rampant, guardant, proper, standing on a scroll in¬ scribed with the motto, Salus populi , supremo lex esto / and under the scroll inscribed MDCCCXX., the whole surrounded by a scroll inscribed with the words, u The great seal of the State of Missouri.” The following is the recognized explana¬ tion to the above : The arms of Missouri are represented on a circular escutcheon, divided by a perpendicular line into two equal portions. On the right side, on a red field, is the white or grizzly bear of Missouri, in its natural color, walking guard* edly. Above this device, and separated from it by an en¬ grailed line (indented and waved), is an azure field, on which is represented a white or silver crescent. On the left side of the escutcheon, on a white field, are the arms of the United States. Around the border of the escutcheon are the words, “ United we stand, divided we fall.” For the crest, over a yellow or golden helmet, full faced, and grated with six bars, is a cloud l i 100 shaffner’s telegraph companion. in its natural color, from wliicli ascends a silvery star,—repre¬ senting the Stafe of Missouri—and above it a constellation of twenty-three smaller stars, on a blue field surrounded by a cloud. The twenty-three stars represent the number of States in the Union at the time of the admission of Missouri. For u supporters” on each side of the escutcheon is a grizzly bear in the posture of attack, standing on a scroll inscribed with the motto, Solus populi , supremo lex esto ,—“ The public safety is the supreme law.” Under the scroll is the date of the admis¬ sion into the Union, etc. We have now devoted more space to the seals of States than at first contemplated, but we have done so with the view of showing the fact of heraldric science being blended in the coats of arms of the States of the Union. Having thus noticed a few of the armorials of the States, we will now notice, briefly, the grand national seal of the United States, which was adopted June 20th, 1782, by Congress. “Arms: Paleways of thirteen pieces, argent and gules; a chief azure ; the escutcheon on the breast of the American eagle displayed, proper, holding in his dexter talon an olive branch, and in his sinister a bundle of thirteen arrows, all proper, and in his beak a scroll inscribed with this motto, Epluribus unum. For the Crest: Over the head of the eagle, which appears above the escutcheon, a glory, or breaking through a cloud, proper, and surrounding thirteen stars forming a constellation, argent, on an azure field.” The paleways of thirteen pieces is symbolic of the original thirteen United States that formed the general confederation of the American Union. The thirteen stars and arrows are repre¬ sentatives of the same fact. The stars are on an azure field, and hence the blue field on the flag of the United States. The stripes of the flag represent the paleways of the escutcheon, be¬ ing gules or red, and argent or silver colors. Thus the flag is composed. Its heraldry is simple and beautiful, full of lan¬ guage, and expressive of great events. The remembrance of the revolutionary times, when the fathers of the American con¬ federacy fought bravely for the supremacy of the will of the people, infuses into the soul new life and affection for the De¬ claration or Magna Charta of Freemen’s Fights. The grand seal of the American Telegraph Confederation is composed of the most ancient heraldic devices, beautifully illustrating patriotism, renown and virtue. He who follows through life the index of their morals, will be recognized by the world as the noblest work of God—an honest man. The grand seal we describe thus : the escutcheon, ornamental border, quartered; the first and fourth, the arms of the United States ; the second, armorial of Mexico ; the third, armorial of ANCIENT AND MODERN HERALDRY. 101 Great Britain, having reference more particularly to the provin¬ ces of the Canadas, New-Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward’s Island. The crest, an American eagle, erect with out stretched wings, standing upon a silken wreath, azure, gules and argent. In eagle’s beak a scroll, on which is inscribed “A pluribus unum .” In rear of eagle, cloud proper, from which issue the orders of cuspidated lightning; in rear of escutcheon, the staffs of two United States flags cross at cen¬ tre, and the colors unfurling—top the staffs, spears and three tassels. The whole being surmounted with a garter, on which is inscribed, American Telegraph Confederation. In the arrangement of this splendid composition of science and art, we have enjoyed the gratification of having the aid of Prof. II. Hays, formerly of one of the principal Heraldic Colleges of England, who is now extensively engaged in his profes¬ sion at 341 Broadway, New-York. Prof. Ilays has, in the execution of this engraving—and also many others which he has engraved for lines of Telegraph—excelled in talents and genius anything of the kind we have ever before had the pleasure of seeing. As a scholar in Heraldry he is eminently worthy of the highest mark of distinction. We thus speak frankly and vol¬ untarily our indebtedness for the valuable and novel informa¬ tion he has so kindly imparted to us relative to this beautiful and antique science and art. Having given a description of the seal according to heraldic rule, we shall proceed to give the origin and history of the sev¬ eral devices, grouped in its formation. We will then give their explanation‘as compounded and their application to the tele¬ graph enterprise, and argue, that by a just fulfilment of their teachings, the system of telegraphing would be that which we all deem essential for success and universal satisfaction. Nations, societies, and enterprises have, from time immemo¬ rial, adopted devices as mottoes to infuse into their followers zeal and love for the cause espoused. To see an army of men, battling with another, each with the most restless determin¬ ation, one army following a flag with a cross and the other army a crescent, we would readily know they were under dif¬ ferent religions,—the former Christians and the latter Moham¬ medans. The sight of a nation’s flag rearing from the battle¬ ments of a defeated foe, is one of the most powerful incentives in war. Where can there be found a soul living within the pale of the American Union, whose heart is not filled with pride, chivalry and enthusiasm, on hearing the touching lines written by a bard of Maryland during the late war, when the enemy was not far distant from the commercial metropolis of his native State—his native‘land? The poet spoke those lines 102 shaffner’s telegraph companion. on the Star-Spangled Banner, as though his soul was enveloped in a sea of glory. So it is with other nations. The poets seem to be inspired, and the same inspiration spreads from heart to heart, until all feel brimful of joy in the achievements of their arms.,, Not only nations adopt devices around which the people rally, but also religious sects, societies, &c., have symbols peculiar to the principles which give them birth and existence. Without further comment as to the practice or custom of the past and present ages, uniting in the use of the science of her¬ aldry, vie shall proceed to give an account of the different orders of honor, preparatory to the history of the Garter, which surrounds the escutcheon of the grand seal of the American Telegraph Confederation. In giving the history and legitimate meaning of the Garter, we shall also include the crosses of St. George and St. Andrew, the symbolic flag of the Canadas, New-B runs wick, Nova Scotia, or British Provinces. In consid¬ ering these subjects, we shall transfer in many instances the language of authorities which we have extensively consulted, in studying the complicated subject. The grounds and causes of founding societies and knightly orders were several and different, though all terminated in one end. Among the principal objects creating these orders were, a desire or love of honor , and therein chiefly to excite and promote virtue by suitable rewards. Such was the design of King Arthur, when he formed himself and other mar¬ tial men into a fellowship, which he styled u Knights of the Bound Table.” Another cause of the origination of the orders was to redress the incursions and robberies of the Saracens and barbarians, to vindicate the oppressed, redeem the enslaved, and to entertain and relieve pilgrims and strangers, which were a part of the duties of the Knights-TIospitallers and Templars. Another reason for their establishment was to fight in defence of the Christian faith, against pagans and infidels. Lastly, when sovereign princes perceived themselves embroiled in wars or dangerous factions, the erection of orders tended to create a tie, restore peace, quiet all jealousies, unite affections, and secure a lasting friendship and powerful assistance, both for their own and their country’s safety. To this end badges of several orders were devised and worn. With a view to illustrate the further origin of the orders, a few of these will be noticed. Knights-Templars. —About the year HIT this order origina¬ ted. Baldwin II. then reigning in Jerusalem, nine gentlemen, of whom two were of noble extraction, Hugh de Paganes and Godfrey de St. Osmer , came in devotion to the Holy Land. They were called Brothers of the Militia of the Temple, ordina- ANCIENT AND MODERN HERALDRY. 103 rily Knights-Templars, from the habitation assigned them out of a part of the king’s own palace, adjoining the temple of Solomon of Jerusalem. Their first undertaking was to guard the most dangerous ways about that city against the violence and robberies of the Saracens, which made them acceptable to all, and for which they had remission of their sins ; but for the first nine years they were yet so poor, that they lived upon the alms of others, and wore clothes bestowed in charity upon them. In memory of their primitive poverty, their seal had the impress in Math. Pans. A. D. 1127. They had rules assigned them, drawn up by St. Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux, by the appointment of Pope Honorius II., and Stephen, Patriarch of Jerusalem. They made their vows of obedience, poverty and charity. Their garb was white, to which in the time of Euge- nius III. they added the red cross, and of the same form as worn by the Hospitallers. For a longtime, in conjunction with the Holy Sepulchre Hospitallers, they defended and supported the kingdom of Jerusalem, but when their riches increased and their revenues augmented, they grew proud, fell from the obedience of the Patriarch to join with the Pope, and at last, 1370, all the Knights of this order in France were in one hour seized and imprisoned by Philip le Bel , king of France, with consent of Pope Clement V., being charged with the most infa¬ mous and damnable crimes. In England, Anno 1. Ed. 2, they were also apprehended afterwards, rendered convicts, and all their possessions seized into the king’s hands. Two years after, many of these knights were burned in France, and Jaques de la Maule , the last Grand Master, suffered the fate of being burnt at the stake in the year 1320. This Grand Master having seen his noble order dissolved forever, as he thought, he cared but little how soon his end might come. Their lands were annexed to the Hospitallers. Thus fell for a time the noble order of Knights-Templars, no less famous for martial achievements and renown in the Fast, than their wealth in the West. They held 16,000 lordships in Europe, and their revenue was two millions of francs yearly. There can be no doubt but what their end was the result of am¬ bition in the bosom of Philip, king of France, and no histo¬ rian attempts to screen that king from accomplishing the wicked act by suborning witnesses to sustain the points of his restless and ill-designed ambition. The order remained dormant for a long time, but there were a few wdio escaped from the fatal axe, and in a few years they formed associations, continuing in this private manner to retain their existence for many years ; they ultimately became blended with the ancient and honorable fra¬ ternity of Free Masons, and to this day hold with singular affec¬ tion to the ancient rites practised hundreds of years ago. 104 shaffner’s telegraph companion. € Hiand. The Companion. —The first number of the Companion, New Series, has been sent forth to the patrons of the work, and thus far has met universal approval. We feel gratified at this result, as we are fully aware of the diffi¬ culties attending a publication of this character. We cannot commend all, nor can we do justice to many questions of decided merit. Many subscribers did not receive their number timely, owing to the loss of nearly the entire publication by fire, just as it was ready for the mail. It has been reprinted, and we hope for better luck in future. We need all the patronage of the enterprise, and we hope that these losses will induce those who wish to sub¬ scribe, to do so at once. Every operator, president, superintendent, director, and agent of a Telegraph Company ought to be a bona fide subscriber to the Companion, and besides, render all the aid in their power to make the work useful to the rising generation of telegraphers. Scientific American on Patents. —Our remarks in the January number of the Companion, relative to the hostility of this publication to the Morse Patents, seemed to have fired up its editor with horrible indignation, and his answer is couched in language neither creditable to the writer, nor respectful to the dignity of the paper. In the notice of the Companion, no disrespect was intended, and the lan¬ guage cannot be interpreted to be otherwise than courteous. We knew his article did do Morse injustice, and the editor of a daily paper in the City of New-York, who, having read the paper charging Morse with being associ¬ ated with others, to buy his renewal through Congress, as insinuated by the Scientific American , stated, that he was inclined to believe it, and suggested, that the best means of a contradiction, would be for Prof. Morse to con¬ tradict it through the press. We heard a friend of the Scientific American , and an enemy of Morse, rejoicing over the article in question, in a hotel in New-York, referring to the paper for proof of his assertions. There were others who interpreted the article as we did. We may not have sufficient intelligence to comprehend the writings in the above paper, but we are cer¬ tain of one fact, that is, that we know how to treat and respect the writings of a cotemporary with gentlemanly manners. Regulations of Companies. —We have received the rules and regulations of several Telegraph Companies, and for which we thank our friends for placing such valuable information into our hands. We design, in the next number, EDITOEIAL. 105 to review the rules of the Atlantic and Ohio Telegraph Company, and such others as we may have room for, intending to embrace the regulations of every Company in America ere we are done. We think that it will tend to bring about a uniformity of system. Batteries. —We have received several articles on galvanic batteries, applicable to the Electro Telegraph, but for want of room they are deferred for the next number. We are always glad to hear from gentlemen on subjects pertaining to the Telegraph. Size of this Number.— Owing to the delay in business resulting from the late fire, and our own illness, the present number contains only 48 pages. New-York and Boston Line. —Since our last number went to press, we have had opportunities of witnessing the working of this line. It has been very generally repaired, the old iron insulators removed, and the brimstone insulators banished from the face of the earth. Think of it, gentlemen west¬ ward of the Mountains, of a line between two of the principal cities of the United States, having brimstone insulators ! Can any one marvel why this line has worked so badly? The wonderful and untiring zeal of Mr. Wood has already redeemed the line from that gloomy mantle that seemed to inclose in its folds the whole line. With Mr. Wood as Superintendent, and Mr. Smith at New-York, and Mr. Richards at Boston, the old pioneer line from Boston to New-York can ere long, if not now, rival in splendor the working of any line in the world. They are competent telegraphers, and capable of mastering any difficulty. Besides these, there are others on the line whose skill and ability are not a shade behind the best corps of opera¬ tors in the Union Engravings and New Register. —The number for March will contain some very fine engravings of a new Register, designed for universal use. It will be one of the most complete pieces of machinery ever presented for use on any line. Companies needing new Registers, would do well to wait until they hear fully as to this one. The engravings of the Relay Magnets will be in the next number also, as well as the keys and such other parts as we may deem necessary. We are progressing finely in furnishing supplies for the respective lines, and with a little effort to get all things moving correctly at first, we anticipate much good to result from our arrangements, enabling lines to procure materials at reduced rates. National Lines. —The range of lines known by the above title is com¬ posed of several companies, commencing at No. 23 Wall St., New-York; they run to Philadelphia, Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Louisville, Nashville, Vicks¬ burg, Natchez, to New-Orleans. This is termed the Southern and Eastern connection, and is the only range having two or more wires the entire dis¬ tance. Lines to Cleveland, Chicago, St. Louis, &c., &c., diverge from points mentioned on the above route. The business from New-York and other Eastern cities with New-Orleans on these lines is very great, and the public 106 shaffner’s telegraph companion. ought to feel greatly indebted for the promptness -with which it is executed. The public, however, never feels grateful for anything, and though the lines above use the greatest care, and spare neither money nor labor to secure a regular communication between the cities, the patronage is such as to ena¬ ble the lines to pay but little upon the investments. Pertaining to the capi¬ tal invested in telegraphing, we contemplate saying something about it ere long. We give the following newspaper notices of the National lines. Heavy Business in Telegraphing. —The National Telegraph line was in fine working order on Saturday, and communicating directly with the principal Eastern and Western cities. We learn from the obliging reporters that the number of messages left for transmission, during twenty-four hours, were 310, over 100 of which were for New-York, and the number received from all points was 261, making an aggregate of 571! without including what are termed “ office messages.” This is a large business for a single day, and we doubt if it has ever been beaten in the annals of Southern tel¬ egraphing.— New-Orleans Paper. Another Great Telegraphic Teat.— The Southern and Eastern lines, uniting at Louisville were again working last night through from New-Or- leans to New-York and back, a distance of over two thousand miles, without repeating. The history of telegraphing will not show an instance in the world to surpass this. It is certainly working the largest circuit in the Uni¬ ted States. The lines, of course, are in fine order, and the companies are reaping the reward of their diligence. From fifty to one hundred and four¬ teen messages per day are passing and returning between those two distant cities. On Saturday, the 10th, the office of the New-Orleans and Ohio Com¬ pany, at New-Orleans alone, received for that day's business $553 78, or at the rate per month of twenty-six working days, of $14,397 28. If this line can be kept working as it has been recently, it will realize the most sanguine expectations of its early friends .—Louisville Journal. Wonders of the Telegraph.— Saturday evening the operators in the New-York and New-Orleans National Telegraph offices were holding a social chat in regard to matters and things in general, .as if they were situated in the same apartment. The following conversation occurred in regard to the expected arrival of the steamer. Mr. Fuller, the reporter for the associated press at New-Orleans, came into the office there, and asked if the steamer had arrived yet, when New-Orleans asks New-York if the steamer has arrived. New-York says, “Not yet, but is hourly expected: she is nearly three days over due, and much anxiety is manifested in regard to her/’ New- Orleans says, “ Thank you, that came good.” The distance from New-York to New-Orleans by the route the line runs is about 2,000 miles, and this is the first time in the history of the electric tele¬ graph in this country, when direct communication was had over half that distance, without rewriting; and it is quite certain that such a feat has never before been performed on this globe. Just imagine, parties separated 2,000 miles communicating with each other as if they were face to face.— Cincinnati Commercial. Complimentary. —We publish the annexed correspondence with great pleasure, and regret we could not give an engraving of the beautiful testi¬ monials presented. The recipient of this splendid reward of merit, Mr. T. S. Faxton, of Utica, New-York. has been connected with the telegraph for many years. lie has nobly stood by his line in the hours of adversity, and he left it in prosperity. Those who have been in like difficult places know EDITORIAL. 107 how to feel for him A, We admire his energy, and hope his years will not end before his talents and services will be again in the cause. Presentation. —Some days ago we noticed that a beautiful Malacca Cane had been prepared for presentation to T. S. Paxton, Esq., by the employees of the New-York, Albany and Buffalo Telegraph Co. Since then the gift has been presented, accompanied by a letter expressive of their regard, to which he has replied in a manner characteristic of the man. We give copies of the note, and Mr. Paxton’s acknowledgment.— Utica PoVGV. Utica, Dec. 1, 1853. Theodore S. Faxton, Esq.—Dear Sir :—The Superintendents and Opera¬ tors of the Company over which you have until recently presided, have assigned to me a task most grateful to my own feelings; and although I may but feebly and imperfectly give expression to their sentiments on the occa¬ sion', yet I trust you will give full credence to the sincerity in which they are presented. The difficulties through which you have brought the Telegraph to its pre¬ sent maturity, were but little known except to those associated with you in the business; they, however, fully appreciated them ; they can testify to the indomitable perseverance with which the many vexatious embarrassments incident to its early history were met and overcome ; and thus the ‘-vision¬ ary experiment,” as the Telegraph was wont to be considered, triumphantly established as a permanent and invaluable auxiliary to the business of the times. As a mark of their appreciation of the ability and energy by which your management was distinguished, but more particularly to express to you their regret that circumstances have induced jmu to withdraw from the position you have so honorably occupied, the employees of the New-York, Albany and Buffalo Telegraph Company very respectfully request your acceptance of the accompanying Cane, as also an assurance of their ever retaining a pleasing recollection of the frankness and kinduess by which your business relations with them were characterized. I am, dear Sir, Yours very respectfully, Edward Chapman, Treasurer N. Y.. A. Sf B. Telegraph Co. Utica, Dec. 3, 1853. E. Chapman, Esq., Treas. N. Y., A. & B. Tel. Co. * Dear Sir:— Your favor of the 1st inst., accompanying a splendid Cane from the employees of the New-York, Albany and Buffalo Telegraph Co., has just been presented to me. You will allow me to express to them, through you, my feelings of gratitude for this mark of their approval of my business intercourse with them while associated with them in the duties of telegraph¬ ing- As you justly remark, the Telegraph enterprise was truly considered a “ visionary experiment,” but time and perseverance have demonstrated its practicability, and its utility is now appreciated by every business man in Christendom. It is to me a source of gratification to know that almost every hand con¬ nected with this token of regard commenced their telegraphic occupation with this company, and have been connected in the business with myself up to the time of my resignation. Tt is with pleasure I accept the gift, the value of which is not to be esti¬ mated by dollars and cents. It is entitled to a higher and more worthy con¬ sideration, inasmuch as it is a free-will offering from those whose esteem I shall always endeavor to hold in due regard. 108 shaffner’s telegraph companion. Accept for yourself, and those associated with you in the business, my best wishes for your prosperity and happiness. Yours respectfully, T. S. Faxton. Great Discovery. —A Universal Telegraph. — The Mining Journal minutely describes the marvellous improvements effected by Mr. Wilkins in the electric telegraph, by which the system bids fair to be thoroughly revolu¬ tionized. Mr. Wilkins is a telegraph engineer at Hampstead, and has secured a patent for his extraordinary invention, which will be made available to the public by the Universal Electric Telegraph Company. The improvements for which Mr. Wilkins’s electric telegraph will be distinguished are intended to meet all existing defects. It will form one of its very peculiar and stri¬ king characteristics, that instead of the message being, as at present, ex¬ pounded often by guess, liable to be misunderstood or mistaken from varia¬ tions of the index, or from many other causes, the message will be written by the telegraph instrument itself. By means of his singularly ingenious apparatus, the message leaves the telegraph written on paper by the instrument in clear and distinct characters, delivered in a continuous line and unvarying posi¬ tion. It is not even dependent, as was formerly proposed, on the chemical action of the electric fluid on certain sensitive colors, but the machine will enable parties to perpetuate an accurate record of the message, the value of which, in all intercourse, as well in affairs of State as in all legal, monetary, and commercial transactions, is almost incalculable. The ingenuity is per¬ fectly marvellous which arranges the telegraphic apparatus to be worked by the electric current in such a manner as to give motion to a marker, or tra¬ cer, and thereby impress, mark, or otherwise render visible, in a continuous line on paper, characters representing letters, words, and figures on the re¬ cording surface, which is kept constantly moving by means of clockwork, or other suitable machinery, while the characters are marked, or otherwise produced by the electric current, in a fixed manner, capable of being read upon it. By a contrivance of surpassing ingenuity, the transmission of the message will be simultaneous to any number of radiating stations without the aid of intermediate operators, only one operator being required at each telegraph. This branch of improvement is effected by a delicate piece of machinery, the “ Automaton Repeater,” by means of which any number of towns or places, within the circle of connection, may be communicated with at the same moment by one and the same electric touch Mr. Wilkins’s plan is also remarkable for the extreme simplicity of the telegraph, for one wire will be sufficient, and in order to prevent the uncertainties which have impeded the development of the telegraphic system, he has devised a superior plan of insulators. It is calculated to insure the most perfect and unerring accuracy by the total absence of quivering points and needles, and by abstaining from the use of chemical preparations, always liable to mislead and very often to fail. It will possess this further great advantage, that by a return communi¬ cation the message will be repeated at the place from which it is sent, in¬ stantaneously with the delivery of it at the place for which it was intended, and the person sending it wili thus be enabled at once to see, himself, that his message has been accurately transmitted, the telegraph, without any other intervention, in effect insuring its accuracy. The directors contem¬ plate telegraphic communication with nearly 800 principal towns and places in the United Kingdom, irrespective altogether, when necessary, of railways. The company propose to establish district offices in all or most of the towns and places in the kingdom, containing over 2,000 inhabitants, for the pur¬ pose of receiving and transmitting messages upon the principles of radiation. When unerring certainty is thus assured, and the price and means of general communication brought within the reach of every person, it will be difficult EDITORIAL. 109 to speculate upon the possible extent to which the public may avail them¬ selves of these proposed benefits. The above is from the English Mining Journal. The editor seems to be rejoiced, and anticipates great results from this new and splendid achieve¬ ment ! As compared with the tardy system now used in England it certainly is a great stride towards perfection, and ought to be universally accepted. The system boasted of will not be adopted, because it is the invention of an American. Let the editor refer to the archives of the English Patent Office, about June, 1838, and he will find an application on file for a patent by Prof. Morse, of America, for the same invention, now newly proclaimed by the Journal. Morse was refused a patent because a description of his in¬ vention had been published. It seems that England was not only unjust enough to refuse Morse a patent for a bona fide invention, but now wishes to claim the invention as her own, fifteen years after it has been before the world. The plan may be to claim it as English to guarantee success. Indocti discant , et ament meminisse peritis. New-York, Buffalo, and Chicago Raisge. —This range of lines is now better connected than ever, and transmits business from New-York to Chicago with one writing. The lines have been well insulated, and increased energy has brought them to a state of perfection never attained before. The Super¬ intendent of the New-York end, Mr. Palmer, informs us that they can now transmit business a3 prompt and correct with Detroit, Chicago, and the West, as can be done on any range of lines of equal length in the country. The end is great, and we hope their success will be triumphant. We clip the following notice from an exchange paper: Telegraphic Feat.— Messages were received in this city yesterday, via the Morse, New-York, Albany and Buffalo Telegraph, direct from Chicago; and we learn that arrangements have been perfected by which messages will be hereafter sent between the two cities in a single circuit. Pictorial Life of a Telegrapher.— We are advised of the early issue of this interesting publication, containing some seventy engravings illustra¬ ting how telegraphers live and act. We have seen the original copy, and feel fully authorized to say, that it will be a work of interest and fun. It will be published at Louisville, Ky., by Mr. C-eorge Rutherford, of the Na¬ tional Lines, to whom subscriptions may be sent. We copy the following from the Louisville Times pertaining to this publication on the Telegraph :— We are also advised of a forthcoming Pictorial work on the order of Cruik>shanks , graphic caricatures, being the adventures of a telegrapher, the parties and scenes all being connected with the New-Orleans and Ohio line. It is a matter of some pride as well as pleasure to the editor of this paper, as the chief manager of that company, to be able to state, that all these pioneer enterprises in telegraph literature are the work of gentlemen who have been or are now connected with him in business. It speaks well for the talents, enterprise and industry of the respectable and eminently intellectual corps of telegraphers connected with this great Southwestern Telegraph line ex¬ tending from Pittsburg to New-Orleans. 110 . shaffner’s telegraph companion. Maysville Submarine Cable. —We noticed in the former number of the Companion, that the Maysville cable had failed. Since then, another has been constructed, which has proved successful. The following we take from one of the Western papers, via. :—- We are gratified in being able to state, that the New-Orleans and Ohio Telegraph Company, after repeated failures, and at a great expense, have at length succeeded in securing a double submarine crossing at Maysville, Ky., being the first submarine cable With two perfectly insulated wires yet laid, so far as we know, in the United States. Mr. J. B. Sleet has accomplished this work, under the directions of Mr. Tanner, President. The New Orleans and Ohio and St. Louis and New-Orleans companies have laid a greater length of submarine cables this summer, of the kind to resist such obstructions as occur on the Western waters, than all other lines in this country. There are now five cables on these lines, viz: the double wire cable at Maysville, and single wire cables across the Tennessee and Ohio rivers near Paducah, the Mississippi at Cape Girardeau, and Merrimac eighteen miles below St. Louis.” Besides the above, there is a cable across the Ohio at Cincinnati on the House line, also at St. Louis on the Wade line. . The latter was the pioneer cable. None but Mr. Andrew Wade had the courage to risk the expense. It has resisted the floods nobly. Halifax and Boston Line. —We learn that this line continues to prosper and that its business is greatly increasing. We call it one line, though composed of two companies,—the Maine Telegraph Company and the Nova Scotia Electric Telegraph Company. Mr. James Eddy is the Superintendent of the former, and since his line has made a direct connection with Boston, the busi¬ ness is performed with much more speed and accuracy. We copy the fol¬ lowing notice from a New-Orleans paper, and though speaking very justly of the merits of the line, exhibits great ignorance, as there is no House Telegraph east of Boston. “We are gratified to learn,” says the Charleston Courier , “ that great im¬ provements have just been made in telegraphic facilities between New-York and Halifax, by which communications, which heretofore have been re-writ¬ ten at four or five different points, are now sent direct, with but a single re¬ petition. The new plan enables the lines to transmit messages in less than one-quarter the time heretofore required, and also lessens, in a very material degree, the liability to make errors. Messages were sent to and received from Halifax in the space of five minutes, via the House Printing Telegraph line. The distance by telegraph between Halifax and New-York is about one thousand miles.” Sandy Hook Telegraph. —We take the following notice of this important line from the New-York Times. We admire the spirit of the editorial, and wish the merchants would properly appreciate the great value of the electric communication with that point. Sometimes we see them very liberal— would give any amount of money if the line was in order that they might hear from a given vessel, but when the line is in order, fifty cents for a message over a line of about 120 miles long, without other offices or busi¬ ness to sustain it, looks to some of them as “ large as a cart-wheel.” Mr. EDITOEIAL. Ill Walter 0. Lewis is the lessee of the line. The House instrument is used. We hope he will have better luck than telegraphers generally. “The great value of the New-York and Sandy Hook Magnetic Telegraph Line to the underwriters, and to the whole shipping interests of the city, has been well illustrated within the past few weeks, as through that channel most important and minute information has been conveyed from stranded vessels in the vicinity of Sandy Hook, to their owners and underwriters in this city, by which means many lives and much valuable property have been saved. The line is, as yet, but partially organized for business, but we trust its attentive Manager may receive adequate support from the underwriters and shipping merchants of the city, to enable him to perfect all of Ins arrange¬ ments for working it in the most efficient manner. Mr. Lewis, the Manager of the line, may be found at all hours at the office of the Company, No. 19 Wall-street, corner of Broad-street.” Notices of the Companion and Taeiff Scale. —The following from the Louisville Times, edited by Cul. William Tanner, President of the longest range of lines in the world, with whom we have been associated for many years, thus speaks of the Companion. Wo feel thankful for his good opinion :— “ This is one of the series of useful, practical publications which the genius and the enterprise of the present a<*e have produced in rapid succession to an extent never before known in the periodical literature of this country. The great industrial pursuit of which it is an advocate and exponent, has, within the brief period of eight or nine years, established for itself claims upon the attention of the world not surpassed, if equalled, by any other en¬ terprise of science and art of the present century. Any publication devoted exclusively to this vast and increasing pursuit, properly conducted, must command the attention, not only of the thousands of intelligent persons con¬ nected with it, but of the public at large. “This unpretending monthly is designed not only to enlighten the public in regard to the principles of the science, but to inform those engaged in the business of the details of the system and of its success and progress it will be the repository of every thing interesting connected with each line opera¬ ting under the Morse patents in the United States, and will record all im¬ provements, suggestions, and new inventions for the more successful prose¬ cution of the business ; and in fine, will be a medium through which will be made known all that is connected with telegraphing. “ The position of the editor as Secretary to the voluntary confederation of the managers of the various lines will enable him to have access to all such sources of information as it may be proper to impart to the public, and his industry and long cunnection with the business are guarantees that he will do his part faithfully in making the work all that it promises to he. “ We are promised in a few days, from the same publishers and editor, a Compound Tariff Telegraph Scale, to be published monthly, in the same form as the Companion, containing 32 pages, with corrections and additions as they may occur. This, also, will be an eminently useful work, and should receive the encouragement of every company in the Union, it will enable every telegrapher to know what to charge, and every person using the tele¬ graph lines, to know just what he has to pay for a message sent to any point in the United States or the British Provinces. Here is a notice from the Evansville Journal, e dited by A. H. Sanders, Esq., who always writes well, and is a judge of a good work. We always admired bis good taste :— Shaffner’s Telegraph Companion. —We are indebted to Tal. P. Shall- 112 shaffner’s telegraph companion. ner for tlie January No. of a new work of which, he has just commenced the publication at New-York, of the above name. It is issued monthly, at §2 per annum, or with the Telegraph Chart at $3. It contains a large quantity of reading matter devoted to Telegraphy in all its branches. It is a work almost indispensable in telegraph offices, and one which would prove useful to any reading man. Mr. bhaffner is well known in the West as a builder and superintendent of lines, and as an energetic business man. He is a fluent writer, and fully conversant with telegraph matters, so that he cannot help making a good telegraph periodical. Extract of aLsllerfrom Freeman Brady, Operator, Washington , Pa. —“Sir:— It affords me pleasure to be able to contribute a little aid to you in your praiseworthy, and, to a telegrapher, essentially necessary enterprise. Your Companion is replete with useful information, not only to a person engaged in the business, but to all persons who take any interest in the advancement of science. Your Tariff Scale is of the utmost value to Companies, and ren¬ ders it the greatest aid to operators in charge of offices. - '’ Extract of a Letter from C. Bassit, Operator, Roscoe, O. —“ Your publications for January are received, and I am very much pleased with them. I need a work devoted to the details of practical telegraphing. Ts there such a work published V' [There is no such work in existence at present, though there is one in pre¬ paration.— Editors.] Extract of a Letter from A. E. Trabue, Operator, Nashville , Tenn. —“ I sin¬ cerely hope your Magazine will be the companion of every operator in the country. It is full of interest and information for telegraphers.” We publish the following notice to’the respective Telegraph Companies of America, and hope it will tend to increase the zeal among them to be repre¬ sented on that occasion. There are questions of very great importance that will be introduced to the Convention, requiring all the wisdom that can be associated to act upon, with proper consideration. We hear of the intended presence of a large representation. To the Morse Telegraph Companies of America :— The next Annual Convention of the American Telegraph Confederation will assemble at Washington City March 6th, 1854, and all companies using the Morse American Electro-Magnetic Telegraph are requested to be repre¬ sented by one or more delegates. A general attendance is earnestly re¬ quested, a3 matters of importance to the system of telegraphing are expected to be brought before the Convention. P. P. French, President-. W ashington, January, 1854. SHAPFNEE’S AMERICAN TELEGRAPH COMPANION. Published MoutBefly, in Oac City off Mew-¥ork. Devoted exclusively to the artfof Telegraphing, being the cheapest and largest publi¬ cation ever issued on the science. Containing 48 pages, octavo. Terms, $2 00 per annum. Address, PUDNEY & RUSSELL, 79 JOHN-STREET, N. Y. COMPOUND TELEGRAPH 1 TARIFF SCALE. Published Monthly, in the City of New-York. Devoted exclusively to the Tariffs of all the Lines in America. Corrected monthly, with great care in calculations, based upon the latest changes in Tariffs by the respec¬ tive Lines. Containing 32 pages of Tariff matter. Terms, $2 00 per annum. Address, PUDNEY & RUSSELL, 79 JOHN-STREET, N. Y. The Telegraph Companion* and the Telegraph Tariff Scale will be furnished separately, at $2 00 per annum. Both to one address for $3 00, EDITED BY TAL. P. SHAFFNER, Residence , City, f?. f. PUDNEY & RUSSELL, PUBLISHERS, 79 JOHN-STREET, NEW-YORK. HUNT’S Merchants’ Magazine and Commercial Review. TES IT^RSjM SUMS & .9 27 Fj 1% 1839. BY FREEMAN HUNT, Editor and Proprietor. PUBLISHED MONTHLY, 3lt 142 JTultcmstreet, Nnu-fflork—2lt $5 00 per 2lnnum. The MERCHANTS’ MAGAZINE AND COMMERCIAL REVIEW is devoted to Trade, Commerce, and Navigation—Banking, Currency, and Finance—Mercantile and Maritime Law—Fire, Marine, and Life Insurance—Ocean and Inland Navi gation—Nautical Intelligence—Internal Improvements— including Canals, Rail ways, and Plank Roads—Rivers and Harbors, and in general all subjects involving the great Commercial and Industrial Interests of the Country and the World. SCHEDULE OF PRICES. Prices of materials furnished by the Secretary in accordance with the resolution of the Washington Convention, 1853, relative to supplies, &c. [See Companion for Jan¬ uary, 1854. Nitric Acid, per lb. .$ S£ Sulphuric Acid, “ 2 Zincs, “ 8 Quicksilver, “ 65 Message Heads, per 1.000...'. 1 20 Envelopes, embossed, per 1.000, white.... 1 60 l! " “ straw col¬ ored, extra . 1 60 Envelopes, printed, per 1,000. tuff....... .$ 1 20 Pencils, per dozen. 22 Tumblers 2 00 Porous Cups “ 62 Elaclc Ink, quart bottles. 28 Platinum, per oz. 8 00 Pens, per gross. 30 Clocks, each.10 00 Companies are requested to forward their orders to the undersigned, and they will receive prompt attention. TAL. P. SHAFFNER. Secretary, <$-, %aoii mtir fab ^tinting, BY FUDNBY & RUSSELL, 7 9 JfOMUT-STRBlET, I PRINTERS FOR AMERICAN TELEGRAPH CONFEDERATION. We are prepared to execute all kinds of Telegraph Printing upon the most reasonable terms, and in the best style. Having the contract for printing from the American Telegraph Confederation, we have prepared additional facilities for promptly complying with any order from a Telegraph Company, as a preferred Job. We invite the different Companies throughout America to patronize us in the printing of their Register Book, Cards of Local Tariffs, Circulars, Monthly or Weekly Blank Reports; and all kinds of Blanks needed in the Telegraph Business will be neatly executed, at very reduced prices. The Secretary of the Confederation, and other expert Telegraphers, have kindly offered their aid in preparing forms for any of the Companies. E BOW’S REVIEW. TOL*. XIV. AND XV. ADAPTED PRIMARILY TO THE SOUTHERN AND WESTERN STATES OF THE UNION. \ Sncltiiiing Statistics at foreign anti Domestic Snirastnj anit enterprise. ; PUBLISHED MONTHLY IN NEW-ORLEANS, AT $5 00 PER UNNUM, IN ADVANCE. A few complete sets of the work , thirteen volumes , bound handsomely , (600 to 6S0 pages f are for sale at the office, New-Orleans, deliverable in any of the large cities or towns . # DE BOW’S INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES, OF THE SOUTHERN AND WESTERN - STATES. 3 Vols. — LargeSvo.—Fine print,paper and binding. Price $10. $3 33 per vol. (Postage Free, if remittance direct to office, without agents’ commission.) This work, which is a condensation and rearrangement of all the important papers, articles and statistics that have appeared in the Thirteen Published Volumes of De Bow’s Review, is now ready for delivery. The subjects in it are arranged alphabetically, as in the Encyclopedias, and are generally brought down to date. They will be sent postage free where the amount is remitted direct to the New- Orleans Office. Sets of the Industrial RESOURCwlAcan be had at the leading bookstores in the United Sta es as also single numbers and bound volumes of the Review. » _____ W. IS. ARTHUR & CO., STATIONERS, AND ACCOUNT- BOOK MANUFACTURERS, • IMPORTERS AND DEALERS IN (Jmry Ascription of Jo reign anb JBomcstic Stationery, 39 NASSAU-STREET, COR. OF LIBERTY, IV EW-YORK. Voi. L—No. 3. / MARCH, 185 ft. \ St hide. DEVOTED TO THE SCIENCE AND ART OF THE MORSE AMERICAN TELEGRAPH. BY TAL. P. SHAFFNER, ESQ., SECRETARY OF TIIE AMERICAN TELEGRAPH CONFEDERATION, lVa«hin gfosi City, E>. C. “ Canst thou send lightning, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are 1”— Job. “ The names of Franklin and Morse are destined to glide down the declivity of time together—the equals in the renown of inventive achievements.”— F. O. J. Smith. “ As the inventor of the Electric Telegraph, you, Prof. Morse, stand pre-eminent.”— Arago. “ The Electro-Magnetic Telegraph—that last and most wondrous birth of this wonder- teeming age .”—Congressional Report on Morse's Telegraph. TERMS, $2 PER ANNUM. N E W - Y O R K : [SHED SIOMTHLY, BY PUMEY & RUSSELL, pa No. 79 John-Street. 1654. V TABLE OF CONTENTS. Art. I.— MORSE AMERICAN TELEGRAPH PATENTS:— Controversy with O'Rielly—People’s Line to New-Orleans—Completed in 1848 to Nashville—Application 1'or Injunction—The Columbian Telegraph an Infringement —Morse sustained—Injuuction awarded—The Line seized by the Marshal—The Bain System—Appeal to Supreme Court—The Finale of the Line—Morse Patents of 1840 and 1846........ 113 Columbian Telegraph.-... 115 Comparison of the Telegraphs. 117 Mutator of the Columbian Telegraph. 117 The Comparison of the Registers. 119 The Columbian Infringes on Morse. 122 Application for Injunction. 122 Injunction awarded. 122 Injunction perpetuated. 123 Injunction evaded.123 Second Evasion of Injunction. 124 The United States Marshal seizes the Line... 125 Appeal to the Supreme Court... 125 The Bain Chemical Telegraph. 126 The Finale of the Line..... 126 Vote in the Supreme Court. 126 Conclusion.-. 127 Patent 1 840—Reissued 1848. 127 Claims. 127 Patent 1846 —Reissued 1848. 129 Object of the Invention. 129 Claims.130 Art. II.—DECISION OF SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES:— Appeal from the Circuit Court of the L T nited States for the District of Kentucky— Chief Justice Taney’s Opinion. 131 Art. Ill—DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE GRIER:— Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky, in the case of Henry O’Rielly, et al., Appellants, vs. Samuel F. B. Morse, et al., Appellees 150 SUBMARINE The undersigned, having had much experience in Submarine Telegraph Lines during the past five years in the United States, and having perfected Electric Cables to T '’et the necessities of any river in America, he is prepared to construct them upon the Lnj reliable plan known to science and mechanics. He will warrant any Cable made ui his orders, if desired, as to strength for the locality, perfect insulation, or preservaj from atmospheric electricity. With a view to secure the best workmanship, the undersigned has engaged in the construction of Cables, Mr. J. B. Sleeth, who is an expert mechanic, in nautical life. Mr. S. has been engaged in laying several Cables acrossj waters, and his mechanical improvements are superior in their proper coni TAL. P. SHAFFNj w: v. V3 SHAFFNER’S TELEGRAPH COMPANION, DEVOTED TO THE SCIENCE AND ART OF THE MORSE AMERICAN TELEGRAPH. VOL. I. MARCH, 1854. Ao. 3. Art. I.—MORSE AMERICAN TELEGRAPH PATENTS. CONTROVERSY WITH O^RIELLY-PEOPLE’S LINE TO NEW-ORLEANS-COMPLE¬ TED IN 1848 TO NASHVILLE-APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION-THE COLUM¬ BIAN TELEGRAPH AN INFRINGEMENT-MORSE SUSTAINED—INJUNCTION AWARDED-VIOLATORS ARRESTED—THE LINE SEIZED BY THE MARSHAL- THE BAIN SYSTEM-APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT-THE FINALE OF THE LINE -MORSE PATENTS OF 184t> AND 1846. On the 13th of June, 1845, Prof. Samuel F. B. Morse, and associates, entered into a contract with Henry O’Kielly, granting to the latter the right to construct a line of Morse’s Electro-Mag- netic Telegraph from the seaboard to St. Louis, and to the prin¬ cipal towns on the Lakes. Morse and associates inserted in the contract a prohibitory clause against O’Rielly’s extending the line to New-Orleans, expressly reserving that right to the paten¬ tees. Ere the line had reached Pittsburg from Philadelphia, a misunderstanding arose between the patentees and Mr. O’Biel- ly. The press throughout the land were burdened with circu¬ lars of caution, proclamations of fraud, and supremacy of respec¬ tive rights. In December, 1847, the line was finished to St. Louis. By the exercise of great energy, worthy of a nobler end, Mr. O’Rielly obtained the popular furor in his favor, and against the merited and just rights of Prof. Morse. The people and the press regarded Mr. O’Rielly as a public benefactor. Success crowned his efforts within the range of his contract from Morse. In the midst of this conquest, his discretion became confused; and his enmity to Morse and associates, encouraged by public manifestation, made to order, induced him to make a grand but desperate bulge towards New-Orleans, totally regard¬ less of all propriety, the dictates of sound reason and justice to the rights of Morse, whose invention he had and was using on YOL. I.—NO. III. 1 1 3)3 'oM 114 shaffner’s telegraph companion. tlie immense range of lines constructed under the contract of June, 1845. It was a leap from prosperity to adversity—from an Eden to a vortex of fatality I Whatever may have been the misunderstanding between the patentees and Mr. O’Rielly, a justification of the construction of the line to New-Orleans, and the efforts to destroy the property of Morse, can find no exist¬ ence. The grand moral code of society is unstained with a word in its defence upon its bright pages! The public and the press joined with Mr. O’Rielly at the time, and thus encouraged, he felt sanguine of success. Rapidity of construction, regardless of permanency, was the test with the public as to the relative rights. The first flash to a city or a town determined who was right and who was wrong. Thus the public became accessory in the deeds of error, in a shameful waste of the rights of an American inventor, who now, by the decree of a tribunal, elevated above the poisoned fangs of sordid minds, proclaim to the world, through the heralds of the Supreme Court of the first nation on earth, that Morse is the true and original inventor of that grand and most wonderful art—the Electro-Magnetic Telegraph. About the 23d of December, 1847, after the failure of other efforts, Hon. Amos Kendall and Hon. E. 0. J. Smith, feeling provoked at the unwarrantable proceedings of Mr. O’Rielly, contracted with William Tanner and Tal. P. Shaffner, of Ken¬ tucky, to construct a line of Telegraph from Louisville to Nash¬ ville, Tenn., and from Louisville to Lexington, Ky,, the same to be a section of the line to New-Orleans, and to the East therefrom. Messrs. Kendall and Smith advanced about $20,000 in the build¬ ing of this section. As soon as the existence of the above contract was known to Mr. O’Rielly, he placed a large force to work in constructing the line south of Louisville. Here commenced the race for New- Orleans. The parties agreed to occupy separate sides of the road, to avoid confusion and conflicts among the workmen. The O’Rielly line, proclaimed as the People’s Line, was completed to Nashville about the last of February, 1848. The Columbian Telegraph was announced and put in operation. The equivalent for the Relay Magnet was a series of electro-magnetic multipliers, each being composed of a magnetic needle delicately suspended, and placed within a longitudinal coil of copper wire, covered with silk thread. In this arrangement, the needle is extremely sensitive of the least current transmitted through the coil. The wire passing many times above and below the needle, tends to move its poles with the united influence of the whole, and in the same direction ; so that the effect of a single wire becomes mul¬ tiplied in nearly the proportion of the number of times the coil passes above and below the needle. A needle thus circumstan- MORSE AMERICAN TELEGRAPH PATENTS. 115 ced, with a divided circle to measure the angle of deviation, constitutes an instrument termed a galvanometer, or, as it was first termed, electro-magnetic multiplier. Faraday, by means of a delicate instrument of this kind, succeeded in identifying com¬ mon and Yoltaic electricity as a source of electro-magnetic action. The application of this instrument as a part of the Colum¬ bian proved defective, owing, we believe, to its extreme sensi¬ tiveness. The Mutator was then introduced in its place, to perform the functions of a Relay Magnet. This instrument will hereafter be described as understood by the Court and explained by the inventor. To enable the reader to understand the nature of the Colum¬ bian Telegraph, we copy a description of the Register, and Muta¬ tor, and history pertaining thereto, from the opinion rendered by the Hon. Thos. B. Monroe, of the District Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky, viz.:— COLUMBIAN TELEGRAPH. “ The only question under this head is, upon the identity of the Telegraph of Mr. Morse, and the Columbian Telegraph em¬ ployed by the defendants. The operations by the defendants are not controverted. They put their defence exclusively on the ground that their Telegraph is not within the description and given specifications found in the schedule of the patents under which the complainants assert their exclusive right. “ Now, having given a history of the invention of Mr. Morse, and its introduction into public use, it will be but equal to give the like history of the invention of the Columbian instrument, and how it was introduced to the public. “It happened that Mr. Morse and his associates, in their anxiety to promote the establishment of lines of Telegraphs, and extend their operations, in June, 1845, entered into a contract with this Mr. Henry O’Rielly, by which he undertook, on terms then agreed upon, to raise the capital for the construction of a line of Telegraph from Philadelphia, or other convenient point on the great seaboard line, by the way of Harrisburg, and other intermediate towns, to Pittsburg, and thence through Wheeling and Cincinnati, and such other towns and cities as the said Henry O’Rielly and his associates might elect, to St. Louis, and also to the principal towns on the Lakes. “It turned out, that under this contract, some progress hav¬ ing been made in the raising of capital and constructing Tele¬ graph lines, the parties differed in respect to the contract, in relation to what had been done, and their rights. And, “In this controversy, Mr. O’Rielly found what induced him to determine to establish a line of Telegraph from Louisville, via 116 SHAFFNER'S TELEGRAPH COMPANION. Nashville, and other towns, to New-Orleans not under color of his contract, or otherwise claiming under the patents of Mr. Morse, but in disregard thereof. “There was evidence that he at first represented that he had the right to establish these lines under his contract with Mr. Morse and others, and so operate under his patents, but this pre¬ tension was shortly afterwards abandoned. “ He was not, however, in the situation to contest the validity of the patents of Mr. Morse. “He had formed joint stock companies, for the construction of Telegraphs, obtained the subscriptions, and induced his asso¬ ciates to advance their money on the faith of the validity of these patents. And, “In the formation of such associations, he had reserved to him¬ self and the owners of the patent large portions of the stock, and, of course, the right to corresponding shares of the dividends; and which was accorded to him on no other consideration but the supposed exclusive right of the patentee. “ The other partners subscribed and advanced their money. Mr. O’Rielly subscribed the patent rights of Mr. Morse, and was to have the same ownership in the joint stock, and dividends upon it, which the capitalists were to have upon their money, actually advanced. “If, then, these patents were null, he was committing frauds upon these subscribers, to the full amount of the interest in the joint stock companies, he had, by such means, so reserved and secured to himself and the owners of the patent. “It did not then become him to denounce these patents, and declare that all claims to rights under them were worthless. Such an admission on his part, in one of these associations he had formed on the north of the Ohio, would have at once estab¬ lished that he had no right in it, but that it belonged to those who had advanced the money by which the Telegraph had been constructed; he therefore looked for some other colorable in¬ vention, under which to construct and work a Telegraph in Kentucky. “It happened that Mr. E. F. Barnes had been employed in the capacity of an operator on the Telegraph line of Mr. Morse, from Buffalo to New-York, and Mr. S. K. Zook had been opera¬ tor and superintendent on the line from Washington City to New-York, and having both become well acquainted with the operations of all the instruments, and learned the principles of the Telegraph of Mr. Morse, each conceived some idea of improve¬ ments on the instruments of his invention, and uniting their notions, they contrived an instrument, in substitution, as they supposed, of the Receiving Magnet, and another instead of his Register, and, denominating their combination 1 The Columbian MORSE AMERICAN TELEGRAPH PATENTS. 117 Telegraph/ claimed it as an invention. These young gentlemen applied to Mr. O’Rielly, or he applied to them, and some con¬ tract was made between the parties, for the use of this Colum¬ bian Telegraph, and Mr. O’Rielly commenced the construction of posts and wires from Louisville to Nashville, and in the month of May had gotten his Telegraph in operation.” COMPARISON OF THE TELEGRAPHS. “ 1. The Main Circuit, with its Battery. 11 2. The Key, with its Signal Lever or Correspondent. “ These parts of the two Telegraphs are identical; no diver¬ sity was pointed out, except that whilst the helices on the horse¬ shoe magnet of Mr. Morse, which is constituted of the windings of the small wire, are fixed, this Magnet, in the Columbian Te¬ legraph, is movable, and by its motion to and fro, when charged and discharged , instead of by attracting other things to it, per¬ forms its office. “3. The Local Circuits, with their Batteries. u The defendants have two batteries similar to the one of Mr. Morse, and two circuits of conductors in all respects similar to his, until we come to those which are instruments, or parts of the instruments of operation, and it is to these the attention is to be now applied. “ One of the conductors of Mr. Morse’s office circuit, it will be recollected, is a perpendicular movable lever, and it is the movement of this lever into contact with the platina point of a screw, caused by the attraction of the armature on it, to the Electro-Magnet when charged by the opening of the main cir¬ cuit by its signal lever, that the office circuit was opened and the register made to act and record the intelligence. Now, in the stead of such a lever, the defendants have this device to open and close alternately their two circuits, and thereby work their register. MUTATOR OF THE COLUMBIAN TELEGRAPH. u The Receiver, or Mutator, as it is called by Messrs. Barnes and Zook, is thus described by one of the inventors of this Te¬ legraph, who was examined upon the hearing, in explanation of its several instruments and their operation :— a t is a thin U-shaped piece of soft iron suspended upon an arm attached to a cross-bar with pivots, so placed that its extremes approximate to the poles of a permanent Magnet. “ 1 About each leg of the soft iron is placed a brass spool filled with small insulated wires, the iron being left free to move within the spools. 118 shaffner’s telegraph companion. 111 At the curve of the soft iron is placed a spring, so arranged as to have a tendency to draw the iron from the Magnet. “ 1 In the absence of the Electric current, the magnetism of the permanent Magnet induces magnetism of opposite polarity in the soft iron, and holds it firmly. “ ‘A current of Electricity being passed through the wire in such a manner as to induce in the iron magnetism of a similar polarity with that of the permanent Magnet, the iron is in a measure released from the power of the permanent Magnet, and is drawn away by the force of the spring; and upon with¬ drawing the Electric current, the reverse motion is obtained from the force of the permanent Magnet alone that overcomes the power of the spring. “ ‘ The motion so obtained renders it possible to connect the poles of two resident or local batteries, the currents of which run in opposite directions.’ Now, “ The two spools, or helices, formed of the small wire of the main circuit wound on two legs of this U-shaped bar of soft iron, correspond to the two helices and horse-shoe Magnet men¬ tioned in the description of Mr. Morse’s Receiving Magnet. “ But this Magnet, instead of being fixed as that of Mr. Morse, is so suspended as to move with facility to and fro within the helices. “ On this bar, between the two helices or spools, there is fixed an upright bar, which extends up between two points of metal. We will return to these points of metal presently. “ Opposite the other ends of this bar, and which correspond to the heels of the horse-shoe, there is placed a fixed Magnet. “ When the main circuit is interrupted, and the instrument is at rest, this upright bar, which is in fact an arm of the Electro- Magnet, rests against one of the points of metal, and keeps one of the office circuits closed, whilst the other is broken. “ When the main circuit is open, and thereby this horse-shoe magnetized, it is impelled towards the fixed Magnet. This mo¬ tion at once brings the upright bar, an arm of the Magnet, from contact with the point of metal against which we said it rested, (when the local circuit with which it is connected is broken,) and brings it into contact with the opposite point of metal con¬ nected with the other circuit, whereby it is opened. “ The main circuit being then broken, and the horse-shoe no longer a Magnet, a spring brings it back to its former position, ready to act again, by being again magnetized by the reopening of the main circuit. * * * * u But in what are the two instruments identical ? u Each is worked by the motive power of the Electro-Magnet, and the mechanical power of the spring. The action of each, one way, is caused by the charging of the Magnet, and on the MORSE AMERICAN TELEGRAPH PATENTS. 119 Magnet being discharged, each is brought back to its position by the mechanical action of the spring. And, “ The operations of each are according to the will of the cor¬ respondent upon his lever, in the distant office, and each pro¬ duces the same corresponding action in the Pen of the Eegister which indents the intelligence dispatched. u They both effect this great end first accomplished by Mr. Morse in his discovery of the practicability of combining the circuits of Electricity, by which the extent of the operations by the Electro-Magnetic Telegraph is left circumscribed only by what may render impracticable the connecting of the necessary conductors of what constitutes the motive power of the instru¬ ment. “It is concluded that the instrument called the Mutator of ' the Columbian Telegraph, in its combination therewith, is sub¬ stantially the same with the Receiving Magnet, in its combina¬ tion with the Telegraph of Mr. Morse; and that the defendants, in the use thereof, committed an infringement on the rights of the complainants, whether their Register, or any of its instru¬ ments, are within the description of the corresponding instru¬ ments of the complainants or not. THE COMPARISON OF THE REGISTERS. u The description of the Register of the Columbian Telegraph, with its instruments, will be first given, in the words of one of the inventors, who explained it on the hearing, after which we will proceed with the comparison. u ‘ It is composed of a train of clockwork, for moving the paper, and the apparatus necessary to produce the desired result, viz.: “ ‘ Two permanent Magnets are so placed, that their opposite poles approximate to each other. Between the poles of these Magnets, a soft iron bar is suspended upon a carriage. The iron is wrapped with number 18 to 20 wire, insulated. In the absence of the electrical current, this bar stands at a point of in¬ difference, being attracted to neither Magnet; but in closing one of the local circuits, the electrical current passes one direction through the wires in the iron, giving it polarity, and affinity for one permanent Magnet, while it is at the same time repulsed by the other ; upon interrupting this, and closing the circuits of the other local battery, the current flows in a contrary direction, giving opposite polarity ; and reverse motion is obtained, t “ ‘ Attached to this bar is an arm, at the extremity of which is a sharp point, so placed that at each alternate motion of the bar, the point comes in contact with the paper, placed before and running over a grooved plate in such a manner that an indenta¬ tion is made. 120 shaffner’s telegraph companion. 1 £ 1 Alternate dots and lines of these indentations form a sys¬ tem of arbitrary signs, representing the alphabet and numerals; the whole rendering it possible to make an instantaneous com¬ munication at a distance. 5 “Now, we have here, in the first place, the motive power of the electro-magnet of the Register of Mr. Morse; and if no more was said, there would seem to be, in this respect, an identity. “ But it was argued for the defendants, that here, in the Co¬ lumbian instrument, the repulsive as well as the attractive power is employed. Suppose it is, still the attractive power is used, and it cannot be maintained that the addition of another power, without any other change, constitutes a difference which will give to any one, making such addition, the right to employ the formerly invented instrument. He may, as before said, have his patent for this improvement, or he may use it without a pa¬ tent, but he cannot in that mode acquire the right to use the original. “But is there any difference between these two powers of the Magnet ? It is wholly unnecessary to inquire and ascertain to what purposes these things are different, or to what intents they are one and the same ; or in what sense the terms, identical and different, may be applied to them; we are concerned only with the settling the signification of words in order to apply the patent laws. And, “ It is apprehended that when an exclusive right has been granted to the use of an instrument worked by the attractive power of the Magnet, the working such an instrument by its re¬ pulsive power would be an infringement; and that the proposi¬ tion is so obviously true, that it would be useless to look after plainer propositions from which to prove it; and it follows from this conclusion, that this diversity between the mode of work¬ ing the two instruments cannot, of itself, avail the defendants. “ But it was insisted that the machinery, as it may be called, of this Magnet, and its operations, are different. And so they are in some respects. There is here much additional machinery, and this instrument has some operations which the other has not. “ By this machinery the changes in polarity of the Magnet are effected, and thereby its repulsive as well as attractive power is employed, by which its alternate action is produced, which ac¬ complishes the result. But how does this happen ? “ In order to employ this repulsive power, it became neces¬ sary to invent a contrivance to effect changes in the polarity of the Magnet; and to effect this, the two permanent Magnets are introduced, the two local circuits are added, and the alterations already mentioned were made in the Receiver of Mr. Morse; MORSE AMERICAN TELEGRAPH PATENTS. 121 and because these things had been done, it was contended that the instrument ought to be considered and adjudged substan¬ tially different. “ The machinery was necessary to effect the changes in the polarity of the Magnet, in order to bring into action the repul¬ sive power, in addition to the attractive; but the employment of repulsion produces no substantial diversity, and yet the argu¬ ment is, the machinery itself shall constitute an essential diversity. “ The attractive power of the Electro-Magnet is altogether sufficient to work any Telegraphic Register. The permanent Magnets are necessary only to employ the repulsive power, and that is useless; and if used, would not help the defendants to escape the charge of infringement; therefore, let them be re¬ moved, and all this machinery is at once wholly unnecessary. Let it be cast off, and the corresponding alterations of the Re¬ ceiving Magnet are rendered equally useless. Now, all these useless things discarded, we have nothing left but the simple Re¬ ceiving Magnet of the patentee. “ One of the alternate motions of this Columbian Magnet does draw back the pen after it has made an indentation upon the paper, and holds it in position for repetition ; but this is accom¬ plished by Mr. Morse by a simple spring, and it was not pre¬ tended that all this machinery and repulsive power of the Magnet had been brought into action for any such purpose. u The grooved rollers , in combination with the clockwork, seemed to have been used by the defendants for some time, and without disguise. In the instrument exhibited here, there is a third cylinder introduced, over which the paper is made to pass, by the action of the two rollers, such as those found in the in¬ strument of Mr. Morse. This is only an addition, which can give no right to use the thing to which it is added, and it is not supposed that it constitutes any improvement. ‘ ‘ The Pen Lever is the next thing. It was in proof that, shortly before the hearing of this motion commenced, the con¬ trivance employed was somewhat different. “ This bar, which is here attached to the Electro-Magnet, on the other end of which is the sharp point which makes the in¬ dentations of intelligence upon the paper, was, in the instrument then employed, made fast to one end of the Pen Lever, which lever was bent in an angle somewhat greater than a right angle, and worked upon an axis or fulcrum at the angle; the other end, to which the armature was made fast, descending perpen¬ dicularly, or nearly so, from the fulcrum. “ The vibration of the armature, to and fro, carried this end of the pen lever with it, bringing the point, fixed in the other 122 shaffner’s telegraph companion. end of tlie lever, in contact with the paper, and withdrawing it alternately, thus writing by the lever motion. u This is unimportant, except to manifest in what a variety of forms every instrument in this Telegraph may be constructed, and to show how industrious and ingenious the inventors of this in¬ strument of the defendants have been, in devising modes by which to obtain the benefit of the discoveries of the patentee, and yet evade the charge of an infringement of his rights. “ The effort here has, perhaps, as much the appearance of being successful as anywhere else, but it cannot prevail. “ In the Register of the patentee, the attraction of the arma¬ ture on one end of the pen lever, downwards, gives an upward action to the other end, and thereby the indentations are made upon the paper. Here, by this last contrivance, the pen lever is made a part of the magnet, which, by its vibration, gives the same action to the pen; and such a difference in the mode of accomplishing such an end, can be regarded as no better than a substitution of one mechanical contrivance or arrangement for another, which can succeed only when such arrangement is the very essence of the invention, and without which it could not be said anything had been discovered. * * * * THE COLUMBIAN INFRINGES ON MORSE. “The conclusion is, that the employment of the Columbian Telegraph, in any of the forms which it appears to have as¬ sumed, would have been an infringement of the rights of the complainants, even had less of the sameness been found in their several parts. And this disposes of the question of infringement.” APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION. This judicial examination took place in 1848, commencing on the 24th day of August, and terminating on the 9th day of Sep¬ tember. The complainants were Messrs. Morse, Yail, and Smith, against Henry O’Rielly and others. The former applied for an injunction against the O’Rielly or People’s Line, extend¬ ing south of Louisville. After the most tedious examination of the questions at issue, the Honorable Judge, sitting in Chamber, gave his opinion, fully sustaining the Morse Patents, in which was embraced the preceding descriptions of the Columbian Tele¬ graph, and he closed his masterly examination by entering an order of injunction, containing the following, viz.:— INJUNCTION AWARDED. “You, Henry O’Rielly, Eugene L. Whitman, and W. F. B. Hastings, are therefore—as by the order of our said Judge in the premises is directed —Enjoined and commanded, that you, and MORSE AMERICAN TELEGRAPH PATENTS. 123 each of you, your servants and agents, do henceforth desist and refrain from all further employment, in the District of Kentucky, of the Electro-Magnetic Telegraph in the complainants’ hill men¬ tioned ; which, it appears by the proofs, was, by you, the defen¬ dants, lately employed, and , of the Telegraph by the defendant, O’Rielly, in his answer mentioned, which is by you called ‘ The Columbian Telegraph;’ and which, it appeared, you proposed to employ hereafter—but which two are considered here, for the purpose of this matter, as one and the same Telegraph—in the transmission of intelligence from one place to another distant place by making thereat a legible record thereof: and from such employment for such purpose of any other Telegraph worked by the motive power of Electro-Magnetism, and consist¬ ing of combined circuits of electricity, connected by what is called, by the complainants, the Receiver , and by you, the defendants, the Mutator , and the Register, worked by Electro-Magnetism, in whole or in part, or in any combination whatever, within, and in violation of the exclusive rights, as here determined, granted by letters patent to the complainant, Samuel F. B. Morse, until the further order of the Court, or until the effect of the said order of our Judge, at his Chambers, shall have expired.” INJUNCTION PERPETUATED. At the fall term of the Circuit Court, the following order, per¬ petuating the injunction, was entered by the Honorable Court:— “ It ivas ordered , that the injunction granted herein, by the Dis¬ trict Judge at his Chambers, be continued, until the further order of the Court.” INJUNCTION EVADED. Early after the injunction was granted, the defendants sought other means to evade the Morse Patents, by receiving intelli¬ gence by sound. Complaint was made to the Judge, and writs for the arrest of the parties were issued. On the hearing, the Judge entered the following, viz.:— “It is considered by the Court , that the operations of the Tele¬ graph of the defendants, O’Rielly and others, in the writ of in¬ junction mentioned, by the said Barnes, in the transmission of intelligence from the city of Louisville, within the District of Kentucky, to Nashville, without the District, by making at that place, the record thereof in the Telegraphic characters indented upon the paper, off which it was put into the manuscript for the correspondents, was a palpable violation of the injunction ; and that his operation of the same Telegraph in receiving intelligence from Nashville at Louisville in and by the sounds made by the same action of the Telegraph, which, in its regular operation, wo aid have made the record in the Telegraphic characters in 124 shaffner’s telegraph companion. dented upon the paper, and therefrom putting the same into manuscript for the correspondents, was a mere evasion of the in¬ junction, and substantially a violation thereof, and of the vested rights of the complainants.” SECOND EVASION OF INJUNCTION. Not satisfied with the order in the above case, placing the parties under bonds for contempt of Court, the defendant sought another mode to evade the patents and the injunction. Complaint was made to the Judge, and the following is a part of the pro¬ ceedings in the case, viz.:— “ The Court stated the matter, and delivered its judgment in case of the attachment against Zook and Woolfolk. “ ‘ The short statement of the case is, that the defendants, after being prohibited the employment of their Telegraph within the District of Kentucky, removed the instruments of their office to Jeffersonville, without the District, but still kept their posts and wires within it, and with their Telegraph so situated, partly within the District, and partly without it, continued their pro¬ hibited operations, in violation of the injunction; and in order to still have the benefit of the transmission of intelligence to and from Louisville, established a post-office in the city, and a regu¬ lar mail from it, to their office in Jeffersonville, in violation of the prohibition of the injunction and of act of Congress, prohi¬ biting the establishment of private mails. It is difficult to see how any person could have imagined that the law or judgment of a court could be thus evaded, or how they could have sup¬ posed it was justifiable to adopt such means of accomplishing such an end. “ l It is found , on proofs, that S. K. Zook was the superintendent of the line of Telegraphs of the defendants from Louisville to Nashville, and as such had under them the power over it, and their agents employed in its operations ; and that after the pro¬ ceeding had herein against Barnes, and the defendants had ab¬ sented themselves from the District, caused the line of wires to be extended from Louisville to Jeffersonville, Indiana, without the District of Kentucky, and caused the instruments of the Te¬ legraph Office in Louisville, the use whereof the defendants, O’Bielly and others, had been prohibited, by this injunction, to be removed across the Ohio to that place; and thereupon, as such superintendent caused the Telegraph of the defendants, with the position of a portion of the instruments so changed, to be put in operation and conducted in a mode within the prohi¬ bitions of the writ of injunction against his principals. “ ‘ It appears that the same office of the defendants in Louis¬ ville was still occupied, and that all communications to be trans- MORSE AMERICAN TELEGRAPH PATENTS. 125 mitted thence were received thereat, and thence transferred by the carriers and servants of the defendants to Jeffersonville, whence they were accordingly dispatched on this Telegraph, so situated, in part, within this District; and it seems to the Court, that such change of the position of a portion of the in¬ struments was but an attempt to evade the injunction, and that such operations of the Telegraph, with the instruments, partly within the District, the use whereof within it had been prohibited by the injunction, was a violation thereof, and this party, S. K. Zook, is guilty of the contempt wherewith he is charged. And, “ ‘ It is ordered , that the said S. K. Zook, for his offence afore¬ said, make his fine to the United States, by the payment of the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars, and also the costs in this proceeding expended, and that he stand committed, and be con¬ fined in the jail of the county of Franklin, State of Kentucky, until the same shall have been paid, or he shall be discharged by due course of law.’ ” The same order of Court was given in the case of Mr. Wool- folk, and both placed under bonds. They were released from the fine. THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL SEIZES THE LINE. The repeated efforts of the defendants to evade the injunction, and act in contempt of the Court, induced the entering of the following order, which terminated the ability of the parties to abuse the privilege given them to take charge of their line :— “ 1 It is ordered , that the Marshal be, and he is hereby directed to take into his possession such parts of the line of wires and posts of the Telegraph of the defendants, within the District of Kentucky, as may be necessary for the purpose herein presently expressed, and by breaking and inter ceiling the circuit of Electricity through the wires , stop and prevent the defendants from further opera¬ tions upon their Telegraph , within the District , in any mode prohib¬ ited by the injunction herein ; but in doing this he will take such possession of no part of such wires or posts which shall not be necessary for him to have in his custody to effect and secure this object, but will leave the other parts thereof in possession, or under the superintendence of the defendants or their agents, as he may find them ; and that he so hold the possession of such parts of the Telegraph, and thereby prevent the violation of the injunction until this cause shall be fully heard, or the further order of the Court.’ ” The Marshal executed this order of the Court, and thus ended the inventive powers of evasion. APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT. It was upon the proceedings above recited that Mr. O’Bielly 126 shaffner’s telegraph companion. appealed to the Supreme Court of tlie United States, and upon which, the annexed decision was rendered by Chief Justice Tanej r , and the dissenting opinion by Justice Grier. THE BAIN CHEMICAL TELEGRAPH. After the proceedings in the District Court of Kentucky took place, Mr. O’Rielly proposed to put on the People’s Line afore¬ said the Bain Chemical Telegraph, and he applied to the Court for possession of the Line. The Morse counsel resisted the ap¬ plication, contending that it would be another violation of the patents. The Court decided that the question was upon its vio¬ lation of the injunction granted. The decree of the Court was against the Columbian Telegraph—an Electro-Magnetic Tele¬ graph—and the Bain system was a Chemical Telegraph, which was not considered in the former trial. Whether or not it was a violation of the patents of Prof. Morse, could only be ascer¬ tained by a separate action thereon. Such was the opinion of the Honorable Court. The Line was then given in charge of the defendants, they giving bond and security not to put on the said Line any instrument infringing the patents granted to Morse. THE FINALE OF THE LINE. The Line was then worked by the Bain system. Mr. O’Kiellv having made an assignment, the Line was placed in charge of trustees, and ultimately under a corporate control. With the utmost difficulty it was continued at work, each year increas¬ ing its debt, until June, 1852, when it became blended in man¬ agement with the Morse Line. The two combined cleared about $30,000 for the year, which was applied in the payment of old debts. June, 1853, the two companies consolidated and became one, the Morse Company taking the other at an agreed valua¬ tion, assuming the debts, amounting to some $40,000 or $45,000, the combined debt being about $70,000. Such is the history of these two Lines, both groaning under a heavy debt. One good Line could have accumulated handsome gains. Free the present Company from debt, and the stock will pay large divi¬ dends. It is not with pride that we refer to these reminiscences. To all it is a sad tale. No one has been benefited, but it has been a sip of gall to each and every one who has been con¬ nected with the cause and the contest. VOTE IN THE SUPREME COURT. Before closing our remarks upon this question, we desire to give a statement of the case in the Supreme Court, for general information. The opinion of the Court was read by Chief Justice Taney, MORSE AMERICAN TELEGRAPH PATENTS. 127 which, was concurred in by Justices McLean, Catron, and Daniel. The dissenting opinion was read by Justice Grier, and concurred in by Justices Nelson and Wayne. Justice Curtis, having been a Morse counsel, did not sit in the case. Justice Campbell, hay¬ ing been appointed since the argument, did not sit in the case. CONCLUSION. We close this article by giving the claims of the Morse patents. The preceding pages give the history of the controversy as briefly as possible; also, the points of the opinion of the Court below pertaining to the Columbian Telegraph, the efforts to evade the solemn decrees of the judiciary, and the finale of the Line. In making reference to the history of the above case, we have endeavored to avoid exhibiting any personal allusion disrespect¬ ful of the parties. We respect them all, and regret the existence of past and present troubles. The controversy is now at an end, and whatever pride or mortification either or any of us may have had, we hope will be buried forever, and our future career be marked with well-directed consideration in the acquire¬ ment of food to eat and raiment to wear. PATENT 1840 —RE-ISSUED 1848. u 1 Be it known that I, Samuel F. B. Morse, now of * * * the State of New-York, have invented a new and useful appa¬ ratus for, and a system of transmitting intelligence between dis¬ tant points by means of Electro-Magnetism, which puts in motion machinery for producing sounds or signs , and recording said signs upon paper or other suitable material, which invention I denom¬ inate the American Electro-Magnetic Telegraph, and that the fol¬ lowing is a full, clear, and exact description of the principle or character thereof, which distinguishes it from all other Tele¬ graphs previously known; and of the manner of making and constructing said apparatus, and of applying said system, reference being had to the accompanying drawing, making part of this specification. * * * * * CLAIMS. “ £ First. Having thus fully described my invention, I wish it to be understood that I do not claim the use of the Galvanic current, or current of Electricity, for the purpose of Telegraphic communications generally; but what I specially claim as my invention and improvement, is making use of the motive power of Magnetism, when developed by the action of such current or currents, substantially as set forth in the foregoing description of the first principal part of my invention, as means of operating or giving motion to machinery, which may be used to imprint signals upon paper or other suitable material, or to produce 128 shaffner’s telegraph companion. sounds in any desired manner, for the purpose of Telegraphic communication at any distances. “ ‘ The only ways in which the Galvanic currents had been pro¬ posed to be used, prior to my invention and improvement, were by bubbles resulting from decomposition, and the action or exer¬ cise of electrical power upon a magnetized bar or needle ; and the bubbles and deflections of the needles, thus produced, were the subjects of inspection, and had no power, or were not ap¬ plied to record the communication. I therefore characterize my invention as the first recording or printing Telegraph by means of Electro-Magnetism. “ ‘ There are various known modes of producing motion by Electro-Magnetism, but none of these had been applied prior to my invention and improvement, to actuate or give motion to printing or recording machinery , which is the chief point of my invention and improvement. 111 Second. I also claim as my invention and improvement the employment of the machinery called the Register or Record¬ ing Instrument, composed of the train of clock wheels, cylinders and other apparatus, or their equivalent, for moving the ma¬ terial upon which the characters are to be imprinted, and for im¬ printing said characters, substantially as set forth in the fore¬ going description of the second principal part of my invention. “ £ Third. I also claim as my invention and improvement, the combination of machinery herein described, consisting of the generator of Electricity, the circuit of conductors, the contri¬ vance for closing and breaking the circuit, the Electro-Magnet, the pen or contrivance for marking, and the machinery for sus¬ taining and moving the paper, altogether constituting one apparatus or Telegraphic machine, which I denominate the American Electro-Magnetic Telegraph. “ £ Fourthly. I also claim as my invention the combination of two or more Galvanic or Electric circuits, with independent bat¬ teries, substantially by the means herein described, for the pur¬ pose of obviating the diminished force of Electro-Magnetism in long circuits, and enabling me to command sufficient power to put in motion Registering or Recording machinery at any dis¬ tances. “ £ Fifthly. I claim, as my invention, the system of signs, con¬ sisting of clots and spaces, and of dots, spaces and horizontal lines, for numerals, letters, words, or sentences, substantially as herein set forth and illustrated, for Telegraphic purposes. ££ £ Sixth. I also claim, as my invention, the system of signs, consisting of dots and spaces, and of dots, spaces, and horizon¬ tal lines, substantially as herein set forth and illustrated, in com¬ bination with machinery for recording them, as signals for Telegraphic purposes. MORSE AMERICAN TELEGRAPH PATENTS. 129 “ ‘ Seventh. I also claim, as my invention, the types, or their equivalent, and the Type Rule and port rule, in combination with the signal lever or its equivalent, as herein described, for the purpose of breaking and closing the circuit of Galvanic or Electric conductors. u 1 Eighth. I do not propose to limit myself to the specific machi¬ nery , or parts of machinery, described in the foregoing specifications and claims: the essence of my invention being the use of the motive power of the Electric or Galvanic current , which I call Electro-Mag¬ netism, however developed, for marking or printing intelligible char¬ acters , letters, or signs , at any distances, being a new application of that power, of which I claim to be the first inventor or discoverer l ” PATENT 1846— RE-ISSUED 1848. a This patent is the reissue of the patent of April, 1846, and is for a new and useful improvement in 1 Electro-Magnetic Tele¬ graphs. 1 It grants the exclusive use to the patentee for the term of fourteen years from the eleventh day of April, 1846, * * * OBJECT OF THE INVENTION. “ £ The original and final object of all Telegraphing is the com¬ munication of intelligence at a distance by signs or signals. “ ‘ Various modes of Telegraphing, or making signs or signals at a distance, have for ages been in use. The signs employed heretofore have had one quality in common. They are evanes¬ cent —shown or heard a moment, and leaving no trace of their having existed. 1 The various modes of these evanescent signs have been by beacon fires of different characters, by flags, by balls, by reports of fire-arms, by bells heard from a distant position, by movable arms from posts, Sc. 111 I do not, therefore, claim to be the inventor of Telegraphs generally. The Electric Telegraph is a more recent kind of Tele- gragh, proposed within the last century, but no practical plan was devised until about sixteen years ago. Its distinguishing feature is the employment of Electricity to effect the same gen¬ eral result of communicating intelligence at a distance by signs or signals. “ ‘ The various modes of accomplishing this end by Electricit}r have been :— “ 1 The employment of common or machine Electricity as early as 1787, to show an evanescent sign by the divergence of pith- balls. 111 The employment of common or machine Electricity in 1794, to show an evanescent sign by the Electric spark. “ 1 The employment of Voltaic Electricity in 1809, to show an VOL. i. —no. in. 2 130 shaffner’s telegraph companion. evanescent sign by the evolution of gas-bubbles, decomposed from solution in- a vessel of transparent glass. “ ‘ The employment of Voltaic Electricity in the production of temporary Magnetism in 1820, to show an evanescent sign by deflecting a magnet or compass-needle. “ ‘ The result contemplated from all these Electric Telegraphs was the production of evanescent signs or signals only. u ‘ I do not, therefore, claim to have first applied Electricity to Telegraphing for the purpose of showing evanescent signs or signals. “ ‘ The original and final object of my Telegraph is, to imprint characters at any distance as signals for intelligence ; its object is to mark or impress them in a permanent manner. “ 1 To obtain this end, I have applied Electricity in two dis¬ tinct ways. 1st. I have applied, by a novel process, the motive power of Electro-Magnetism, or Magnetism produced by Electricity , to operate machinery for printing signals at any distance. 2dly. I have applied the chemical effects of Electricity to print signals at any distance. ***** CLAIMS. “ ‘ First. What I claim as my invention, and desire to secure by letters patent, is the employment, in a main Telegraphic cir¬ cuit, of a device or contrivance called the Receiving Magnet, in combination with a short local independent circuit or circuits, each having a Register and Register Magnet, or other Magnetic contrivances for registering, and sustaining such a relation to the Register Magnet, or other Magnetic contrivances for regis¬ tering, and to the length of circuit of Telegrajohic line, as will enable me to obtain with the aid of a Galvanic battery and main circuit, and the intervention of a local battery and local circuit, such motion or power for registering as could not be obtained otherwise without the use of a much larger Galvanic battery, if at all. “ 1 Second. I also claim as my invention, the combination of the apparatus called the self-stopping apparatus , connected with the clockwork by the Register, for setting said Register in ac¬ tion, and stopping it with the Pen Lever F, as herein described. “ ‘ Third. I also claim as my invention, the combination of the point or points of the pen and pen lever, or its equivalent, with the grooved roller, or other equivalent device, over which the paper, or other material suitable for marking upon, may be made to pass for the purpose of receiving the impression of the characters; by which means I am enabled to mark or print signs or signals upon paper or other fabric, by indentation, thus dispensing with the use of coloring matter for marking, as spe¬ cified in my letters patent, of January 15th, 1846.’ ” 131 CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY’S OPINION. Art. II.—DECISION OF SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Samuel F. B. Morse vs. Henry O’Rielly. I This was an Appeal from the District Court of Kentucky , wherein Morse was granted an Injunction against O'Kelly, for an In¬ fringement of the Morse Patents , by the use of the Columbian Telegraph. The Supreme Court perpetuates that Injunction. Counsel for Morse. Counsel for CRielly. George Gifford, Solomon P. Chase, St. Geo. T. Campbell, R. H. Gillett. George Harding. DECISION WAS RENDERED JAN. 30TH, 1854. 6 December Term , 1853. Henry O’Rielly, Eugene L. Whitman, and W. F. B. Has¬ tings, Appellants, versus Samuel F. B. Morse, Alfred Vail, and Francis 0. J. Smith, Appellees. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky. Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion, which was con¬ curred in by Justices Daniel, Catron, and McLean. In proceeding to pronounce judgment in this case, the Court is sensible, not only of its importance, but of the difficulties in some of the questions which it presents for decision. The case was argued at the last Term, and continued over by the Court for the purpose of giving it a more deliberate examination. And since the continuance, we have received from the counsel on both sides printed arguments, in which all of the questions raised on the trial have been fully and elaborately discussed. The appellants take three grounds of defence: In the first place, they deny that Professor Morse was the first and original inventor of the Electro-Magnetic Telegraphs, described in his two reissued patents of 1848. Secondly, they insist that if he was the original inventor, the patents under which he claims have not been issued conformably to the acts of Congress, and do not confer on him the right to the exclusive use. And thirdly, if these two propositions are decided against them, they insist that the Telegraph of O’Rielly is substantially different 132 shaffner’s telegraph companion. from that of Professor Morse, and the use of it, therefore, no in¬ fringement of his rights. In determining these questions, we shall, in the first instance, confine our attention to the patent which Professor Morse ob¬ tained in 1810, and which was reissued in 1848. The main dis¬ pute between the parties is upon the validity of this patent; and the decision upon it will dispose of the chief points in con¬ troversy in the other. In relation to the first point, (the originality of the invention,) many witnesses have been examined on both sides. It is obvious that, for some years before Professor Morse made his invention, scientific men in different parts of Europe were earnestly engaged in the same pursuit. Electro-Magnetism itself was a recent discovery, and opened to them a new and unex¬ plored field for their labors, and minds of a high order were engaged in developing its power, and the purposes to which it might be applied. Professor Henry, of the Smithsonian Institute, states in his testimony, that prior to the winter of 1819-20, an Electro-Mag¬ netic Telegraph—that is to say, a Telegraph operating by the combined influence of electricity and magnetism—was not pos¬ sible ; that the scientific principles on which it is founded were until then unknown ; and that the first fact of Electro-Magnet¬ ism was discovered by Oersted, of Copenhagen, in that winter, and was widely published, and the account everywhere received with interest. He also gives an account of the various discoveries subse¬ quently made from time to time, by different persons in different places, developing its properties and powers ; and among them his own. He commenced his researches in 1828, and pursued them with ardor and success from that time until the Telegraph of Professor Morse was established and in actual operation. And it is due to him to say that no one has contributed more to enlarge the knowledge of Electro-Magnetism, and to lay the foundations of the great invention of which we are speaking, than the professor himself. It is unnecessary, however, to give in detail the discoveries enumerated by him—either his own, or those of others. But it appears from his testimony, that very soon after the discovery made by Oersted, it was believed by men of science that this newly-discovered power might be used to communicate intelli¬ gence to distant places. And before the year 1823, Ampere, of Paris, one of the most successful cultivators of physical science, proposed to the French Academy a plan for that purpose. But his project was never reduced to practice. And the discovery made by Barlow, of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, England, in 1825, that the galvanic current greatly diminished CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY’S OPINION. 133 in power as the distance increased, pnt at rest for a time all at¬ tempts to construct an Electro-Magnetic Telegraph. Subsequent discoveries, however, revived the hope; and in the year 1832, when Professor Morse appears to have devoted himself to the subject, the conviction was general among men of science every¬ where, that the object could, and, sooner or later, would be accomplished. The great difficulty in their way was the fact that the galvanic current, however strong in the beginning, became gradually weaker as it advanced on the wire; and was not strong enough to produce a mechanical effect after a certain distance had been traversed. But encouraged by the discoveries which were made from time to time, and strong in the belief that an Electro-Mag¬ netic Telegraph was practicable, many eminent and scientific men in Europe, as well as in this country, became deeply en¬ gaged in endeavoring to surmount what appeared to be the chief obstacle to its success. And in this state of things, it ought not to be a matter of surprise, that four different Magnetic Tele¬ graphs, purporting to have overcome the difficulty, should be invented, and made public so nearly at the same time that each has claimed a priority ; and that a close and careful scrutiny of the facts in each case is necessary to decide between them. The inventions were so nearly simultaneous, that neither inventor can be justly accused of having derived any aid from the dis¬ coveries of the other. One of these inventors, Doctor Steinheil, of Munich, in Ger¬ many, communicated his discovery to the Academy of Science in Paris, on the 19th of July, 1838, and states in his communi¬ cation that it had been in operation more than a year. .. Another of the European inventors, Professor Wheatstone, of London, in the month of April, 1837, explained to Professors Henry and Bache, who were then in London, his plan of an Electro-Magnetic Telegraph, and exhibited to them his method of bringing into action a second galvanic circuit in order to pro¬ vide a remedy for the diminution of force in a long circuit; but it appears by the testimony of Professor Gale, that uu3 patent to Wheatstone & Cooke was not sealed until January 21, 1840, and their specification was not filed until the 21st of July, in the same year; and there is no evidence that any description of it was published before 1839. The remaining European patent is that of Edward Davy. His patent, it appears, was sealed on the 4th of July, 1838, but his specification was not filed until January 4, 1839 ; and when these two English patents are brought into competition with that of Morse, they must take date from the time of filing their respective specifications. For it must be borne in mind that, as the law then stood in England, the inventor was allowed six 134 shaffner’s telegraph companion. months to file the description of his in vention after his patent was sealed, while, in this country, the filing of the specification is simultaneous with the application for patents. The defendants contend that all, or at least some one of these European Telegraphs, were invented and made public before the discovery claimed by Morse; and that the process and method by which he conveys intelligence to a distance is sub¬ stantially the same, with the exception only of its capacity for impressing upon paper the marks or signs described in the al¬ phabet he invented. Waiving, for the present, any remarks upon the identity or similitude of these inventions, the Court is of opinion that the first branch of the objection cannot be maintained, and that Morse was the first and original inventor of the Telegraph de¬ scribed in his specification, and preceded the three European inventions relied on by the defendants. The evidence is full and clear that when he was returning from a visit to Europe, in 1832, he was deeply engaged upon this subject during the voyage ; and that the process and means were so far developed and arranged in his own mind, that he was confident of ultimate success. It is in proof that he pursued these investigations with unremitting ardor and industry, inter¬ rupted occasionally by pecuniary embarrassments ; and we think that it is established by the testimony of Professor Gale and others, that early in the spring of 1837, Morse had invented his plan for combining two or more Electric or Galvanic Cir¬ cuits, with independent Batteries, for the purpose of overcoming the diminished force of Electro-Magnetism in long circuits, al¬ though it was not disclosed to the witness until afterwards ; and that there is reasonable ground for believing that he had so far completed his invention, that the whole process, combination, powers, and machinery, were arranged in his mind, and that the delay in bringing it out arose from his want of means; for it required the highest order of mechanical skill to execute and adjust the nice and delicate work necessary to put the Telegraph into operation, and the slightest error or defect would have been fatal to its success. He had not the means at that time to pro¬ cure the services of workmen of that character; and without their aid no model could be prepared which would do justice to his invention ; and it moreover required a large sum of money to procure proper materials for the work. He, however, filed his caveat on the 6th of October, 1837, and on the 7th of April, 1838, applied for his patent, accompanying his application with a specification of his invention, and describing the process and means used to produce the effect. It is true that O’Rielly in his answer alleges that the plan by which he now combines two or more galvanic or electric currents, with independent 'bat- 135 CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY’S OPINION. teries, was not contained in that specification, but discovered and interpolated afterwards; but there is no evidence whatever to support this charge. And we are satisfied from the testimony, that the plan, as it now appears in his specification, had then been invented, and was actually intended to be described. With this evidence before us, w r e think it is evident that the invention of Morse was prior to that of Steinheil, Wheatstone, or Davy. The discovery of Steinheil, taking the time which he himself gave to the French Academy of Science, cannot be un¬ derstood as carrying it back beyond the months of May or June, 1837 ; and that of Wheatstone, as exhibited to Professors Henry and Bache, goes back only to April in that year. And there is nothing in the evidence to carry back the invention of Davy beyond the 4th of January, 1839, when his specification was filed, except a publication said to have been made in the London Mechanics 1 Magazine , January 20, 1838 ; and the invention of Morse is justly entitled to take date from early in the spring of 1837. And in the description of Davy’s invention, as given in the publication of January 20, 1838, there is nothing specified which Morse could have borrowed; and we have no evidence to show that his invention ever was or could be carried into successful operation. In relation to Wheatstone, there would seem to be some dis¬ crepancy in the testimony. According to Professor Gale’s testi¬ mony, as before mentioned, the specification of Wheatstone and Cooke was not filed until July 21, 1840, and his information is derived from the London Journal of Arts and Sciences. But it appears by the testimony of Edward F. Barnes, that this Tele¬ graph was in actual operation in 1839. And in the case of the Electric Telegraph Company vs. Brett & Little, 10 Common Pleas Reports, by Scott, his specification is said to have been filed Dec. 12, 1837. But if the last-mentioned date is taken as the true one, it would not make his invention prior to that of Morse. And even if it would, yet this case must be decided by the tes¬ timony in the record, and we cannot go out of it, and take into consideration a fact stated in a book of reports. Moreover, we have noticed this case merely because it has been pressed into the argument. The appellants do not mention it in their answer, nor put their defence on it. And if the evidence of its priority was conclusive, it would not avail them in this suit. For they cannot be allowed to surprise the patentee by evidence of a prior invention of which they gave him no notice. But if the priority of Morse’s invention was more doubtful, and it was conceded that in fact some one of the European in¬ ventors had preceded him a few months or a few weeks, it would not invalidate his patent. The act of Congress provides that when the patentee believes himself to be the first inventor, a 136 shaffner’s telegraph companion. previous discovery in a foreign country shall not render his pa¬ tent void, unless such discovery or some substantial part of it had been before patented or described in a printed publication. Now we suppose no one will doubt that Morse believed him¬ self to be the original inventor when he applied for his patent in April, 1838. Steinheil’s discovery does not appear to have been ever patented, nor to have been described in any printed publi¬ cation until July of that year. And neither of the English in¬ ventions are shown by the testimony to have been patented until after Morse’s application for a patent, nor to have been so de¬ scribed in any previous publication as to embrace any substan¬ tial part of his invention. And if his application for a pate nt was made under such circumstances, the patent is good, even i in point of fact, he was not the first inventor. In this view of the subject, it is unnecessary to compare the Telegraph of Morse with these European inventions, to ascer¬ tain whether they are substantially the same or not. If they were the same in every particular, it would not impair his rights. But it is impossible to examine them, and look at the process and the machinery and results of each, so far as the facts are be¬ fore us, without perceiving at once the substantial and essential difference between them, and the decided superiority of the one invented by Professor Morse. Neither can the inquiries he made, nor the information or ad¬ vice he received from men of science, in the course of his re¬ searches, impair his right to the character of an inventor. No invention can possibly be made, consisting of a combination of different elements of power, without a thorough knowledge of the properties of each of them, and the mode in which they operate on each other. And it can make no difference in this respect whether he derives his information from books, or from conversation with men skilled in the science. If it were other¬ wise, no patent in which a combination of different elements is used, could ever be obtained. For no man ever made such an invention without having first obtained this information, unless it was discovered by some fortunate accident. And it is evident that such an invention as the Electro-Magnetic Telegraph could never have been brought into action without it. For a very high degree of scientific knowledge, and the nicest skill in the mechanic arts, are combined in it, and were both necessary to bring it into successful operation. And the fact that Morse sought and obtained the necessary information and counsel from the best sources, and acted upon it, neither impairs his rights as an inventor, nor detracts from his merits. Regarding Professor Morse as the first and original inventor of the Telegraph, we come to the objections which have been made to the validity of his patent. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY’S OPINION. 137 We do not think it necessary to dwell upon the objections taken to the proceedings upon which the first patent was issued, or to the additional specifications in the reissued patent of 1848. In relation to the first, if there was any alteration, at the sug¬ gestion of the Commissioner, it appears to have been in a matter of form rather than of substance; and as regards the second, there is nothing in the proof, or on the face of the reissued pa¬ tent, to show that the invention therein described is not the same with the one intended to be secured by the original patent. It was reissued by the proper lawful authority, and it was the duty of the Commissioner of Patents to see that it did not cover more than the original invention. It must be presumed, there¬ fore, that it does not, until the contrary appears. Variations from the description given in the former specification do not necessarily imply that it is for a different discovery. The right to surrender the old patent, and receive another in its place, was given for the purpose of enabling the patentee to give a more perfect description of his invention, when any mistake or over¬ sight was committed in his first. It necessarily, therefore, varies from it. And we see nothing in the reissued patent that may not, without proof to the contrary, be regarded as a more care¬ ful description than the former one, explaining more fully the nice and delicate manner in which the different elements of power are arranged and combined together and act upon one another, in order to produce the effect described in the specifica¬ tion. Nor is it void because it does not bear the same date with his French patent. It is not necessary to inquire whether the application of Professor Morse to the Patent Office, in 1838, be¬ fore he went to France, does or does not exempt his patent from the operation of the act of Congress upon this subject. For if it should be decided that it does not exempt it, the only effect of that decision would be to limit the monopoly to fourteen years from the date of the foreign patent. And in either case the pa¬ tent was in full force at the time the injunction was granted by the Circuit Court, and when the present appeal stood regularly for hearing in this Court. And this brings us to the exceptions taken to the specifica¬ tion and claims of the patentee in the reissued patent of 1848. We perceive no well-founded objection to the description which is given of the whole invention and its separate parts, nor to his right to a patent for the first seven inventions set forth in the specification of his claims. The difficulty arises on the eighth. It is in the following words : “ Eighth. I do not propose to limit myself to the specific machinery or parts of machinery described in the foregoing 138 shaffner’s telegraph companion. specification and claims; the essence of my invention being the use of the motive power of the electric or galvanic current, which I call Electro-Magnetism, however developed, for marking or printing intelligible characters, signs, or letters, at any distances, being a new application of that power of which I claim to be the first inventor or discoverer.” It is impossible to misunderstand the extent of this claim. He claims the exclusive right to every improvement where the motive power is the electric or galvanic current, and the result is the marking or printing intelligible characters, signs, or letters, at a distance. If this claim can be maintained, it matters not by what pro¬ cess or machinery the result is accomplished. For aught that we now know, some future inventor in the onward march of science may discover a mode of writing or printing at a distance, by means of the electric or galvanic current, without using any part of the process or combination set forth in the plaintiff’s specification. His invention may be less complicated—less liable to get out of order—less expensive in construction and in its operation. But yet, if it is covered by this patent, the in¬ ventor could not use it, nor the public have the benefit of it, without the permission of this patentee. Nor is this all. While he shuts the door against inventions of other persons, the patentee would be able to avail himself of new discoveries in the properties and powers of Electro-Magnet¬ ism which scientific men might bring to light. Eor he says he does not confine his claims to the machinery or parts of ma¬ chinery which he specifies: but claims for himself a monopoly in its use, however developed, for the purpose of printing at a distance. New discoveries in physical science may enable him to combine it with new agents and new elements, and by that means attain the object in a manner superior to the present pro¬ cess, and altogether different from it. And if he can secure the exclusive use, by his present patent, he may vary it with every new discovery and development of the science, and need place no description of the new manner, process, or machinery, upon the records of the Patent Office. And when his patent expires, the public must apply to him to learn what it is. In fine, he claims an exclusive right to use a manner and process which he has not described, and indeed had not invented, and therefore could not describe when he obtained his patent. The Court is of opinion that the claim is too broad, and not warranted by law. No one, we suppose, will maintain that Fulton could have taken out a patent for his invention of propelling vessels by steam, describing the process and machinery he used, and claimed under it the exclusive right to use the motive power of steam, CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY’S OPINION. 139 however developed, for the purpose of propelling vessels. It can hardly be supposed that under such a patent he could have prevented the use of the improved machinery which science has since introduced; although the motive power is steam, and the result is the propulsion of vessels. Neither could the man who first discovered that steam might, by a proper arrangement of machinery, be used as a motive power to grind corn or spin cot¬ ton, claim the right to the exclusive use of steam, as a motive power, for the purpose of producing such effects. Again, the use of steam as a motive power in printing-presses is comparatively a modern discovery. Was the first inventor of a machine or process of this kind entitled to a patent, giving him the exclusive right to use steam as a motive power, how¬ ever developed, for the purpose of marking or printing in¬ telligible characters? Could he have prevented the use of any other press subsequently invented, where steam was used? Yet so far as patentable rights are concerned, both improvements must stand on the same principles. Both use a known motive power to print intelligible marks or letters ; and it can make no difference, in their legal rights under the patent laws, whether the printing is done near at hand or at a distance. Both depend for success not merely upon the motive power, but upon the machinery with which it is combined. And it has never, we believe, been supposed by any one, that the first inventor of a steam printing-press was entitled to the exclusive use of steam, as a motive power, however developed, for marking or printing intelligible characters. Indeed, the acts of the patentee himself are inconsistent with the claim made in his behalf. For in 1846 he took out a patent for his new improvement of local circuits, by means of which in¬ telligence could be printed at intermediate places along the main line of the Telegraph ; and he obtained a reissued patent for this invention in 1848. Yet in this new invention the electric or galvanic current was the motive power, and writing at a dis¬ tance the effect. The power was undoubtedly developed by new machinery and new combinations. But if his 8th claim could be sustained, this improvement would be embraced by his first patent. And if it was so embraced, his patent for the local circuits would be illegal and void. For he could not take out a subsequent patent for a portion of his first invention, and thereby extend his monopoly beyond the period limited by law. Many cases have been referred to in the argument, which have been decided upon this subject, in the English and Ameri¬ can courts. We shall speak of those only which seem to be con¬ sidered as leading ones. And those most relied on, and pressed upon the Court, in behalf of the patentee, are the cases which arose in England upon Neilson’s patent for the introduction of 140 shaffner’s telegraph companion. heated air between the blowing apparatus and the furnace in the manufacture of iron. The leading case upon this patent is that of Neilson and others vs. Harford and others, in the English Court of Exchequer. It was elaborately argued, and appears to have been carefully considered by the Court. The case was this:— Neilson in his specification described his invention as one for the improved application of air to produce heat in fires, forges, and furnaces, where a blowing apparatus is required. And it was to be applied as follows :—The blast or current of air pro¬ duced by the blowing apparatus was to be passed from it into an air-vessel or receptacle made sufficiently strong to endure the blast; and through or from that vessel or receptacle by means of a tube, pipe, or aperture, into the fire : the receptacle to be kept artificially heated to a considerable temperature by heat exter¬ nally applied. He then described in rather general terms the manner in which the receptacle might be constructed and heat¬ ed, and the air conducted through it to the fire : stating that the form of the receptacle was not material, nor the manner of apply¬ ing heat to it. In the action above mentioned for the infringement of this patent, the defendant, among other defences, insisted— that the machinery for heating the air and throwing it hot into the furnace was not sufficiently described in the specifica¬ tion, and the patent void on that account—and also, that a pa¬ tent for throwing hot air into the furnace, instead of cold, and thereby increasing the intensity of the heat, was a patent for a principle, and that a principle was not patentable. Upon the first of these defences the jury found that a man of ordinary skill and knowledge of the subject, looking at the spe¬ cification alone, could construct such an apparatus as would be productive of a beneficial result sufficient to make it worth while to adapt it to the machinery in all cases of forges, cupolas, and furnaces, where the blast is used. And upon the second ground of defence, Baron Parke, who delivered the opinion of the Court, said :— “It is very difficult to distinguish it from the specification of a patent for a principle, and this at first created in the minds of the Court much difficulty ; but after full consideration, we think that the plaintiff does not merely claim a principle, but a ma¬ chine embodying a principle, and a very valuable one. We think the case must be considered as if the principle being well known, the plaintiff had first invented a mode of applying it by a mechanical apparatus to furnaces; and his invention then con¬ sists in this : by interposing a receptacle for heated air between the blowing apparatus and the furnace. In this receptacle he directs the air to be heated by the application of heat externally to the receptacle, and thus he accomplishes the object of apply- 141 CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY’S OPINION. ing the blast, which was before cold air, in a heated state to the fur Dace.” We see nothing in this opinion differing in any degree from the familiar principles of law applicable to patent cases. Neil- son claimed no particular mode of constructing the receptacle, or of heating it. He pointed out the manner in which it might be done ; but admitted that it might also be done in a variety of ways; and at a higher or lower temperature; and that all of them would produce the effect in a greater or less degree, pro¬ vided the air was heated by passing through a heated receptacle. And hence it seems that the Court at first doubted whether it was a patent for anything more than the discovery that hot air would promote the ignition of fuel better than cold. And if this had been the construction, the Court, it appears, would have held his patent to be void; because the discovery of a principle in natural philosophy or physical science is not patentable. But after much consideration, it was finally decided that this principle must be regarded as well known, and that the plaintiff had invented a mechanical mode of applying it to furnaces ; and that his invention consisted in interposing a heated receptacle between the blower and the furnace, and by this means heating the air after it left the blower, and before it was thrown into the fire. Whoever, therefore, used this method of throwing hot air into the furnace, used the process he had invented, and thereby infringed his patent, although the form of the receptacle or the mechanical arrangements for heating it might be different from those described by the patentee. For whatever form was adopted for the receptacle, or whatever mechanical arrangements were made for heating it, the effect would be produced in a greater or less degree, if the heated receptacle was placed between the blower and the furnace, and the current of air passed through it. Undoubtedly the principle that hot air will promote the igni¬ tion of fuel better than cold, was embodied in this machine. But the patent was not supported, because this principle was embo¬ died in it. He would have been equally entitled to a patent, if he had invented an improvement in the mechanical arrangements of the blowing apparatus, or in the furnace, while a cold current of air was still used. But his patent was supported, because he had invented a mechanical apparatus, by which a current of hot air instead of cold could be thrown in. And this new method was protected by his patent. The interposition of a heated re¬ ceptacle in any form was the novelty he invented. .We do not perceive how the claim, in the case before us, can derive any countenance from this decision. If the Court of Ex¬ chequer had said that Heilson’s patent was for the discovery that hot air would promote ignition better than cold, and that he had an exclusive right to use it for that purpose, there might, 142 shaffner’s telegraph companion. perhaps, have been some reason to rely upon it. But the Court emphatically denied his right to such a patent; and his claim, as the patent was construed and supported by the Court, is al¬ together unlike that of the patentee before us. For Neilson discovered that by interposing a heated recepta¬ cle between the blower and the furnace, and conducting the current of air through it, the heat in the furnace was increased. And this effect was always produced, whatever might be the form of the receptacle, or the mechanical contrivances for heat¬ ing it, or for passing the current of air through it, and into the furnace. But Professor Morse has not discovered that the electric or galvanic current will always print at a distance, no matter what may be the form of the machinery or mechanical contrivances through which it passes. You may use Electro-Magnetism as a motive power, and yet not produce the described effect—that is, print at a distance intelligible marks or signs. To produce that effect it must be combined with and passed through and operate upon certain complicated and delicate machinery adjust¬ ed and arranged upon philosophical principles, and prepared by the highest mechanical skill. And it is the high praise of Professor Morse, that he has been able by a new combination of known powers, of which Electro-Magnetism is one, to discover a method by which intelligible marks or signs may be printed at a distance. And for the method or process thus discovered he is entitled to a patent. But he has not discovered that the Electro-Magnetic current, used as a motive power, in any other method, and with any other combination, will do as well. We have commented on the case in the Court of Exchequer more fully, because it has attracted much attention in the courts of this country as well as in the English courts, and has been differently understood. And perhaps a mistaken construction of that decision has led to the broad claim in the patent now under consideration. We do not deem it necessary to remark upon the other Eng¬ lish decisions in relation to Heilson’s patent, nor upon the other cases referred to, which stand upon similar principles. The ob¬ servations we have made on the case in the Court of Exchequer will equally apply to all of them. We proceed to the American decisions; and the principles herein stated were fully recognized by this Court in the case of Leroy et al. vs. Tatham and others, decided at the last Term, 14 How., 156. It appeared in that case that the patentee had discovered that lead, recently set, would, under heat and pressure in a close vessel, reunite perfectly after a separation of its parts, so as to make wrought instead of cast pipe. And the Court held that CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY’S OPINION. 143 lie was not entitled to a patent for this newly-discovered princi¬ ple or quality in lead; and that such a discovery was not pa¬ tentable ; but that he was entitled to a patent for the new pro¬ cess or method in the art of making lead pipe which this dis¬ covery enabled him to invent and employ ; and was bound to describe such process or method fully in his specification. Many cases have also been referred to which were decided in the Circuit Courts. It will be found, we think, upon careful examination, that all of them, previous to the decision on Neil- son’s patent, maintain the principles on which this decision is made. Since that case was reported, it is admitted that deci¬ sions have been made which would seem to extend patentable rights beyond the limits here marked out. As we have already said, we see nothing in that opinion which would sanction the introduction of any new principle in the law of patents ; but if it were otherwise, it would not justify this Court in departing from what we consider as established principles in the American courts. And to show what was heretofore the doctrine upon this subject, we refer to the annexed cases. We do not stop to comment on them, because such an examination would extend this opinion beyond all reasonable bounds. 1 Stor. Rep. 270, 285; Wyeth vs. Stone, 3 Sumn. 540; Blanchard vs. Sprague. The first-mentioned case is directly in point. Indeed, independently of judicial authority, we do not think that the language used in the act of Congress can justly be ex¬ pounded otherwise. The 5th section of the act of 1836 declares that a patent shall convey to the inventor, for a term not exceeding fourteen years, the exclusive right of making, using, and vending to others to be used, his invention or discovery, referring to the specification for the particulars thereof. The 6th section directs who shall be entitled to a patent, and the terms and conditions on which it may be obtained. It pro¬ vides that any person shall be entitled to a patent who has dis¬ covered or invented a new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or a new and useful improvement on any previous discovery in either of them. But before he re¬ ceives a patent, he shall deliver a written description of his in¬ vention or discovery, u and of the manner and process of making , constructing , using , and compounding the scimef in such exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which it appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make, construct, compound and use the same. This Court has decided that the specification required by this law is a part of the patent, and that the patent issues for the in¬ vention described in the specification. Now whether the Telegraph is regarded as an art or machine, 144 shaffner’s telegraph companion. the manner and process of making or using it must be set forth in exact terms. The act of Congress makes no difference in this respect between an art and a machine. An improvement in the art of making bar iron or spinning cotton must be so described, and so must the art of printing by the motive power of steam. And in all of these cases, it has always been held that the patent embraces nothing more than the improvement described and claimed as new, and that any one who afterwards discovered a method of accomplishing the same object, substantially and es¬ sentially differing from the one described, had a right to use it. Can there be any good reason why the art of printing at a dis¬ tance, by means of the motive power of the electric or galvanic current, should stand on different principles ? Is there any reason why the inventor’s patent should cover broader ground ? It would be difficult to discover anything in the act of Con¬ gress which would justify this distinction. The specification of this patentee describes his invention or discovery, and the man¬ ner and process of constructing and using it, and his patent, like inventions in the other arts above mentioned, covers nothing more. The provisions of the acts of Congress in relation to patents may be summed up in a few words. Whoever discovers that a certain useful result will be pro¬ duced in any art, machine, manufacture or composition of mat¬ ter, by the use of certain means, is entitled to a patent for it; provided he specifies the means he uses in a manner so full and exact, that any one skilled in the science to which it appertains can, by using the means he specifies, without any addition to, or subtraction from, them, produce precisely the result he de¬ scribes. And if this cannot be done by the means he describes, the patent is void. And if it can be done, then the patent con¬ fers on him the exclusive right to use the means he specifies to produce the result or effect he describes, and nothing more. And it makes no difference in this respect whether the effect is produced by chemical agency or combination ; or by the appli¬ cation of discoveries or principles in natural philosophy, known or unknown before his invention ; or by machinery acting alto¬ gether upon mechanical principles. In either case, he must de¬ scribe the manner and process as above mentioned, and the end it accomplishes. And any one may lawfully accomplish the same end without infringing the patent, if he uses means sub¬ stantially different from those described. Indeed, if the 8th claim of the patentee can be maintained, there was no necessity for any specification, further than to say that he had discovered that by using the motive power of Elec¬ tro-Magnetism, he could print intelligible characters at any dis¬ tance. We presume it will be admitted on all hands that no CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY’S OPINION. 145 patent could have issued on such a specification. Yet this claim can derive no aid from the specification filed. It is out¬ side of it, and the patentee claims beyond it. And if it stands, it must stand simply on the ground that the broad terms above mentioned were a sufficient description, and entitled him to a patent in terms equally broad. In our judgment, the act of Congress cannot be so construed. The patent then being illegal and void, so far as respects the 8th claim, the question arises whether the whole patent is void, unless this portion of it is disclaimed in a reasonable time after the patent issued. It has been urged on the part of the complainants that there is no necessity for a disclaimer in a case of this kind. That it is required in those cases only in which the party commits an error in fact, in claiming something which was known before, and of which he was not the first discoverer; that in this case he was the first to discover that the motive power of Electro- Magnetism might be used to write at a distance ; and that his error, if any, was a mistake in law in supposing his invention, as described in his specification, authorized this broad claim of exclusive privilege; and that the claim, therefore, may be re¬ garded as a nullity, and allowed to stand in the patent without a disclaimer, and without affecting the validity of the patent. This distinction can hardly be maintained. The act of Con¬ gress above recited requires that the invention shall be so de¬ scribed, that a person skilled in the science to which it apper¬ tains, or with which it is most nearly connected, shall be able to construct the improvement from the description given by the inventor. How in this case there is no description but one of a process by which signs or letters may be printed at a distance. And yet he claims the exclusive right to any other mode and any other process, although not described by him, by which the end can be accomplished, if Electro-Magnetism is used as the motive power. That is to say, he claims a patent for an effect produced by the use of Electro-Magnetism distinct from the process or machinery necessary to produce it. The words of the act of Congress above quoted show that no patent can lawfully issue upon such a claim. For he claims what he has not described in the manner required by law. And a patent for such a claim is as strongly forbidden by the act of Congress as if some other person had invented it before him. Why, therefore, should he be required and permitted to dis¬ claim in the one case and not in the other ? The evil is the same if he claims' more than he has invented, although no other person has invented it before him. He prevents others from attempting to improve upon the manner and process which he VOL. I.—NO. III. 3 146 shaffner’s telegraph companion. has described in his specification, and may deter the public from using it, even if discovered. He can lawfully claim only what he has invented and described, and if he claims more his patent is void. And the judgment in this case must be against the patentee, unless he is within the act of Congress which gives the right to disclaim. The law which requires and permits him to disclaim is not penal, but remedial. It is intended for the protection of the patentee as well as the public, and ought not, therefore, to re¬ ceive a construction that would restrict its operation within narrower limits than its words fairly import. It provides, “that when any patentee shall have in his specification claimed to be the first and original inventor or discoverer of any material or substantial part of .the thing patented, of which he was not the first and original inventor, and shall have no legal or just claim to the same, 5 '—he must disclaim in order to protect so much of the claim as is legally patented. Whether, therefore, the patent is illegal in part, because he claims more than he has sufficiently described, or more than he invented, he must in either case disclaim, in order to save the portion to which he is entitled; and he is allowed to do so when the error was committed by mistake. A different construction would be unjust to the public, as well as to the patentee, and defeat the manifest object of the law, and produce the very evil against which it intended to guard. It appears that no disclaimer has yet been entered at the Pa¬ tent Office. But the delay in entering it is not unreasonable. For the objectionable claim was sanctioned by the head of the office ; it has been held to be valid by a Circuit Court, and dif¬ ferences of opinion in relation to it are found to exist among the justices of this Court. Under such circumstances, the pa¬ tentee had a right to insist upon it, and not disclaim it until the highest court to which it could be carried had pronounced its judgment. The omission to disclaim, therefore, does not render the patent altogether void, and he is entitled to proceed in this .suit for an infringement of that part of his invention which is legally claimed and described. But as no disclaimer was en¬ tered in the Patent Office before this suit was instituted, he can¬ not, under the act of Congress, be allowed costs against the wrong-doer, although the infringement should be proved. And we think it is proved by the testimony. But as the question of infringement embraces both of the reissued patents, it is proper, before we proceed to that part of the case, to notice the objec¬ tions made to the second patent for the local circuits, which was originally obtained in 1846 and reissued in 1848. It is certainly no objection to this patent, that the improve¬ ment is embraced by the eighth claim in the former one. We CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY’S OPINION. 147 i have already said that this claim is void, and that the former patent covers nothing but the first seven inventions specifically mentioned. Nor can its validity be impeached upon the ground that it is an improvement upon a former invention, for which the patentee had himself already obtained a patent. It is true that, under the act of 1836, S. 13, it was in the power of Professor Morse, if he desired it, to annex this improvement to his former speci¬ fication, so as to make it from that time a part of the original patent. But there is nothing in the act that forbids him to take out a new patent for the improvement, if he prefers it. Any other inventor might do so; and there can be no reason, in jus¬ tice or in policy, for refusing the like privilege to the original inventor. And when there is no positive law to the contrary, he must stand on the same footing with any other inventor of an improvement upon a previous discovery. Nor is he bound in his new patent to refer specially to his former one. All that the law requires of him is, that he shall not claim as new what is covered by a former invention, whether made by him¬ self or any other person. It is said, however, that this alleged improvement is not new, and is embraced in his former specification; and that if some portion of it is new, it is not so described as to distinguish the new from the old. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to discuss this part of the case so as to be understood by any one who has not a model be¬ fore him, or perfectly familiar with the machinery and opera* tions of the Telegraph. We shall not, therefore, attempt to describe minutely the machinery or its mode of operation. , So far as this can be done intelligibly, without the aid of a model to point to, it has been fully and well done, in the opinion de¬ livered by the learned Judge who decided this case in the Cir¬ cuit Court. All that we think it useful or necessary to say is, that after a careful examination of the patents, we think the ob¬ jection on this ground is not tenable. The force of the objection is mainly directed upon the receiving magnet, which, it is said, is a part of the machinery of the first patent, and performs the same office. But the receiving magnet is not of itself claimed as a new invention. It is claimed as a part of a new combina¬ tion or arrangement to produce a new result. And this combi¬ nation does produce a new and useful result. For by this new combination, and the arrangement and position of the receiving magnet, the local independent circuit is opened by the electric or galvanic current as it passes on the main line, without inter¬ rupting it in its course, and the intelligence it conveys is recorded almost at the same moment at the end of the line of the Tele¬ graph and at the different local offices on its way. And it 148 SHAFFNER’S TELEGRAPH COMPANION. hardly needs a model or a minute examination of the machinery to be satisfied that a Telegraph which prints the intelligence it conveys, at different places, by means of the current as it passes along on the main line, must necessarily require a different com¬ bination and arrangement of powers from the one that prints only at the end. The elements which compose it may all have been used in the former invention, but it is evident that their arrangement and combination must be different to produce this new effect. The new patent for the local circuits was, therefore, properly granted, and we perceive no well-founded objection to the specification or claim contained in the reissued patent of 1848. The two reissued patents of 1848, being both valid, with the exception of the 8th claim in the first, the only remaining ques¬ tion is, whether they, or either of them, have been infringed by the defendants. The same difficulty arises in this part of the case which we have already stated in speaking of the specification and claims in the patent for the local circuits. It is difficult to convey a clear idea of the similitude or differences in the two Telegraphs to any one not familiarly acquainted with the machinery of both. The Court must content itself, therefore, with general terms, referring to the patents themselves for a more special de¬ scription of the matters in controversy. It is a well-settled principle of law, that the mere change in the form of the machinery (unless a particular form is specified as the means by which the effect described is produced), or an alteration in some of its unessential parts, or in the use of known equivalent powers, not varying essentially the machine, or its mode of operation or organization, will not make the new ma¬ chine a new invention. It may be an improvement upon the former, but that will not justify its use without the consent of the first patentee. The Columbian (O’Rielly’s) Telegraph does not profess to accomplish a new purpose or produce a new result. Its object and effect is to communicate intelligence at a distance, at the end of the main line and at the local circuits on its way. And this is done by means of signs or letters impressed on paper or other material. The object and purpose of the Telegraph is the same with that of Professor Morse. Does he use the same means ? Substantially, we think he does, both upon the main line and in the local circuits. He uses upon the main line the combination of two or more gal¬ vanic or electric circuits, with independent batteries, for the pur¬ pose of obviating the diminished force of the galvanic current, and in a manner varying very little in form from the invention of Professor Morse And, indeed, the same may be said of the . CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY’S OPINION. 149 entire combination set forth in the patentee’s third claim. For O’Eielly’s can hardly be said to differ substantially and essen¬ tially from it. He uses the combination which composes the Eegister, with no material change in the arrangement, or in the elements of which it consists; and with the aid of these means he conveys intelligence, by impressing marks or signs upon paper; these marks or signs being capable of being read and understood by means of an alphabet, or signs adapted to the purpose. And as regards the second patent of Professor Morse, for the local circuits, the mutator of the defendant does not vary from it in any essential particular. All of the efficient elements of the combination are retained, or their places supplied by well-known equivalents. Its organization is essentially the same. Neither is the substitution of marks and signs differing from those invented by Professor Morse any defence to this action. His patent is not for the invention of a new alphabet, but for a combination of powers composed of tangible and intangible elements, described in his specification, by means of which marks or signs may be impressed upon paper at a distance, which can there be read and understood. And if any marks, or signs, or letters are impressed in that manner, by means of a process substantially the same with his invention, or with any particular part of it covered by his patent, and those marks or signs can be read, and thus communicate intelligence, it is an infringement of his patent. The variation in the character of the marks would not protect it, if the marks could be read and un¬ derstood. We deem it unnecessary to pursue further the comparison between the machinery of the patents. The invasion of the plaintiff’s rights, already stated, authorized the injunction granted by the Circuit Court, and so much of its decree must be affirmed. But for the reasons hereinbefore assigned, the com¬ plainants are not entitled to costs, and that portion of the de¬ cree must be reversed, and a decree passed by this Court, directing each party to pay his own costs in this and in the Cir¬ cuit Court. 150 shaffner’s telegraph companion. Art. III.—DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE GRIER. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, December Term, 1853. Henry 0 Riclly, et ah, Appellants, vs. Samuel F. B. Morse, et al., Appellees. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky. The opinion of Justice Grier, concurred in by Justices Nelson and Wayne. I entirely concur with the majority of the Court that the appellee and complainant below, Samuel F. B. Morse, is the true and first inventor of the recording telegraph, and the first who has successfully applied the agent or element of nature, called electro-mag¬ netism, to printing, and recording intelligible characters at a distance ; and that his patent of 1840, finally reissued in 1848, and his patent for his improvements, as reissued in the same year, are good and valid ; and that the appellants have infringed the rights secured to the patentee by both his patents. • But, as I do not concur in the views of the majority of the Court, in regard to two great points of the case, I shall proceed to express my own. I.—Does the complainant’s first patent come within the proviso of the sixth section of the act of 1839 ; and should the term of fourteen years, granted by it, commence from the date of his patent here, or from the date of his French patent in 1838 ? If the complainant’s patent is within the provisions of this section, I cannot see how we can escape from declaring it void. The proviso declares, that “ in all cases every such patent (issued under the pro¬ visions of that section) shall be limited to the term of fourteen years from the date or publication of such foreign letters patent.” It is true it does not say that the patent shall be void if not limited to such term on its face ; but it gives no power to the officer to issue a patent for a greater term. If the patent does not show the true commence¬ ment of the term granted by it, the patentee has it in his power to deceive the public by claiming a term of fourteen years, while in reality it may be not more than one. But, I am of opinion, that the patent in question does not come within this proviso. The facts of the case, as connected with this point, are these: On the 6th of October, 1837, Morse filed, in the office of the Commissioner of Patents, a caveat, accompanied by a specification, setting forth his invention, and praying that it may be protected till he could finish some experiments necessary to perfect its details. On the 9th of April, 1838, he filed a formal application for a patent, accompanied by a specification and drawings. On the 151 MR. JUSTICE GRIER’S OPINION. 1st of May, 1838, the Commissioner informs him that his application has been granted. Morse answers on the 15th of May, that he is just about to sail for Europe, and asks the Commissioner to delay the issue of his patent for the present, fearing its effect upon his plans abroad. On the 30th of October, 1838, he obtained his useless French patent. On his return to this country, in 1840, he requests his patent to be perfected and issued. In his application filed on 9th of April, 1838, there was an oversight in filling up the day and month. This clerical omission was wholly immaterial, but ex majori cautcla , a second affidavit Avas filed, and the patent issued on the 20th of June, 1840, for the term of 14 years from its date. The application of 1838 had a set of drawings annexed to the specification. The second set of drawings required by the 6th sec¬ tion of the act of 1837, being for the purpose of annexation to the patent, they were entirely unnecessary till the patent issued, and are not required by law to accompany the application when first made, and the want of them cannot affect the validity of the application. In many instances, owing to various causes, the patent is not issued till many months, and sometimes a year or more after the application. The Commissioner requires time to examine the specification ; he may suggest difficulties and amendments ; and disputes often arise which delay the issuing of the patent. But the application does not require to be renewed, and is never considered abandoned in conse¬ quence of such delay. It still remains as of the date of its filing for every purpose beneficial to the applicant. The law does not require that the specification and its accompaniments should be in the precise form which they afterwards assume in the patent. It requires only that the application be “ in writing ,” and that the applicant should “ make oath that he is the original inventor,” &c. The other require¬ ments of the act must precede the issuing of the patent, but make no part of the application, and are not conditions precedent to its validity. In the present case, we have, therefore, a regular application in due form, accompanied by a specification and drawings, filed on the 9th of April, 1838. It has not been withdrawn, discontinued, or aban¬ doned. There is nothing in the act of Congress which requires that the patent should be issued within any given time after the application is filed, or which forbids the postponement of it for a time at the sug¬ gestion either of the applicant or the officer ; nor is there any thing in the general policy of the patent laws which forbids it. On the con¬ trary, it has always been the practice, when a foreign patent is desired, to delay the issuing of the patent here, after application filed, for fear of injuring such foreign application. It forms no part of the policy of any of our patent acts to prevent our citizens from obtaining patents abroad. By the Patent Act of 1793, the applicant must swear that his invention was not known or used before the application. The filing of the application was the time fixed for determining the applicant’s right to a patent. If a patent had issued abroad, or the invention had been in use or described in some public work before that time , it was a good defence to it. The time of filing the application was, there¬ fore, made by law the criterion of his right to claim as first inventor . 152 shaffner’s telegraph companion. A foreign patent, subsequent to the date of his application, could not be set up as a defence against the domestic patentee. The American inventor, who had tiled his application and specification at home, was thus enabled to obtain his patent abroad without endangering his patent at home. This was a valuable privilege to American citizens, and one of which he has never been deprived by subsequent legisla¬ tion ; and thus the law stood till the act of 4th July, 1836. - Before this time, the right to obtain a patent was confined to Amer¬ ican citizens, or those who had filed their intentions to become such. The policy of this act was to encourage foreign inventors to introduce their inventions to this country, but in doing so, it evinces no inten¬ tion of limiting our own citizens by taking away from them rights which they had hitherto enjoyed. Accordingly, it gave an inventor, who had obtained a patent abroad, (and who was generally a foreigner,) a right to have one here, provided he made his application here within six months after the date of his foreign patent. Neither the letter nor the spirit of this act interferes with the right to an inventor, who has filed his application here, from obtaining a patent abroad, or his right to a term of fourteen years from the date of his patent. In 1838, therefore, when complainant filed his application, he was entitled to such a patent. But in March, 1839, an act was passed, by the sixth section of which it is alleged the complainant’s rights have been affected. That section is as follows :—“ That no person shall be debarred from receiving a patent for any invention, &c., as provided in the act of 4th July, 1836, to which this is additional , by reason of the same having been patented in a foreign country more than six months prior to his application; provided that the same shall not have been introduced into public and common use in the United States prior to the application for such patent. And provided , also , that in all cases every such patent shall be limited to the term of fourteen years from the date or publication of such foreign letters patent.” Now the act of 1836, as we have shown, had given a privilege to foreign patentees to have a patent within six months after date of such foreign patent; it had not affected, in any manner, the right previously enjoyed by American citizens to take out a foreign patent after filing their appli¬ cation here. This section gives “ additional ” rights to those who had first taken out patents abroad, and holds out an additional encourage¬ ment to foreign inventors to introduce their inventions here, subject to certain conditions contained in the provisoes. Neither the letter, spirit, nor policy of this act, have any reference to, or bearing upon, the case of persons who had first made their applications here. To construe a proviso, as applicable to a class of cases not within its enacting clause, would violate all settled rules of construction. The office of a proviso is either to except something from the enacting clause, or to exclude some possible ground of misinterpretation, or to state a condition to which the privilege granted by the section shall be subjected. Here the proviso is inserted, to restrain the general words of the section, and impose a condition on those who accept the privileges granted by the section. It enlarged the privileges of foreign patentees, which had before been confined to six months, on 153 mr. justice grier’s opinion. two conditions : first, provided the invention patented abroad had not been introduced into public use here; and secondly, on condition that every such patent should be limited in its term. The general words, “ in all cases,” especially when restrained to “ every such patent ,” can¬ not extend the condition of the proviso beyond such cases as are the subject-matter of legislation in the section. The policy and spirit of the act are to grant privileges to a certain class of persons which they did not enjoy before ; to encourage the introduction of foreign inventions and discoveries, and not to deprive our own citizens of a right heretofore enjoyed, or to affect an entirely different class of cases, when the applications had been filed here before a patent obtained abroad. It is supposed that certain evils might arise by allowing an appli¬ cant for a patent here to delay its issue till he can obtain a foreign patent. To which it is a sufficient answer to say, that if such evil con¬ sequences should be found to exist, it is for Congress to remedy them by legislation. It is no part of the duty of this Court, by a forced con¬ struction of existing statutes, to attempt the remedy of possible evils by anticipation. I am therefore of opinion that the complainant’s patent, as renewed, contained a valid grant of the full term of fourteen years from its ori¬ ginal date. II.—The other point in which I cannot concur with the opinion of the majority, arises in the construction of the eighth claim of complain¬ ant’s first patent, as finally amended. The first claim, as explanatory of all that follow, should be read in connection with the eighth—they are as follows :—“ First—Having thus fully described my invention, I wish it to be understood that I do not claim the use of the galvanic current or currents of electricity for the purpose of telegraphic com¬ munications generally; but what I specially claim as my invention and improvement, is making use of the motive power of magnetism, when developed by the action of such current or currents substantial¬ ly as set forth in the foregoing description of the first principal part of my invention, as means of operating or giving motion to machinery which may be used to imprint signals upon paper or other suitable ma¬ terial, or to produce sounds in any desired manner for the purpose of telegraphic communication at any distances. The only ways in which the galvanic current had been proposed to be used prior to my inven¬ tion and improvement, were by bubbles resulting from decomposition, and the action or exercise of electrical power upon a magnetized bar or needle ; and the bubbles and the deflections of the needles thus produced, were the subjects of inspection, and had no power, or were not applied to record the communication. I therefore characterize my invention as the first recording or printing telegraph by means of elec¬ tro-magnetism. “ There are various known modes of producing motions by electro¬ magnetism, but none of these had been applied prior to my invention and improvement, to actuate or give motion to printing or recording machinery, which is the chief point of my invention and improve¬ ment.” 154 shaffner’s telegraph companion. “ Eighth.—I do not propose to limit myself to the specific machinery or parts of machinery described in the foregoing specification and claims, the essence of my invention being the use of the motive power of the electric or galvanic current, which I call electro-magne¬ tism, however developed, for marking or printing intelligible characters, signs or letters, at any distances, being a new application of that power, of which I claim to be the first inventor or discoverer.” The objection to this claim is, that it is too broad, because the in¬ ventor does not confine himself to specific machinery or parts of ma¬ chinery as described in his patent, but claims that the essence of his invention consists in the application of electro-magnetism as a motive power, however developed, for printing characters at a distance. This being a new application of that element or power, of which the paten¬ tee claims to be the first inventor or discoverer. In order to test the value of this objection as applied to the present case, and escape any confusion of ideas too often arising from the use of ill-defined terms and propositions, let us examine, 1st. What may be patented, or what forms a proper subject of protection under the Constitution and acts of Congress relative to this subject. 2d. What is the nature of the invention now under consideration ? Is it a mere machine, and subject to the rules which effect a com¬ bination of mechanical devices to effect a particular purpose ? 3d. Is the claim true in fact; and, if true, how can it be too broad, in any legal sense of the term, as heretofore used, either in the acts of Congress or in judicial decisions ? 4th. Assuming the hypothesis that it is too broad ; how should that affect the judgment for costs in this case ? /“ 1st. The Constitution of the United States declares that Congress shall have the power to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries .” The act of Congress of 1836 confers this exclusive right, for a limited time, on “ any person who has discovered or invented any new and useful art, machine , manufacture or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvements on any art, machine, manufacture, or com¬ position of matter, not known or used by others before his or their dis¬ covery or invention thereof, and not, at the time of his application for a patent, in public use,” &c. A new and useful art, or a new and useful improvement on any known art, is as much entitled to the protection of the law as a machine or manufacture. The English patent acts are confined to “ manufac¬ tures,” in terms ; but the courts have construed them to cover and pro¬ tect arts as well as machines; yet without using the term art. Here we are not required to make any latitudinous construction of our sta¬ tute for the sake of equity or policy ; and surely we have no right, even if we had the disposition, to curtail or narrow its liberal policy by astute or fanciful construction. It is not easy to give a precise definition of what is meant by the term “ art ,” as used in the acts of Congress. Some, if not all, the traits which distinguish an art from the other legitimate subjects of a mr. justice grier’s opinion. 155 patent, are stated with clearness and accuracy by Mr. Curtis, in his treatise on patents. The term art “ applies,” says he, “ to all those cases where the application of a principle is the most important part oj the invention, and where the machinery, apparatus, or other means by which the principle is applied are incidental only r , and not of the essence of his invention. It applies also to all those cases where the result, effect, or manufactured article, is old, but the invention consists in a new process or method of producing such result, effect, or manu¬ facture.” (Curt. Pat., 80.) A machine, though it may be composed of many parts, instruments, or devices combined together, still conveys the idea of unity. It may be said to be invented, but the term “ discovery ” could not well be pre¬ dicated of it. An art may employ many different machines, devices, processes, and manipulations, to produce some useful result. In a previously known art, a man may discover some new process, or new application of a known principle, element, or powder of nature, to the advancement of the art; and will be entitled to a patent for the same, as an improvement in the art; or he may invent a machine to perform a given function, and then he will be entitled to a patent only for his machine. That improvements in the arts which consist in the new application of some known element, power, or physical law, and not in any particular machine or combination of machinery, have been frequently the subject of patents, both in England and this country, the cases in our books most amply demonstrate. I have not time to examine them at length ; but would refer to James Watt’s patent for a method of saving fuel in steam-engines, by condensing the steam in separate vessels, and applying non-conducting substances to his steam-pipes ; Clegg’s patent for measuring gas in water—Jupe vs. Pratt: Webster’s Pat. Cases, 103—and the celebrated case of Neil- son’s patent for the application of hot blast, being an important im¬ provement in the art of smelting iron. In England, where their statute does not protect an art in direct terms, they have made no clear distinction between an art and an im¬ provement in an art, and a process, machine or manufacture. They were hampered and confined by the narrowness of the phraseology of their patent acts. In this country the statute is as broad as language can make it; and yet if we look at the titles of patents as given at the Patent Office, and the language of our courts, we might suppose that our statute was confined entirely to machines, notwithstanding in Knoop vs. The Bank (4 Washington, C. C. R. 19), Mr. Justice Washing¬ ton supported a patent which consisted in nothing else but a new ap¬ plication of copper plates to both sides of a bank bill as a security against counterfeiting. The new application was held to be an art, and therefore patentable. So the patent in McClurg vs. Kingsland (1 How. 204) was in fact for an improvement in the art of casting chilled rollers by conveying the metal to the mould in a direction approach¬ ing to the tangent of the cylinder, yet the patentee was protected in the principle of his discovery (which was but the application of a known law of nature to a new purpose) against all forms of machi¬ nery embodying the same principle. The great art of printing, which 156 shaffner’s telegraph companion. has changed the face of human society and civilization, consisted in nothing but a new application of principles known to the world for thousands of years ; no one could say it consisted in the type or the press, or in any other machine or device used in performing some par¬ ticular function more than in the hands which picked the types or worked the press. Yet if the inventor of printing had, under this narrow construction of our patent law, claimed his art as something distinct from the machinery, the doctrine now advanced would have declared it unpatentable to its full extent as an art , and that the inven¬ tor could be protected in nothing but his first rough types and ill-con¬ trived press. I do not intend to review the English cases which adopt the prin¬ ciple for which I now contend, notwithstanding their narrow statute. But would refer to the opinion of my brother Nelson, in 14 How. 177 ; and will add, that Mr. Justice McLean, in delivering the opinion of the Court in that case, quotes with approbation the language of Lord Justice Clerk in the Neilson case, which is precisely applicable to the question before us. He says, “ The specification does not claim any¬ thing as to form, nature, shape, materials, numbers or mathematical character of the vessel or vessels, in which the air is to be heated, or as to the mode of heating such vessels.” Yet this patent was sus¬ tained as for a new application of a known element, or to use correct language, as an improvement in the art of smelting iron, without any regard to the machinery or parts of machinery used in the application. —Such I believe to be the established doctrine of the English courts. He who first discovers that an element or law of nature can be made operative for the production of some valuable result, some new art, or the improvement of some known art, who has devised the ma¬ chinery or process to make it operative, and introduced it in a practical form to the knowledge of mankind, is a discoverer and inventor of the highest class. The discovery of a new application of a known ele¬ ment or agent may require more labor, expense, persevering industry and ingenuity than the invention of any machine ; sometimes, it is true, it may be the result of a happy thought or conception, without the la¬ bor of experiment, as in the case of the improvement in the art of casting chilled rollers, already alluded to. In many cases it is the re¬ sult of numerous experiments ; not the consequence of any reasoning a'priori, but wholly empyrical, as in the discovery that a certain degree of heat, when applied to the usual processes for curing India rubber, pro¬ duced a substance with new and valuable qualities. The mere discovery of a new element, or law, or principle of nature, without any valuable application of it to the arts, is not the subject of a patent. But he who takes this new element or power, as yet use¬ less, from the laboratory of the philosopher, and makes it the servant of man, who applies it to the perfecting of a new and useful art, or to the improvement of one already known, is the benefactor to whom the patent law tenders its protection. The devices and machines used in the exercise of it may or may not be new, yet, by the doctrine against which I contend, he cannot patent them, because they were 157 mr. justice grier’s opinion. known and used before. Or if he can, it is only in their new applica¬ tion and combinations in perfecting the new art. In other words, he may patent the new application of the mechanical devices, but not the new application of the operative element which is the essential agent in the invention. He may patent his combination of machinery, but not his art. Where a new and hitherto unknown product or result beneficial to mankind is effected by a new application of any element of nature, and by means of machines and devices, whether new or old, it cannot be denied that such invention or discovery is entitled to the denomi¬ nation of a “ new and useful art.” The statute gives the inventor of an art a monopoly in the exercise of it, as fully as it does to the in¬ ventor of a mere machine ; and any person who exercises such new art without the license of the inventor, is an infringer of his patent, and of the franchise granted to him by the law as a reward for his labor and ingenuity in perfecting it. A construction of the law which protects such an inventor in nothing but the new invented machines, or parts of machinery used in the exercise of his art, and refuses it to the exercise of the art itself, annuls the patent law. If the law gives a franchise or monopoly to the inventor of an art, as fully as to the inventor of a machine, why shall its protection not be coextensive with the invention in one case, as well as in the other? To look at an art as nothing but a combination of machinery, and give it protec¬ tion only as such against the use of the same or similar devices, or mechanical equivalents, is to refuse it protection as an art. It ignores the distinction between an art and a machine ; it overlooks the clear letter and spirit of the statute, and leads to inextricable difficulties ; it is viewing a statue or a monument through a microscope. The reason given for thus conferring the franchise of the inventor of an art to his machines and parts of machinery, is, that it would retard the progress of improvement, if those who can devise better machines or devices differing in mechanical principle from those of the first inventor of the art, or, in other words, who can devise an im¬ provement in it, should not be allowed to pirate it. To say that a patentee who claims the art of writing at a distance by means of Electro-Magnetism , necessarily claims all future im¬ provements in the art, is to misconstrue it, or draw a consequence from it not fairly to be inf erred from its language. An improvement in a known art is as much the subject of a patent as the art itself; so also is an improvement on a known machine. Yet, if the original machine be patented, the patentee of an improvement will not have a right to use the original. This doctrine has not been found to retard the progress of invention in the case of machines ; and I can see no reason why a contrary one should be applied to an art. The claim of the patentee is, that he may be protected in the exer¬ cise of his art as against persons who may improve or change some of the processes or machines necessary in its exercise. The Court, by deciding that this claim is too broad, virtually decides that such an inventor of an improvement may pirate the art he improves, because it is contrary to public policy to restrain the progress of invention ; 158 shaffner’s telegraph companion. or, in other words, it may be said that it is the policy of the courts to refuse that protection to an art which it affords to a machine, and which it is the policy of the Constitution and the laws to grant. 2d. Let us now consider what is the nature of the invention now under consideration. It is not a composition of matter, or a manufacture, or a machine. It is the application of a known element or power of nature to a new and useful purpose by means of various processes, instruments and devices, and if patentable at all, it must come within the category of “ a new and useful arty It is as much entitled to this denomination as the original art of printing itself. The name given to it in the patent is generally the act of the Commissioner, and in this, as in many other cases, a wrong one. The true nature of the invention must be sought in the specification. The word Telegraph is derived from the Greek, and signifies to “ write afar off, or at a distance.” It has heretofore been applied to various contrivances or devices to communicate intelligence by means of signals or semaphores which speak to the eye for a moment; but in its primary and literal signifi¬ cation of writing , printing , or recording at a distance , it never was in¬ vented, perfected, or put into practical operation, till it was done by Morse. He preceded Steinheil, Cook, Wheatstone, and Davy, in the successful application of the mysterious power or element of electro¬ magnetism to this purpose ; and his invention has entirely superseded their inefficient contrivances. It is not only “ a new and useful art, 5 ' if that term means anything, but a most wonderful and astonishing invention, requiring tenfold more ingenuity and patient experiment to perfect it, than the art of printing with types and press, as originally invented. 3d. Is it not true, as set forth in this eighth claim of the specifica¬ tion, that the patentee was the first inventor or discoverer of the use or application of electro-magnetism to print and record intelligible characters or letters ? It is the very ground on which the Court agree in confirming his patent. Now the patent law requires an in¬ ventor, as a condition precedent to obtaining a patent, to deliver a written description of his invention or discovery, and to particularly specify what he claims to be his own invention or discovery. If he has truly stated the principle, nature, and extent of his art or inven¬ tion, how can the Court say it is too broad , and impugn the validity of his patent for doing what the law requires as a condition for obtain¬ ing it ? And if it is only in case of a machine that the law requires the inventor to specify what he claims as his own invention and dis¬ covery, and to distinguish what is new from what is old, then this eighth claim is superfluous, and cannot affect the validity of his patent, provided his art is new and useful, and the machines and devices claimed separately are of his own invention. If it be in the use of the words “ however developed ” that the claim is to be adjudged too broad, then it follows that a person using any other process for the purpose of developing the agent or element of electro-magnetism than the common one now in use and described in the patent, may pirate the whole art patented. 159 mr. justice grier’s opinion. But if it be adjudged that the claim is too broad, because the in¬ ventor claims the application of this element to his new art, then his patent is to be invalidated for claiming his whole invention, and nothing more. If the result of this application be a new and useful art, and if the essence of his invention consists in compelling this hitherto useless element to record letters and words at any distance, and in many places at the same moment, how can it be said that the claim is for a principle or an abstraction ? What is meant by a claim being too broad ? The patent laAv and judicial decisions may be searched in vain, for a provision or decision that a patent may be impugned for claiming no more than the patentee invented or discovered. It is only when he claims something before known and used, something as new which is not new, either by mistake or intentionally, that his patent is affected. The act of Congress requires the applicant for a patent to swear that “he is the original and first inventor of the art, machine,” &c. It requires the Commissioner to make an examination of the alleged invention, “ and if it shall appear that the same has not been invented prior to the alleged invention , he shall grant a patent, &c. But if it shall appear that the applicant is not the original and first inventor or discoverer thereof, or that any part of that which is claimed as new had before been invented then the applicant to have leave to withdraw his application. The 13th section treats of defective specifications, and their remedy, where the applicant, through mistake or inadvertency, had claimed 11 more than he had a right to claim as new .” The 15th section, in enumerating the defences which a defendant may be allowed to make to a patent, states that inter alia he may show “ that the patentee was not the original and first inventor or discoverer of the thing patented, or of a substantial and material part thereof claimed as new,” and the proviso to the same section allows the court to refuse costs, “ when the plaintiff shall fail to sustain his action on the ground that in his specification or claim is embraced more than that of which he was the first inventor. The 7th section of the act of March 3d, 1837, specially defines the meaning of the phrase too broad to be, when the patent claims more than that of which the patentee was the original and first inventor ; and the 9th section of the same act again providing for cases where, by accident or mistake, the patentee claims more than he is justly en¬ titled to, describes it to be, “ where the patentee shall have in his specification claimed to be the original inventor or discoverer of any material or substantial part, of which he is not the first and original inventor, and shall have no legal and just right to the same.” Thus we see that it is only where, through inadvertence or mistake, the patentee has claimed something of which he was not the first inventor, that the Court are directed to refuse costs. The books of reports may be searched in vain for a case where a patent has been declared void, for being too broad in any other sense. Assuming it to be true, then, for the purpose of the argument, that the new application of the power of electro-magnetism to the art of 160 shaffner’s telegraph companion. telegraphing or printing characters at a distance, is not the subject of a patent, because it is patenting a principle ; yet as it is also true that Morse was the first who made this application successfully, as set forth in this 8th claim, I am unable to comprehend how, in the words of the statute, we can adjudge “that he has failed to sustain his action on the ground that his specification or claim embraces more than that of which he was the first inventor.” It is for this alone that the sta¬ tute authorizes us to refuse costs. 4th. Assuming this 8th claim to be too broad, it may well be said, that the patentee has not unreasonably delayed a disclaimer, when we consider that it is not till this moment he had reason to believe it was too broad. But the bill claims, and it is sustained by proof, that the defendant has infringed the complainant's second patent for his im¬ provement. The Court sustain the validity of this patent. Why, then, is the com¬ plainant not entitled to his costs ? At law, a recovery on one good count is sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to recover costs ; and I can see no particular equity which the defendants can claim, who are adjudged to have pirated two inventions at once. I am of opinion, therefore, that the decree of the Circuit Court should be affirmed, with costs. True copy. Test : Wm. Thos. Carroll, C. S.C. U. S. »