The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the report of the Court of Claims in the case of Thomas M. Newell, report:

Upon a review of the case, the committee concur in the opinion of the court in favor of this claim hereto annexed, and recommend the passage of the accompanying bill.

Opinion of the Court by GILCHRIST, C. J.

THOMAS M. NEWELL vs. THE UNITED STATES.

Upon consideration of the act of Congress relating to the subject, and the letters of the Fourth Auditor, dated on the 8th January, 1852, and on the 7th of June, 1856, it is the opinion of the court that the United States owe the claimant the sum of fourteen hundred and fiftyfive dollars, and we report a bill accordingly.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

JULY 29, 1856.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. STUART submitted the following

REPORT.

[To accompany Bill S. 414.]

The Committee on Patents and the Patent Office, to whom was referred the petition of Nathaniel Hayward, ask leave to submit the following report:

The petitioner represents that he is the original inventor of an important improvement in the manufacture of India rubber goods, his invention consisting in combining sulphur with India rubber; that pending his application for a patent he executed an assignment of his interest in said invention to Charles Goodyear; that on the 24th day of February, 1839, letters patent for said invention were issued to Charles Goodyear, as the assignee of the original inventor, for the period of fourteen years; that previous to the expiration of said term he (Hayward) applied to the Commissioner of Patents, praying that the patent for his invention should be extended for his benefit; that in pursuance of the provision of the law, he exhibited to the Commissioner an account, under oath, that the whole sum received for the sale of his invention was $3,000, and that after deducting from this amount the sum of $1,825 75 for his expenses and time in perfecting and in experimenting and introducing his invention, the total benefit he has received from his invention is the sum of only $1,174 25, and that the Commissioner erroneously refused to extend said patent.

The first point which engaged the attention of the committee was the character of the invention claimed by Mr. Hayward. The specific language of the claim is "combining sulphur with gum elastic, either in solution or in substance, either in the modes pointed out or in any other that is substantially the same, and which will produce the same result." Full information in relation to the character of this invention is furnished from an official and high scientific source. The law requires that upon filing a petition for an extension, the Commissioner shall refer the case to a principal examiner, whose duty it is to make a full report of the case, and particularly whether the invention was new and patentable when made. An elaborate report was made by the examiner in this case. It appears from his report that previous to Hayward's invention, the universal experience in India rubber goods was that they were dried with difficulty, and even when once dried, that they would often become sticky by being folded to

gether, so that parts lying in contact would become cemented together. In other cases, the goods became soft and sticky, simply from exposure to changes of temperature. Hence, all of the companies formed previous to the date of this patent were broken up and ruined upon the defects here named. Various mechanical dryers had been used to overcome these defects with little effect. In November, 1838, Mr. Hayward, having ascertained by experiments that there is a chemical attraction between India rubber and sulphur, by which a compound of these materials dries rapidly, made an application for letters patent, basing his claim upon the drying powers of this mixture. This discovery, which was the result of many experiments and much expense and labor, has worked an entire revolution in the manufacturing of elastic goods. It was the discovery of a new material in the arts as original as that of India rubber itself, and as distinct from either of the substances, India rubber and sulphur, as water is from hydrogen and oxygen, of which it is composed. Not India rubber alone, but India rubber and sulphur chemically combined, so as to make a new substance, having new properties different from either of its component parts, and destined thenceforth to be the material from which water-proof and elastic goods were to be mannfactured.

The next subject of inquiry with the committee was the circumstances under which Mr. Hayward parted with this valuable invention for so paltry a price. These circumstances are stated with great simplicity and evident truthfulness in an affidavit before the committee. Mr. Hayward states that he commenced the manufacture of certain descriptions of India rubber goods in 1835. For the first three or four years the business was very uncertain, on account of defects in the articles (before described.) The value of the goods he made was not more than two thousand dollars per year, and the profits not more than three or four hundred a year. The difficulties which he labored under led him to see that the only hope of making the business profitable was in overcoming the defects of the goods. For this purpose he continued experiments from 1836 to 1839, combining India rubber with every substance he could think of. When he succeeded in making the invention of the combination of India rubber and sulphur, he hired the shop he worked in. The only property he owned, except his household furniture and clothing, and stock and tools in trade, was the house he lived in, worth about $1,200; upon this there was a mortgage of about $700. His only income was the uncertain profits of his business, not $500 a year, out of which he had to support himself, his wife, and two children. Under these circumstances, it is plainly to be perceived that the parting with his invention for so inconsiderable a sum was a matter of compulsion. In the future manufacture of India rubber goods, the invention soon became perfectly successful, and was the foundation of that most important branch of American manufactures-so distinguished for the wonderful variety and perfection of its goods-and which may be justly styled the most characteristic of American arts.

The next question presented to the committee is, whether the Commissioner of Patents was justified by the facts in this case and the rules prescribed by law to govern him in his decisions in refusing the

extension of Hayward's patent. The patent laws provide that the Commissioner of Patents shall grant or refuse an extension of a patent as the case may, or may not, satisfy the following requisites:

1st. Is the invention novel?

2d. Is it useful?

3d. Is it valuable and important to the public?

4th. Has the inventor been adequately remunerated for his time, ingenuity, and expense in originating and perfecting his invention ? 5th. Has he used due diligence in introducing his invention into general use?

The committee are of opinion, that upon the facts shown in this case as to each of the above points, the Commissioner was bound in law to extend Mr. Hayward's patent.

The report of the principal examiner is conclusive as to the first three requisites-novelty, utility, and value. The inadequacy of the remuneration is sufficiently shown by the statements before made as to the value of the invention and the amount received for the same. In making his determination upon this branch of the case, the Commissioner fell into a grave error. It appeared at the hearing that after the sale of his invention Mr. Hayward had from that time forward been employed as the foreman in an establishment called in honor of his invention the "Hayward Rubber Company," and that by his economy and unremitting labor in that business he had acquired some property. The Commissioner decided that although Mr. Hayward had received this mere trifle from the sale of his invention, yet he was not entitled to the privilege secured by law to an inventor, because he had made money in a branch of the same business.

The committee are totally at a loss to conceive the scope of this argument. It would seem to be clear that if Mr. Hayward had received but $1,174 25 from the sale of an invention which has proved of inestimable value to the public, that his right to the usual privilege accorded by law to those who have not been adequately rewarded is incontestable. How strange an answer to his claim is the argument: I acknowledge the value of your discovery, that the public has been largely benefited by its use, and that you were compelled by poverty to sell it for a trifle; but granting that you made nothing out of that invention, you have been fortunate in your labors since. Therefore, the success of your industry since 1838 shall be the reason for refusing a reward for your industry and invention before 1838.

The sixth requisition, that the inventor shall establish that he has used due diligence in introducing his invention into public use, is sufficiently met by the fact that the invention is in general use among manufacturers.

The committee are of opinion that the case submitted by Mr. Hayward satisfies all the conditions of the law for extensions, and that he failed to receive the benefits of the law through the errors of the officer appointed to administer it. He has thus suffered a wrong for which it is true the law provides no remedy, although one is demanded by every principle of common justice, and by all the analogies of practice in judicial proceedings. If the Commissioner has been in error, it is, in the opinion of the committee, the duty of Congress to