his country has become rich and strong. He now asks that a portion of the money which was paid into the treasury as the fruit of his exertions shall be restored to him. The justice and equity of the claim has been recognized by both houses of Congress-a bill for the relief of the claimant having passed the House of Representatives at the 30th Congress, and the Senate at the 32d. It has been several times favorably reported, and, it is believed, never adversely. The sum allowed in the previous bills was $1,322 70. This was fixed upon by the following process. Taking the sum of $21,163 31 as the net proceeds, one-half of which (10,581 65) has been paid into the treasury-one fourth, the informer's share, they divided as follows: seven persons being engaged in the capture, would make eight sharestwo to the commander and one each to the other six. This gave the petitioner the amount above stated. But this committee are of opinion that as the petitioner and his associates discovered and captured the enemy's vessel and brought her safely into port, they are in equity entitled to one moiety of her proceeds, instead of the mere informer's share, as contemplated in the previous bills, notwithstanding they acted without the authority of a regular commission. As between the belligerents, it was a lawful and justifiable act. It was beneficial to the United States, as it weakened the enemy by cutting off her supplies and her facilities for hostile operations on the coast, at the same time that it furnished material aid to our own treasury. It was patriotic and praiseworthy on the part of the captors, as they made no attempt to unlawfully convert their prize to their own private use, but promptly passed it into the hands of the proper authorities, to await the adjudication of the legal tribunal-and when that tribunal, while fully sanctioning the capture and justifying the act, decreed that by the technicality of the law, others, and not the captors, should divide the spoils, they quietly submitted. In view of all the circumstances, the committee are clearly of opinion that the full share of one moiety of the proceeds of the captured vessel and cargo should be refunded to the petitioner, and they report a bill accordingly. 1st Session. No. 55. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. JANUARY 19, 1854.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. EVANS made the following REPORT. [To accompany Bill S. 151.] The Committee of the Senate on Patents and the Patent Office, to whom was referred the memorial or petition of Peter M. Morgan, administrator of John Arnold and George G. Bishop, for the renewal of patents heretofore granted to them, report: The application is for the extension of two patents, having for their object the manufacture of cloths from wool, hair, and similar materials, without spinning or weaving. Specimens of the fabrics thus made have been submitted to the committee, showing the rapid improvements which have been made, and which render it highly probable that, in the course of time, cloth may in this way be made of equal durability and texture, and at a cheaper cost of production; but, the invention is new, and requires time and numerous experiments to develope it perfectly. The committee are of opinion that the discovery is likely to be one of great public utility. It It is now in its infancy, but if fostered and protected there is every reason to hope it will in time be so perfected as to cheapen the cost of production-entering into successful competition with other like fabrics made by the old process of spinning and weaving. The attention of the committee has been directed to these two subjects of inquiry: 1st. Will the community be benefitted by extending the patents; and 2d. Have the patentees already received, or are they likely to receive, before the expiration of their patent, an adequate compensation for their invention. On the first point, the considerations above suggested are deemed a sufficient answer. On the second, it is proper to say, that the first patent was granted to John Arnold, of Norwalk, in the State of Connecticut, on the 15th of July, 1829. But the machine did not prove successful, until certain improvements or additions were made, for which a new patent was taken out on the 20th of October, 1836, in the name of the said Arnold and John G. Bishop. This patent was renewed by the Commissioner of Patents in 1850 for the term of seven years, but the original patent of 1829 was never renewed, except so far as its principles were involved in the subsequent one of 1836. From the evidence before the committee it appears that, in the first attempt to apply the principles of these patents to practicable purposes heavy losses were incurred; and that the additional patent of 1836 could not be employed in the production of any merchantable commodity, until after many experiments and an outlay of large sums of money, for which the inventors allege they have never been fully remunerated. In consequence of these failures they have been unable to vend the right to use their patent heretofore, and the short period which it has now to run presents no sufficient inducement to purchase it. Under these circumstances, the committee think the renewal of the patent is but an act of justice, without being in any way prejudicial to the public, and they report a bill for that purpose. 1st Session. No. 56. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. JANUARY 19, 1854.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. BRODHEAD made the following REPORT. [To accompany Bill S. 152.] The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Isaac Varn, sen., report: It appears, from satisfactory evidence, that the land and buildings of the petitioner, situated in Duval county, Florida, were occupied by the United States troops as a military post, from April, 1836, until the month of June, 1841, and that a large quantity of wood and timber belonging to him was cut and used by the troops. The petitioner also claims compensation for cattle and sheep taken by the troops, and indemnity for the destruction of his fruit trees, fences, and other improvements, and for other losses growing out of the military occupation of his place. It appears that Mr. Varn entered upon this land, being unappropriated public land, (sec. 12, township 5, range 24 E.,) in 1823; in 1826 or 1827 he erected a house thereon, in which he has continued to reside. On the 31st March, 1838, (as shown by the records of the General Land Office,) he entered lots 3, 4, and 5 of said section, under the preemption act of 1834-said lots containing in all one hundred and thirtythree and one-fourth acres; and in 1839 he purchased lots 1 and 6, containing fifty-three and one-fourth acres. The occupancy of the place as a military post during the period named is shown by statements from the War Department, and from the officers in command; also, that wood and timber were cut for tne use of the troops. As to the amount of compensation to which the claimant is entitled, the testimony is not very explicit or satisfactory, with the exception of the accompanying letter from General Twiggs, in answer to inquiries addressed to him by the chairman of the committee, in which he says he does not think six or seven thousand dollars by any means extravagant. Believing that the claimant is clearly entitled to relief, the committee report the accompanying bill, and recommend its passage. NEW ORLEANS, January 5, 1853. SIR: Yours of the 28th December is received. The troops did not occupy the land of Mr. Varn by my order. I found them posted there when I assumed the command in East Florida. There was a written agreement between Mr. Varn and myself, which was lost among my papers in Mexico, and I do not recollect the amount he was to receive. I made the arrangement with him for the reason that it came under my own observation that his timber was used by the United States, and the troops destroyed his fences, &c. He informed me that he had applied to several officers, and they would not make an arrangement with him, as they considered the land was the property of the United States. As the commanding officer, I deem it right and proper that he should be paid. I understand he claims some six or seven thousand dollars. This sum I do not think by any means extravagant. He is an industrious and worthy citizen, and I do not think he would set up a claim for anything that he was not entitled to. I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. R. BRODHEAD, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. D. E. TWIGGS. |