A, G U )!F E N T
OF
M1R1. EDW)AR   N. 1)JCKEIRSON, 
WITH HIS NOTES AND EXPLANATIONS;
TIHE
CHtARGE OF JUDGE NELSON;
AND TIlE
IVERDICT  OF  TIlE  JURY,
IN THE CASE OF
SICKELS vs. BORDEN,
DEFENDED BY'. The Novelty Flron WTorbks~ and HYll o tiratio Allemo
TRI'IED IN THE CIECUIT COURl'T OF TIIE UNITED STATES IN THE CITY OF NEW-YOREK
NOVEMIBER T'ER[M, 18356,
BY
MR. CIIAS. M.. KELLER A.N)
MII. EDWARD N. DICKERSON,
Fo> Plantief;
AIR. FRANCIS B. CUTTING ANl)
MP.. E. NV. STOUGIITO)N,
1(Q)' D)+eldants.
JOIIN  S. V0OORHIES, 20 NASSAT-U  STREET.!                         1836.ISG








ARGUM ENT
OF
MR. EDWARD N. DICKERSON,
WITIt HIS NOTES AND EXPLANATIONS;
THlE
CHARGE OF JUDGE NELSON;
AND TIIE
VERDICT OF THE JURY,
IN THE CASE OF
SICKELS vs. BORDEN,
DEFENDED BY' The Novelty Iron Works" and 3ir. Horatio Allell.
TRIED IN TEE CIRCUIT COURT OF TIIE UNITED STATES, IN THE CITY OF NEWV-YORKI
NOVEMBERI TERM, 1856,
BY
MR. CHIAS. MA. KELLER A5D
MR. EDWARD N. DICKERSON,
For Plctintia;,
AND
MAR. FRANCIS 13. CUTTING AND
MR. E. W. STOUGHTON,
For Defendants.
N E       20 NASS Y   R  EET:
JOIN S. VOORHIES, 20 NASSAU STREET.
1856.








PREFACE.
NUMEROUS applications-from friends and strangers-at home and
abroad-made personally and by letters-for copies of the proceedings
in this case, have exhausted all the newspapers containing them which
I had reserved, and no more can now be procured; another publication, therefore, is needed.
The charge of his Honor Judge Nelson, which, in the judgment of
the many lawyers who heard it delivered, is the ablest and most accurate statement of the law of patents which that very able Judge
has ever made, is eminently worthy of preservation and publication.
To present it in a convenient form to the public is another motive for
this publication.
And the exhibition which this case makes of the persistent bigotry,
and determined resistance, of such a concern as the Novelty Works to(
the progress of improvement, is instructive to the public, and teaches
in an impressive form, the difficulties which men of genius have to,
encounter, and the trials through which they earn their scanty re-,
wards. My friend Mr. Cutting, speaking for the Novelty Works,
several times during the course of this trial, said: "You can not compel people (meaning engine-builders) to use your improvements."
That we knew too well, but the public did not know it before; and
I hope it will render the condition of the inventor more tolerable, if
such a cono3rn as the Novelty Works, which can " compel people to
use" what they please, know that when they interpose themselves
between the public and the improvements which it is the public interest to have adopted, the public understand their motives, and may
perhaps correct the evil, by employing those who will submit to adopt
the best thing, even at the risk of being considered " engine-builders,"




4
and not engineers. To present this state of things, in the very form,
which " the Novelty Works," both by the testimony of Mr. Horatio
Allen, and the repeated assertions of their counsel, has chosen to give
it, is another object of this publication.
And one more motive actuates me: I have heard from some friends
of " the Novelty Works," and of Mr. Horatio Allen, complaints that
I had gone further than necessary for my case, in exposing the conduct of Mr. Allen as an engineer, and its fatal consequences, to public
gaze for public judgment; and as I think these complaints unjust
to me, I will now explain my position, which I think will for ever
silence them. I now know from the Jury, that my speech was unnecessary: the able argument of my friend MIr. Keller, and the testimony of Mr. Allen, had settled the case before I was heard. But this 1
could not know in advance; and I could not conscientiously omit the
exercise of so much power as would place success beyond doubt.
But I did not use one tenth part of the material presented to me by
Mr. Allen, which might have been used with much more terrific effect
upon him personally, than any thing I did use: —such as the suppression of the Bennett model and the substitution of one entirely differant;-the alteration of the model of the machine of defendants after
the suit was brought, so as to produce an erroneous impression in
respect to its operation;-the discrepancy between the drawings
attached to the patent of Allen and Wells, and Mr. Allen's statements,
etc. etc. But as these acts affected him personally, and not as an
engineer, and as I was only trying him in his professional capacity, -1
did not think it necessary to use them then, and do not now refer to
them except to prove that I have been actuated'by no ill feeling to Mr.
Allen personally, and was only performing a plain duty to my friend
and to the public in exposing him professionally.
This controversy, ending so disastrously to Mr. Allen and'" The
Novelty Works," we did not bring about. Our experience in asserting
the titles to Mr. Sickels' many improvements, has taught us to prefer
any field of contest to that afforded by the law; and therefore we
invited Mr. Allen to the trial on the Metropolis itself: My letters,
written a year ago, and now published here, show how urgent we
were to adopt that mode of settling the matter. We offered to improve the running of the Metropolis, at least twenty per cent., for a
sum of money which the alteration would cost, payable when the result
promised was realized, and not before. No answer was ever made
to my letters in writing, and I shall not say what answers were given.
orally, as a contradiction might raise a question of veracity between
some of the parties and myself, which would not b- agreeable. It




is enough to say the offers were rejected. No other course was
then open to us but the law, and we adopted it. And further, after
the testimony in this cause had been closed, and Messrs. Keller and
Stoughton had spoken, leaving it to Mr. Cutting and myself to close
the argument, I made another attempt to save Mr. Allen from the
consequences of his own acts. I called on my friend Mr. Cutting,
and after showing him that Mr. Allen had realized out of the
sale of Mr. Sickels' invention at least thirty thousand dollars,
(for it was proved on the trial, that, not content with using it himself,
Mr. Allen had been retailing it to others, and had received from one
single firm $4000 for his permission to use it,) I informed him that
my sole object was to have justice done to Mr. Sickels-that I had
no ill feeling towards Mr. Allen, and did not desire to injure him, or
his establishment-that if Mr. Allen would now pay Mr. Sickels
$25,000 out of the money he had put into his pocket for the use and
sale of the invention in question, Mr. Sickels would release him and
all the infringers he had induced to follow him, and give them all a
license to use the invention to the end of the patent term, and that I
would not speak; but that if he did not, I should use all the power 1
possessed, to exact the full measure of justice, which I then offered to
abate so largely. I told Mr. Cutting that I gave this notice in order
to place myself right hereafter, so that if any complaint of cruelty
should be made, I might have a proper defense. Before I spoke, Mr.
Cutting gave mte Mr. Allen's answer-he would not pay.
Under these circumstances I think the most exacting charity would
not require me to smother up the facts proved by Mr. Allen himself
in regard to his own conduct-the re-statement -of which in my
speech, and the newspaper report of it, have led to the complaints
I am now answering.
It may be interesting to the reader to know the result of the verdict. A motion for injunction was made, and resisted by the Bay
State Steamboat Company to the utmost-who defended it on the
ground that Mr. William Borden, their agent, was not their agent for
the purpose of being sued, or of indemnifying the public for the
wrongs committed by the company, but only for other purposes more
agreeable or profitable to them.  This defense compelled me to
make my friends the captain and engineer of the boat parties, (to
whom, in the name, of the law, I must apologize for the quibble which
made it necessary to summon them,) who are undoubtedly technically
liable, although mere agents of the Company, much less interested than'Mr. William  Borden., The motion was then renewed against the
defendants, and resisted by Mr. Cutting, on the ground that the Com



pany had no boat to take the place of the Metropolis, and was under
a contract to carry the mail, which would be broken if the boat were
injoined. I then offered to license the boat at the price found by the
Jury, so that it becamie only a question of money; but that was not
accepted, and upon the representation and promise that the Company
were about to take off the improvement from the boat, and to resort
to some old-fashioned method of working the valves, his Honor
ordered an injunction to issue, giving the defendants time to make the
necessary change, provided they paid $12 a day for the use of the
invention weekly, to Mr. Sickels, while they were preparing another
boat to take the place of the Metropolis, which Mr. Cutting thought
would occupy two weeks-under which order the matter now stands.
The persistent determination to crush these improvements of Mr.
Sickels, found its bitterest expression at the conclusion of this business, when my friend Mr. Cutting announced, that in consequence of
the manner in which Mr. Sickels had pressed his claim, his clients,
and himself personally, would use their utmost endeavors to prevent
the Sickels cut-off being employed on any vessel whatever, and he
authorized me to publish that amiable declaration, as I now do. My
friend Mr. Sickels hopes that his inventions will survive this addition
to the army which for years past has been engaged in the attempt to
ruin them; but suggests that he is unable to perceive how he will
be any worse off, when they utterly abstain from using his property,,
than he is now when they take it without license, and refuse to pay
for it; however, it must be remembered that he is not a lawyer, and
is unable to see distinctions as clearly as we of that profession do.
The position of the Novelty Works and the Bay State Steamboat
Company (under whose banner my able and distinguished friend Mr.
Cutting now announces himself as a recruit) is this, that if Mr.
Sickels will permit them to violate his patents with impunity, and
will not tell of it, they will not go out of their way very far to injure him, but if he presumes to assert his title and to ask for an injunction, they will use their utmost power to prevent others from buying
his inventions-to their damage much more than to Mr. Sickels'. This
exhibition is a warning to young men of genius, not to presume to
make improvements, or if they do, not to endeavor to live out of
them by means of a patent, unless they have money and friends
enough to meet such a power as this. It will cost the Bay State Company or the Novelty Works, probably $2000 to change this cut-off'
for a worse one-besides the risk to boat and passengers always incurred in tampering with the valves of so large an engine; and yet, ratherthan that Mr. Sickels should receive one cent until the law gives it toc




him a couple of years hence, they will waste that money and subject
life and property to Mr. Allen's experiments again. WMhatever happens by this desperate act, we wash our hands of it, as we have not
Ieen asked to license the use of the machine, which Mr. Sickels
would be very glad to do for a reasonable sum —much less than the
Jury would give him.
Mr. Sickels finds some consolation, however, in the reflection, that,
4S when the fight is over," and all of us are forgotten, or only remembered, as the lawyers and judges in the Watt contest now are, with
admiration or regret, as the friends or enemies of his inventions,
they will be just entering upon an existence as enduring as the steam
engine, and as immortal as any work of man ever can be.
EDWARD N. DICKERSON.
New- York, Nov. 24, 1856.




ARGUMENT.
The cause having been on trial about ten days, and
_Mr. Cutting having closed the argument for the defendants, 1J7'. Dicikerson,  in reply, thIus addrcessed the Court
and J"iry:
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOR, AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY:
ArrEn   the attentive consideration which for several days you
have given to the evidence, as it has been presented to you,
and after the able argument of my learned friend who opened
the cause, I should think it an unpardonable trespass on yourl
time and patience, and an unjustifiable appropriation of a portion of the very short term which his honor is enabled to afford
to other suitors, if I should attempt any extencled explanation
of the question of infringement, which forms the greater part
of this controversy. In taking this course, however, I trust
that my friend, who closed the argument for the defendant,
will not think me wanting in respect to him or his efforts;
and if I make no reply, I can assure him, that so far as I am,,
able to judge of a performance of that sort, his is as creditable
as could be expected of any one under the circumstances;
and I am sure that you, gentlemen, will be his witnesses, at
any time, that he has earned his fee. He is not accountable
for the case, and can not make it any other than it is. I shall,
therefore, only present to your minds one single picture, and
one single view, and then pass to the question of damages.
This suit, gentlemen, though nominally brought against
William Borden, agent of the Fall River Company, is, in fact,
defended by M!Vr. Horatio Allen, as he testifies, who has assumed
the position of the owners of the Metropolis for the purposes of
this suit, leaving them no interest in its event, any more than
any stranger, so long as he is able to indemnify them against
the consequences of the act committed for them by him, and




complained of by us; and the immense wealth which is concentrated in the Novelty Works is a sure guarantee of ample
indemnity to them against our recovery. You will remember,
gentlemen, that I placed the case in this position designedly,
so that ~Mr. Allen might be a witness to defend his own cause,
and thus for ever after be unable to complain of the least inj ustice to him, or to the invention which he claims in part to
have made; and I reasoned that if he could not defend this
wrong, there was no other man who could, and I desired to try
the question against the strongest rather than the weakest
party. The consequences I contemplated have followed my
act, and the chief witness who is relied upon by the defendant
is the real defendant himself:
The defense is rested on two grounds: first, that the invention of Mr. Sickels is only applicable for tripping a valve, and
in the defendant's machine, the valve is not tripped; and secondly, that the patent requires the valve to be let down by
a  apcrticular device, whereas the defendants ease their valve
into its seat by another device. The second of these defenses
the Court disposed of as a question of law, leaving the first
one to be disposed of hereafter. On the first point Mr. Allen
testified that in his cut-off, the valve was not tripped, and
that in the patent of Sickels it was described only to trip.
On cross-examination, however, I produced before his astonished vision, letters patent, sworn to by himself in 1853, in
vwhic he describes this identical machine for which this suit is
l)rought, and claims it in these words: "First, the combination
of palls with two arms, whereby the valves are lifted and trip-,ed as described."  And I asked him: "Did you swear to that
description and claim?" and he said: "I did."  " Did you discover, before this suit was brought, that your valve does not
trip?" and he said: "I did not." Launched upon a crossexamination with this direct contradiction between his statement when he had no interest to tell any thing but the truthwhen he was describing to the officers of the government, with
a view to the obtaining a patent, the operation of his machineand his statements now, when he sees the ill-got gains which he
has received from the public for the unlawful use of Mr. Sickels'
invention, slipping away from his grasp, his situation claimed
and received my sincere pity; but my duty was direct before




10
me, and I did not shrink from its performance. We went on,
and Mr. Allen having been gradually driven fromn point to
point, at last stood before you, with the models in sight, to
answer this question: " Explain, if you please, by the aid of
the models, the difference in the motions of the steam valves
and the arms which liberate them, in the two machines, froma
the time the valves are about to be lifted, till the timne whei
they are disengaged; are they not on both machines perfectly
coincident at every possible point of time." Ile left the stand
and came down before you, with this remark —" I will explain."
ThEere he stood-the chief engineer of the Collins Line-the
head of the Novelty Works-the self-constituted autocrat of
the mechanical world of New-York-surroulnded by a host of
followers who bask in his smile, and who revolve about the
centre of his position as the heads of smaller establishments;
and with ears erect, we listened. I shall never forget that
scene, as long as I remember any thing: it was the triumplh
of truth over pretense, of justice over arbitrary power. " I
will explain," began Mr. Allen, and he paused. "It is very
difficult to explain," said Mr. Horatio Allen; and his hand
wandered nervously over the machines, and he paused again.
" Go on," said I, persuasively. " I can not explain it," said Mr.
Allen, and he spasmodically left the models, and began a retreat to the witness-stand. Bnt before he reached it, he
bethought himself and returned-his hand again twitching
over the machines, and again he opened his mouth: with
ready pens the counsel waited on his lips. "It is very difficult to explain," again remarked Mr. Allen, hurriedly; and
with a short pause, he added; " I will not attempt it," and retreated to the stand. I had not the heart to pursue it further;
for I felt the sting of mortified pride, which this terrible
unmasking inflicted, as we feel the writhings of the poor
wretch when we see the surgeon's knife cut to the core of sonie
cankering disease, and hear the saw grate upon the bone. I
only remarked that if -Mr. Allen could not explain his own
machinery, I thought it useless to look for one who could;
and there ended that part of the cross-examination. If, gentlemen, you have any doubt about the identity of these two
machines, recall that picture, and you will feel it no longer.
Another view may be as conclusive. ]Before this invention,




11
the valves opened and closed by the ordinary eccentric motion;
and on both these machines that is their motion now, when the
action of the cut-off is suspended, and they follow full stroke.
Mr. Sickels invented something. What is it? Let us take it
out of both machines, and lay it on the floor.
1st. It is a sector, vibrating on a rock shaft. That is agreed
to be new, and to be used in both; there it is.
2d. That sector carries two arms, diverging from, or approaching each other; they are agreed to be new, and in both;
there they are.
3d. That sector is connected to some part of the machine,
moving coincident with the piston, and vibrates with that motion. That is agreed to be new, and to be the same in both.
Now, before we put these things back into their respective
engines, you must admit-for all sides have done that-that
this machinery is new and useful. We will then put it back
into the engines, and for what purpose?
4th. That the arms may liberate the valves from the lift ers,
to permit them to return so as to effect a cut-off. All admit
that to be new and usefil. Now, gentlemen, all we claim for
the purposes of this case, is that machinery, to be used for the
purpose indicated. Every body on both sides agrees that Mr.
Sickels invented it, and that defendants use it for that purpose.
Can you see any reason why they should? If you will not
find us a verdict on that, gentlemen, neither would you though
one rose from the dead; and it is in vain for us to talk to you.
I now pass to the only question in this case which ought to
receive of vou one moment's consideration-the question of dan -
ages. You have heard from the other side an announcement
of the law which the Supreme Court has established in cases
of this sort, to which we are bound to submit until it is overruled-as it will be, sooner or later, I have no doubt. That
law is, that the patentee is only entitled to recover from an infringer, for a piracy of his invention, an amount equal to its
market price. Differently stated, it amounts to this-that if
you offer to sell your horse for one hundred dollars, you can
only recover that sum from a thief who enters your stable,
carries off your property, and puts you to the expense of a lawsuit to recover it, no matter what may be its real valiue. Mi:y
objection to this decision is, that it debauches public virtue, be



12
cause it says to the infringer: " The Court will take care that you
shall not pay more than the market price of the article pirated,
at the end of a law-suit, if the patentee have the means and energy to pursue you; and then you have a good chance to
escape entirely, either through the poverty or want of skill of
the owner; and in that case your operation will be a profitable
one.;' The temptation thus offered becomes too strong for mnodecrately honest people, and that decision makes rogues every
day. It may be said that the Court can increase the damages;
but practically, that power is useless to the inventor, as it
never has been exercised. Judges are naturally averse from
wielding such a power, lest they shall seem tyrannical; and
the infringer escapes with impunity half the time, and grows
rich out of his robberies, even when he pays at the end of an
execution, the fee which the patentee has spent twice as much
in collecting as' it is worth when collected. Thus, while public virtue is debauched, and the patentee ruined by profitless
litigation, no one but the lawyers gain. If I supposed that this
case came within that decision, I should be tempted to ask the
Court to overrule it, and for the sake of public justice, to take
the case once more to the bar of the Supreme Court for a sober
secondl thought. But we contend that we stand upon a differcunt g'ound, and that the measure of damages is the value of
the invention to those who use it-a measure at all times certainl y just to the defendant, although it may sometimes be
less than just to the plaintiff. To ascertain the amount of
damnrge under tlfis measure, we have shown that this invention
on tihe Metropolis is certainly worth not less than four per cent
of the coal consumed, and that it probably is worth more than
ten. No witness has been called to contradict this, and therefore ewe may safely assume it to be within very reasonable
limits, and safe for the guidance of the Jury. The Metropolis
consumes on an average forty-eight tons of coal a day. She
began to run on the fifth day of May, 1855, and ran until the
bringing of this suit, on the 9th day of July-beyond which you
can not go in this case. The quantity of coal consumed to
this time was 2880 tons, and five per cent. of that amount, at
$5 a ton, is equal to $720. We insist that you can not give us
less than that amount under the evidence.
But we are met by the other side with the objection that




this case comes within the rule referred to; and it will be your
duty to decide that question. Is it true or not that Mr. Sickels
has a fixed tariff for the use of this improvement?
To sustain their claim, Mr. Bartol, of Philadelphia, a party
in interest with Merrick & Son, one of the largest machinemaking firms in that city, has been called, and he proves that
Mr. Sickels sold a cut-off for $250 to him. This is the witness
who appealed to the Court for protection against my gaze, and
complained that I woould look at him while he was under examination.
It may be safely said that the best external evidence of an
honest man is, the frank, unwavering look of the eye. But
when the heart becomes polluted, and the mind resolves some
unjust act, the guilty conscience would close the windows of
the soul to bar the gaze of other men; and the averted look
and the quailing glance are the certain tell-tales of the wrong
within.
" Thus conscience does make cowards of us all."
Whether that test fails in Mr. Bartol's case, I leave to your
decision; but certain it is, that at the time when he attempted
to prove Mr. Sickels ignorant that the method of lowering the
valve as practised by the defendant, was applicable to his invention, Mr. Sickels had a caveat on file in the patent office ten
years, describing that identical method in language exactly the
same as that used by the defendant in describing it to you. It
is barely possible that Mr. Sickels may have filed that caveat
in a somnambulic state, and may have entirely forgotten it;
but unless he did, TMr. Bartol exhibited discretion-the better
part of valor-when he begged protection from the gaze which
pierced his soul.
So far, gentlemen, as it goes, Mr. Bartol's testimony tends to
establish a price; but there the defendants stopped, and I
called Mr. Sickels to prove that there never was a fixed price
at which this was sold, but that in the effort to induce enginebuilders to use it, he sometimes gave it away, and at others he
would take what he could get. He received at the rate of from
twelve and a half dollars a cubic foot, to nothing. The cylinder of the Metropolis contains seven hundred and twenty cubic
feet, and at the rate specified, the fee would be $9Q00. On




14
his examination, Mr. Sickels exhibited the account of what lihe
received, which I have not in detail, but it amounted to less
tllhan $3000, in small items of about $200 each-showing that
when he could get any thing it generally was about $200, which
also paid for his own time and attention in adapting the invention to the boat.
But was this the fair price of the invention, and if not, why
ulot?  M. lr. Sickels and Mr. Allen have both been examined on
this point, and the result exhibits a state of facts in regard to
the treatment of an inventor which is unparalleled in the
records of this much-injured class of men-a state of facts
which must have astonished you beyond measure, and which
vou would never have believed if you had heard it from the
ilips of any one but the actors themselves.  After having
made his inventions, Mr. Sickels found that they were universally rejected by the engine-builders-the foremost among
1whom was the NIovelty Works. By extraordinary exertions,
without a shop, and without a dollar, he succeeded in intro-.ducing them in some remote places, and small boats, and the
tresult justified his representations. But still the engine-builders refused to listen, except in some cases where he would give
the invention for nothing, or for a nominal sum. About that
time the Bremen steamers were to be started, and Mr. Sickels
offtered gratuitously all his inventions to them-and there are
a dozen others besides this one, which together are necessary:for a perfect result-but the Novelty ~Works, who built the entwines of that line, refused the offer. The result you all know;
the line was a failure, and brought world-wide discredit uponl
American engineering, and in its consequence nearly swamped
the Collins line, then just gathering capital for its construction..Mr. Collins, however, learned a lesson by this experience, and
made gigantic efibrts to bring to his enterprise the elements of.:;uccess. Let it be known, gentlemen, to the honor of Mr.'Collins, that he struggled against the Novelty Works to the
last for the best thing, and only surrendered when the majority
of stock was against him, and he was tied hand and foot by,Brown, Brothers & Co., at the feet of Horatio Allen. He,
hlowever, had contracted with MIr. Sickels to put this invention:upon the Baltic, built at the Allaire Works, and the Arctic,
built at the Novelty Works; and Mlr. Sickels was proceeding




to execute the contract when he was ordered to discontinue on
the Arctic by the Novelty Works. Pause here a moment and
ask yourselves if MlIr. Sickels had fixed any price at that time.
O(n the contrary, his invention was pronounced valueless by
the very man who has since pirated it, and who now sets up
his own wrong in 1849 as a reason for a greater one now. Up
to that time, however, I am willing to admit, that Mfr. Allen
was simply ignorant of the subject, and honestly thought this
invention was worthless; and I invoke for him your charity,
on the same ground. If, however, you feel any difficulty in
extending it, the recollection of his confession on the stand,
that he can not now explain a difference between these two
machines, which he alleges to exist, ought to turn the scale ini
his favor.
But, gentlemen, Mr. Sickels applied this invention to the
Baltic, and for eight years it has weathered the stornm, although
in the hands of the enemy, under the control of MIr. Allen
himself. Only $500 was paid for that; "but," says M}ir. Sickels, "it was well sold; it v1.zzgled the Novelty Works, and the,ld story that it would not work, can't now be told."  Can
AIr. Allen, who deprived him of another sale at that time, and
who reluctantly assented to this one, set up this price against
Mr. Sickels now? You shall answer. You have heard gentlemen, that the cut-off on the M/Ietropolis all went to pieces in
the first year of its existence, although it came direct from the
hands of MIr. Allen. If that cut-off on the Baltic had brokenaye, if it had but failed in a pin or nut, which could be replaced in an hour, where would have been lMr. Sickels' case
now? Yet MIr. Allen's abortions of this invention can go to
pieces every year, and the incense still goes up to his altar froml
the army of dependants who live Upon his smiles. It was satisfactory to hear from Mfr. Sturges, that, when this cut-off on
the Metropolis did break, the boat was carried to her journey's
end by another of iMr. Sickels' inventions, which played the
good Samaritan.
From this point of time we have the Baltic run-ning llnder
the control of M&r. Allen, with this invention upon it, never
breaking down, taking the place of show ship of the line at
Washington, and acknowledged to be the most successful ship
of the fleet. There was the invention in its most perfect form




16
-as Mr. Allen, on this stand, under oath, has admitted to you
— and there he studied it.  Was it a chance that he copied
that thing in the Metropolis, in every material particular, except in the manner of lowering the valve?  I can not, gentlemen, consent to that.  I have great faith in the stupidity of
men who are called engineers, because they own engine-building shops; but if it is claimed that Mr. Allen was so stupid as
not to know how the Baltic cut-off worked, I answer he was
then too stupid to construct this one; and if they claim  that
he constructed this one, he must have understood the other,
which it was his duty to examine every voyage of the ship.
And here, gentlemen, I must be permitted to follow  my
brother Cutting into his digression concerning the Arctic and
Pacific, whose sad fate still casts a gloom over the entire country. What their story has to do with this case I can not see.
but as my learned brother has introduced it for some purpose,
I will answer him.  I did not intend to refer to this melancholy business here-they are gone to a frightful doom, and
the wounds yet bleed which ought not to be opened-but i
have no choice. I did not in a private conversation say that
the loss of the Arctic arose from the want of a Sickels cut-off:
but I did say that it arose from the gross, willful ignorance of'
Horatio Allen.*  The Arctic sunk in about five hours after the
accident, during which time her engines were still, more thanl
an hour and a half-and I believe more than two hours.  Noon-,
gentlemen, you must understand that the air-pumps of the
Arctic were about sixty inches in diameter and five feet stroke,
and that the quantity of water they were capable of pumping
out of that vessel was equal to her entire weight in forty minutes, if the injection holes into them  had been sufficient t(
permit the passage of that quantity of water from the hull of
the ship.  But Mr. Allen, in his " sagacity," had made these
holes only sevenl inches in diameter, and, as a consequence, the
* It must not be inferred that Mr. Cutting introduced our casual conversation into
his speech improperly; he did not. He asked and had  my leave to state to the
Jury a conversation, as he understood it, which had occurred between us; but what
at was he was about to say I had no idea till it was spoken. He succeeded in ex-.citing a laugh from the Novelty Works retainers in court at mny expense-the theme
being the loss of the Arctic and Pacific.  I then saw that he had mistaken my
meaning, and it became necessary in self-defense to explain it.




pumps could not fill more than one fifth of their capacity,
while the ship was sinking into the caverns of the relentless
deep. What a horrible scene! There was the power to lift
the entire ship out of water in forty minutes; there were the
pumps to save the ship if the  external hole had  been  four
times as large as it was; and  there  one hundred  and fifty
humnan beings perished, because Mr. Horatio Allen, who would
permit no one to instruct  dim, had such  passages to those
pumps that they were practically useless.  I would not have
that awful scene on my conscience to own the world.  Let him
answer this who can!
You  all know, gentlemen, that ships of the  Cunard  line
have crossed the ocean with holes in their bottom as large as
that which sank the Arctic, and large enough to sink them  in
an hour, if the engine had broken down; and yet they went
safely, because their pumps could take up the water out of the
bilge and throw it overboard without difficulty.
And  as to the Pacific and my private conversation about
her.  Her fate is shrouded  in  mystery, and  none but God
knows the horrors of her loss.  My friend is able to assure us
* Notwithstanding this frightful warning, the other three ships of the Collins line
were permitted to run for months afterward, with the same fatal defect which destroJyed the Arctic; and I believe (though I have not examined for six months)
that they have not yet been altered. Additional openings into the condenser or
air-pump might have been made at any time, while the ships were in port, at a
trifling cost, and without delaying the vessel; but to do it soon after the loss of the
Arctic would have been to record a plea of guilty, and it was better (in the estimation of the Novelty Works) to risk another cargo of passengers, than to acknowledge their ignorance. If these ships have been altered since in this respect-and
I do not believe they have —when was it? Or are the two survivors still in the
same condition?
Lest any one should be misled by the statement of some person ignorant of the
steam engine, that if "the size of the Arctic's air-pump ports"... was "sufficient to have maintained the proper vacuum in the condensers, then they fulfilled their specific duties"-it is proper to say, that the bilge injection ports are
not made for the purpose of maintaining a vacuum, although they do that incidentally. The outside ports are for that "'; specific duty," and as they open through the
side of the ship, should be as small as possible, consistently with a "proper vacuum;" but the bilge ports which open in the ship, not through its side, are for the
purpose of converting the " air-pumps" into " bilge-pumps," to keep the ship afloat
in case of accidental leakage, and should be large enough to supply all the water
these air-pumps can throw out of the ship-which is their "specific duty."  If
they can not do that, they are simply insufficient, and the ignorance which made
thlmn, or keeps them, so is chargeable with the consequences.




18
that she struck the ice and sank. It may be so; and I hope
that was her fate, since lost she must be. But when she left
this port her engine was so arranged by Mr. Horatio Allen
that she was liable at any time to swift destruction without the
aid of ice or any other external cause; and when we speculate
upon her probable fate, rational men naturally would assign a
cause they know of, rather than seek for one they do not know.
The Pacific had had a Stevens cut-off from the first, although
Mir. Sickels had desired to put on one like the Baltic's. The
performance of that machine, of course, was a failure, and
AIr. Allen must remedy it. I{e would not duplicate the
Sickels cut-off of the Baltic, her sister ship, for the world;
yet he must have a drop valve made adjustible, and hes " sagacity" worked it out. Now, gentlemen, you see that in the
Sickels cut-off the steam valve opens with a positive motion,
which is necessary for safety; because if the valve remain
shut till the middle of the stroke, and then opens, and continuLes open for the remainder of the stroke, the engine will certainly go to pieces, with the most terrific destruction. If, however, you open the steam valve with this positive motion, and
desire a drop valve, you munst trip it-but them, you have a
Sickels cut-off. Mr. Allen, therefore, in order to escape the
lumiliation of using that, attempted to open the steam valves
on the Pacific with a pump, in which the steam valve, in
effect, rested upon, and was raised by a column of water confined in a barrel between two pistons, one of which was provided with a valve to admit the water when needed. When
the engine raised the lower of these water-pistons by a positive motion, if the water were solid between it and the upper
piston, the valve would rise; and when it had gone up far
enough a small cock opened permitting the water to escape
from between the pistons, and the steam valves dropped and
made a cut-off. But whether that barrel was full of water or
not, depended on the working of the pump. If a particle of
solid matter got into this trap, the pump valve would choke,
and then the steam valve would not work; but worse than
that, when the engine "raced"-that is, ran too fast, as it
always does in a following sea —the pump has to act with
great speed-and in all cases in working a pump quickly, how
likely is it not to fill with water. If it did not fill, the steam




19
valve would not open till further down the stroke, and when
it did open, the engine would almost certainly go to pieces.
And all this was done to avoid the Sickels cut-off, which Mr.
Allen admits is the best! Now, gentlemen, did the Pacific
strike the ice, or did a fearful crash arouse her slumbering
passengers, amid a rush of steam, and a blaze of fire, to look
a horrid death in the face, without an instant's warning or a
hope? I shall not linger there. The heart shrinks from the
fearful scene, and we shall never know till the great day of judgment which it was. But if it should be true that this great
experiment on human life had so ended-I will not pursue it.
A steamship ought to be defined in the dictionary as a
vessel that can neither sink nor burn, and none should be
permitted to go to sea till her capacity to save herself had
been tested. See how true this is. Her engine power can lift
her weight in five minutes out of water, if applied as it ought
to be, in case of accident, to that purpose; and how could she
sink? IHter boilers are a fire-annihilator of the grandest proportions, and her pumps can flood her deck in an instant; and
how can she burn? But so long as such men as Mr. Horatio Allen control the construction of ships, and spend their
energies and time in contriving how to avoid a patent, instead
of how to make a good ship, the lives of passengers will never
be safe.
Pardon me, gentlemen, for this digression; but I could not
pass over the attempt of my brother Cutting to weaken the
force of my statements before you, by giving a mistaken view
of a private communication between us, without vindicating
myself from the charge. I am quite willing to submit to you,
gentlemen, whether such statements as I have been here compelled to make in self-defense, are such as to excite a smile, or
provoke ridicule, as my brother Cutting used them to do. And
I believe I do not risk much in saying, that if Mr. Allen had
been at his counsel's ear to-day, as he was yesterday, we should
have heard nothing about the Arctic or Pacific —for that gentleman knows that I know the whole story.
Mr. STOUGnITOx.-Oh! no doubt Mr. Allen is a bad man.
]Mr. DIcEmusoi..-No, sir-no. Mr. Allen is not a bad man;
but God made men for different purposes, and did not intend
Mr. Allen for an engineer-that is all.




20
But, gentlemen, Mr. Allen was in this position; he had com-,mitted himself against this invention, up to the point of rejecting it from the Arctic, and he aspired to the dignity of an
engineer. If he acknowledged his error, it humbled the pride
of the great establishment over which he presided; at the feet
of a man who owned no spot of earth, nor a dollar of money;
and that was too much to do. Yet the progress that Mr. Sickels had made, rendered this plan necessary to the art. An
adjustible cut-off must be had; and the lumber-roomn of the Novelty Works contains a wilderness of brain-abortions, produced
in the vain effort to escape Milr. Sickels' patent. Meanwhile,
there he stood at the door, wanting bread, too happy to sell his
invention for any price, to buy meat and fire for his little ones.
Remember, gentlemen, MIr. Allen admits this to be the best,
and yet all this occurred. - At last the mountain labored again,
and brought forth a mbuse. Who is chargeable with its paternity, is now in doubt. The patent claims it as a joint invention; but Mr. Allen, with characteristic modesty, disclaims
the honor, and generously attributes it to Mr. Wells, who has
been promised as a witness, and who has sat here in court during the trial, but who never took the stand.
Mr. Allen tells us now that he only supplied the "movable"
toe to that machine —contrived by him some years before. He
assured you, however, that he had " exercised his sagacity" in
arranging the motion of the vibrating sector, so as to make it
coincident withl that of the piston. I-e, however, admitted
that the motion was the same as desclribed in the patent,
and as practised before his eyes on the Baltic for years before
his machine; and he agreed with me that after that it did not
require mu,tch " sagacity" to imitate that motion on the Metropolls.
But, gentlemen, there is the machine; and. it is simply a servile copy of the Sickels patent, except in the lowering of the
valve; without enough novelty in detail to vary even the form of
many of the devices; and when you come to read Mr. Sickels'
caveat of 1844, in which he describes that method of lowering;
and when you reflect that Mr. Allen disclaims that idea as his,
and that Mr. Wells does not dare to attempt to claim it on the
stand, although ostentatiously paraded by Mr. Allen frequently,.
in his examination; you can not fail to admire the wisdom of




my learned adversaries, in refusing to permit me to prove, as
I offered to do, that. Mr. Sickels showed these very details to
Mr. Allen himself, although you must have been struck with
the effrontery of,the junior, counsel, who, in his opening, reproached me -with a failure to prove this fact, after having
convinced his Honor, in an argument, that it was incompetent,
and that it ought to be ruled out, as it was.
When this infringement was produced andclput forward by
the Novelty Works, there was an end of Mr. Sickels' chances
to sell his. He has told you his position —his brother, a clerk
in the Custom-House, earning his daily bread-,-himself stmuggling against poverty and want. What could he do? The
draftsmen of the different shops, of course, would obey the
nod- of the Novelty Works,.and adopt their machine; and
even the Government, which has been nMr. Sickels' customer
for a few vessels, transferred its patronage to the new machine.
What could Mr. Sickels do? Suppose, in this emergency, he
had sold his patent-right for a barrel of flour, or a ton of coal, as
I have no doubt he would have done, what a splendid plea it
Avould be now against him! I think I hear some one say, Sue!
Ay, gentlemen, that is very fine for a man with a pocket full of
money; but for a man who needs the necessaries of life, what
dlo you say?. Did'it -ever occur to you, gentlemen, that the
privilege to sue such a concern as the Novelty Works, whern
extended to a man without a dollar, is just about equal in value
to the right of appeal to the Zoological Society, given to a frog,
when a pack of school-boys had just collected a pile of pavingstones on the margin of the puddle, with a view to an assault 
If it never did, I commend the comparison to your consideration. Imagine yourself in his place, and what would you do 
The lawyer of business will not listen without a fee- he can
not-and will you be a beggar?  The few men of means you
know, will say they do not understand such things, and, with
the natural caution of business, will suggest that, no doubt if
your invention is valuable, the shops will buy it; but will add,
"' all inventors think they have a great idea;" and when you
are gone, they will say, " Poor fellow! poor fellow! if he only
would do something useful, such as filing up iron bolts, he
might make a living."  What can you do? Despair and die!
And that is what they count on who have robbed you. But a




better fortune, I trust, awaits my friend.  Ite has sued; and
after struggling for a year to bring this cause to trial at this
bar, I have at last brought them face to face-the infringer
and his victim-and  you have seen  and heard them  both.
You have heard Mr. Iloratio Allen describe the process by
which he has destroyed the market value of this patent, and I
will recall it to your minds in the form in which it was told:
Q. Mr. Allen, is it not perfectly certain-as certain as any law of naturethat, other things being equal, the engine in which the cut-off closes the
more rapidly, is the more economical of coal?
A. It is, in the proportion that the speed of closing varies.
Q. Did you not know, when you put this cut-off on the Metropolis, that
the engine would require more coal than if the valve closed rapidly, as suggested in the patent of Sickels?
A. I did; but I was not responsible for putting that cut-off on the Metropolis. Mr. Smith did that.*
What an  answer!  What humiliation!  Is this the same
_Mr. Allen who, a few hours before, was exalting himself and
his draftsman upon the pedestal of their patent?
"Yesterday, the word of Caesar might have stood against the world."
* I had subpcenaed Mr. Erastus W. Smith, the person on whom  Mr. Allen
attempted to shift the responsibility of this cut-off of the Metropolis, and after
using him to prove an unimportant fact, challenged the other side to make him
their witness to prove that the cut-off on the Metropolis was not an infringement
of this patent; or that he did not know, when he put it on, that in attempting to
escape Sickels' patent, he had made the machine inferior to the plan in the patent.
After the collapse of Mr. Allen on these points, Mr. Smith did not take the stand;
but in order to show how true Mr. Allen's testimony was, and how well he knew
there was no use to say no to my questions, I will quote here out of Mr. Smith's
testimony in the Superior Court of this city, before Judge Hoffman, given in April,
1854, while the engine of the Metropolis, under his general management, was in
progress of construction. In that suit the value of the Sickels patent was in question, and Mr. Smith was called by a party adverse to Mr. Sickels, to prove it, and
he swore in these words:
"In 1848 I should consider the cut-off worth from $10,000 to $15,000 a year.
It is of the first importance in engines. This is the best cut-off in existence. I
was formerly employed in the Allaire Works."  (See Record in case of Mary Ann
Cook vs. WVm. B. Sickels, p. 46.)
So that it now appears, by the testimony of both Mr. Allen and Mr. Smith, that
when the Bay State Steamboat Company placed itself in their hands, willing to pay
any amount of money-for the best thing, they deliberately and willfully imposed on
that Company a worse thing, for no other reason than to suppress Mr. Sickels.
What answer could this pair of worthies make to an action by their employers for
deceit? Ask any lawyer!




But to-day how changed! Driven to disclaim the responsibility of applying the machine which lie vaunted so loudly
before, and to shift it off on another!
Seated in his banquet hall, surrounded by his courtiers, the
coward conscience of the tyrant conjured up the ghost of the
murdered Banquo —murdered not by his own hand, but by
another's, with his consent. With quivering flesh and starting
eye, lie exclaimed to the picture of his disordered brain:
" Thou canst not say I did it!"
Seated here in this hall, surrounded by his satellites, the
coward conscience of this tyrant conjured up the ghost of three
thousand tons of coal doomed to a fiery destruction-not by
Ihis own decree, but another's, with his consent-and as he
gazed upon it, like his prototype of old, the exclamation canme
involuntarily, but with equal power:
"Thou calnst not say I did it!"
But that bound does not clear the net. I hold you yet with
a grasp of iron, and there is no escape. Another question, if
you please.
Q. Mr. Allen, have you not put similar cut-offs to other people's vessels,
where you had the control and responsibility?
A. I have.
What do you think of that, gentlemen?  IHow bold the
scheme! The whole steamship interest is subordinated in or(ler to suppress MIr. Sickels' invention; and the merchants of
Wall street who have been used to look upon 13r. Allen as a
miracle of skill, must now feel gratified at the reflection, that
he has been using them  as his dupes, to defeat IMr. Sickels, to
their cost about one fifth of all the coal burned on their ships.
What an army this autocrat commands, and what a power it
takes to crush out one God-given intellect! The cost of keeping down Mir. Sickels, to the steam-interest of New-York, since
the Collins line started, has been not less than five millions of
dollars, all paid out for coal, and burned up with the regularity
of the laws of nature.  Col. Borden's share alone, has been
greater than two hundred thousand dollars. The battle costs
Mr. Allen nothing, as le does not pay the coal bill; but its
fruits are all his, as he sells his cut-off, suppresses Mir. Sickels',
and comes to be considered an engineer, instead of an engaine



24
builder, which he could not be if the public knew that Mr.
Sickels had made the inventions, and that all that is left is to
build the machines. But, gentlemen, perhaps you think I
overrate the cost of this war. Let us hear Mr. Allen on that
subject. He had admitted that the Sickels cut-off was the
economical one, and I tested him on its economy.
Q. What is the loss on the Metropolis by slow closing?
A. I do not know.
Q. Have you never seen the indicator-cards from her engine, which will
inform you of that fact? ]
% A. I have.
Q. And did you never take the trouble to calculate one of them to see the
loss?
A. I never did.
At this point I was interrupted by my fiiends on the other
side, as I was about to proceed and show the exact quantity of
loss, and was not allowed to go further. Now, gentlemen,
vwhat do these answers mean?  Mr. Allen knows that the boat
loses power by the application of the machine-knew it when
lie put on the cut-off,-has the cards which show just oww mwuch
-and shuts his eyes to them, and will not see. If he had not
known the loss was enormous, would he not have calculated it,
and been prepared to say that it was trifling?  Would he not
have had the items to a hair, so as to prove that althoughll he
had levied contributions to support his war on Sickels, they had
not been greater than the community o0ughJt to pay, to suppress
a poor apprentice-boy, who presumed to know more than the
entire Novelty Works? Yes, gentlemen, we would have had
all that in very exact form, probably altered a little from the
truth, as his models were, so as not to operate against the deiendant too strongly.
Now, gentlemen, what answer is there to all this?  Mv
friends on the other side felt the crushing blow, and endeavored
to avert it; but unfortunately, they did not know the facts as
AMr. Allen did. I-He knew that it was no use to fight; but they
didn't, and they rushed in.
I have seen a gallant mastiff, confident of his own strength,
and utterly ignorant of the character of the animal he was attacking, and the danger incurred, thrown into the cage with al
sleeping tiger. Brave as unconsciousness of danger could




make him, he rushed in.  There was a snap, a yell, and all was
over. That is this case.
Brother Stoughton began:
Q. Mr. Allen, considering the whole machine together — as well the
economy of coal as the working of the engine-are there not some difficulties in the Sickels cut-off which compensate for the saving of coal?
That question was terrific; I pitied the poor victim from my
soul.  How he must have writhed when he heard it!  Why,
brother Stoughton, don't you recollect that was the theory beibre 1849? but the Baltic has "muzzled" Mr. Allen on that.
I-e  would have been a swift witness before the Baltic calie
home on her first trip; but do spare him now! Well, gentlemen, let us hear Mr. Allen.
A. There might be such a difficulty.
Yes, says brother Stoughton —that is it.  The sudden closing
of the  valves creates the  difficulty.  Then  came  my  turn
again.
Q. Mr. Allen, has the cut-off on the Baltic ever been out of order, or
needed repairs, since it started?
A. None except the ordinary engine repairs.
Q. Is there any more difficulty in keeping the proper Sickels cut-off in
order than there is in keeping such as the one on the Metropolis in order?
A. No, sir.
Now, gentlemen, when you consider that the cut-off on the
Baltic has run seven years, and that the Metropolis has broken
down entirely once since she started, I think we will let that
lrest there. In his argument on this point, my brother Stoughton
dropped Mir. Allen and took refuge in Mr. Bartol; but what a
humiliating necessity was that!  Does not Mr. Allen knowMr. Allen, the great engineer of Wall street-the builder of the
Adriatic*-the endorser of the so-called Cloud engine, whose
* The last great effort to escape paying Mr. Sickels for his improvement is exhibited in the Adriatic. There Mr. Allen saw the necessity of shutting the valves
quickly; but he could not submit to adopting the Sickels cut-off in its purity.
The only way to use it, and yet disguise it, was by changing the form of the valves
and the name of the " Sickels dash-pot." He therefore substituted molasses spickets
for steam valves, and insists on calling the Sickels " dash pot" a "controlling vessel."
The great mistake seems to be that when he adopted molasses spickets he did not
also adopt molasses to work the engine. He has now been engaged about two
weeks in the effort to make these spickets work. He first tried springs, which were




wondrous powers had eclipsed both steam and air?* And is it
necessary to appeal to a draftsman for contradiction of your
either too weak to turn the spickets, or else broke, or at least were too strong to
permit them to open. He now has taken to weights-leaving the only difference
between his and the real Sickels in the "molasses spickets."
* This " Cloud engine" enjoyed a remarkable existence at the Novelty Works,
about as long at its relative, " The Vampire," both belonging to the genus humbug. " Cloud" was ushered into public notice with more imposing circumstances
than "Vampire" however,-Mr. Horatio Allen starting it out with a " first-rate
notice," every lineof which was redolent with wisdom. After giving some rows
of figures for the purpose of appealing to the popular credulity which is expressed
in the maxim, "figures can't lie," the certificate concludes as follows:
"What the proportion of saving is to be, remains to be determined by more extensive use; but I anm constrained by the facts which have been developed by
these trials, to state my belief, that the Cloud combination will take the place of
the high-pressure engine, and prove itself one of the most extraordinary and valuable inventions of the age.  Yours, respectfully,     HORATIO ALLEN."
And again:
"As the result of the trials referred to, I have to state the increase of pressure
arising from combination of steam and air is proved beyond a doubt; and that the
increased useful effect resulting from this increased pressure, as shown by these
trials, is over fifty per cent.
"In building a high-pressure engine for myself or for parties who would leave
the question of the kind of engine to me, I would unhesitatingly adopt the Cloud
engine; and in taking this position I rely upon the facts which have come to my
knowledge in the trials made under my directions.      HORATIO ALLEN.
"Novelty Works, New-York, July 1854."
This was satisfactory to the proposed victims, and numerous gentlemen in Wall
street, relying upon the " sagacity" of that paper, invested in the " Cloud," which
has gradually but rapidly been dissipated into thin air, and now no longer obscures
the daylight of truth.
A similar humbug, about the same time, called the " bi-sulphate of carbon engine," under the auspices of another distinguished engineer, and sporting his certificate, vied with the "Cloud" for public favor. It would be curious to know
which one cheated the most people. The certificate of " The Novelty Works" was
on the whole the more imposing endorsement, but the hard name of the other, so
scientific and sonorous to the ear, was almost as good. I should be rather inclined
to back the "bi-sulphate" against the " Cloud," notwithstanding the odds in favor
of the endorser of the Cloud.
The example of "Vampire," proves that it takes about eighteen years for one of
these animals to revive and afford its happy owner the means of " turning an honest penny" by making up a stock company, and, on the strength of a certificate, selling out to others. We may therefore expect " Cloud" and " bi-sulphate" back again
in that time with a new certificate; leaving again, as now, in their trains, an army of
victims, who ever afterwards will look upon a man who claims to have invented some-;thing useful, as a knave, and will slam their doors in his face. Thus real merit is
sacrificed that charlatans may grow rich I




leader? Those answers of Mr. Allen are the ones which his
counsel say "stung him," and yet he would rather submit to
the bite than explain away their effect, lest he should be thought
to lean too much to his own side. Ah! gentlemen, the sting of
those answers is incurable. -Mr. Allen would have extracted
it if he could; but I sat there, and he felt that. You, gentlemen, see but a glance of the miserable condition of this affair;
but Mr. Allen and I know it all; and in my presence he would
not dare to say that he had not compelled his customers to pay
at least twenty per cent. on their coal bills, in order to sustain
him on the pedestal of vanity which wealth has enabled him
to rear, and power to sustain. And I now give his counsel
notice, as I have given him notice, and I desire it to be heralded
to the world, that whenever Mr. Allen wishes to deny this, in
court or out of court, at this bar or before the victims of his
schemes, I will prove it out of his own mouth, without the aid
of another witness. Mr. Bartol's opinion on the matter I shall
not discuss —it isn't possible for him to have an opinion. His
case is that of the silly man who once remarked to the great
Dr. Johnson, as they walked out of church together: "A very
fine sermon, Doctor."'" Quite likely," was the laconic reply,
"but it is impossible that you should know it."
My brother Cutting argues that the Sickels cut-off can not
be a good invention, notwithstanding Mr. Allen's admission,
because he says if it had been, it would have gone into more
general use. Let me explain that. You are the president of
a company of your friends, who have clubbed your money to
build a boat. You go to the Novelty Works for an engine,
and you have heard that Sickels' plans are the best. You suggest with modesty to the great man into whose presence you are
ushered, that you would prefer those plans. With great politeness of manner he tells you that he will build any sort of engine
you may pay for; but at the same time, informs you that if
you desire him to be responsible for the engine, you must leave
it to him to settle the plans. You ask, with diffidence of your
own judgment, whether the plans you suggest are not the best;
and he replies, with an air of offended virtue, that he is not
going to discuss the schemes of the young man named Sickels,
of whom he has heard, but only wishes to have it understood
that he will not take any risks if those plans are adopted.




What can you do?  You are the trustee of your friends, and
dare you take the risk of deciding against Horatio Allen-especially when you know that he has it in his power to make
your engine fail?   Most certainly not; and you ought not to,
unless you understand it yourself perfectly, and then get the
consent of your friends to the risk. M]eanwhile what becomes
of Sickels?
There is one test to which I propose to bring this question.
Suppose some person who, having confidence in Mr. Allen's
skill and integrity, has purchased an engine from  him  under
the representation that it was the best, and should now bring an
action against hiri, and on the trial prove that he admlitted
under oath, in a court of justice, that he knew when he sold
the engine that it was not the best, and should further prove
that it had cost $50 a day for coal more than the best would
have  cost, and suppose you were on the Jury, what would
you say? Such a case may arise before this fight is over, and
I commend it to the legal contemplation of my learned friendls
on the other side..
But, says my brother Cutting, how  can this be?  You say
our machine is a bad one, and yet claim  compensation for its
value. I will tell you. There are two inventions here —the
one for closing the steam  valve instantly, to effect a cut-ofii',
* This invention, patented in 1842, and now become public property without leaving its inventor a dollar, was the only improvement ever made on a steam engine
since James Watt left it, by which a pound of coal was saved. It saved about 25
per cent. over any arrangement then known, and will do the same over any now
known, different from it. The invention involved in this suit is an improvement on
a part of that invention, namely, the detaching of the steam valve from the lifter to
effect a cut-off. " The new set of ideas which constitutes the subject-matter of
that invention," (to use the correct expression of his Honor Judge Nelson, in this
case,) comprised, first, the idea of detaching the steam valve from the opening nmechanism so that it could shut instantly, independently of the engine; and secondly,
the idea of regulating the rapid motion of the valve so that it would lose no time
in closing, and yet do no injury in sudden stopping. The detaching was easy
enough to do, although it had never been done before; but the regulating the
valve afterwards was the trouble. The Hibernian who attempted to fly from a
house-top and suddenly brought up on the ground, remarked that it was easy
enough to fly but hard to light; that was this case. But Mr. Sickels overcame
that difficulty by availing himself of the indestructibility, of fluids.  Any solid
whatever will be destroyed by constant impact; but you may pound a pint of
water or of air for ever and it is unharmed. He therefore made a cup, wlloso
shape is unimportant, and filled it with water, and a plunger or plug to fit the culp.




29
and the other to regulate the time of effecting the cut-off;
whether the valve closes instantly or gradually.  All sides admit Mr. Sickels to have invented both of these improvements,
and all admit them both to be valuable. How much the first
one will save over the old plan is not in evidence, but it is admitted to be the most economical.  How  much the second one
will save, is in evidence; and that is not less than four per cent.,
and from  that to ten.  In  pirating these inventions, the defendants, in  order to  hide the theft, have  cast off the first,
and only used the second, whereby they gain from  four to ten
per cent. on  the  old plan; but if they  had  taken  them   all,
they would have saved much more. So it turns out that they
injure both the inventor and the public-the one, by taking
his invention without compensation, and the other, by preventing the inventor from selling it in its purity and most valuable
fbrm; and they do this in order to sell a patent right admitted
to be inferior, for a great price, on the one hand, and to suppress the man of merit, whose recognition would cast into
eternal oblivion such "mock-turtle" engineers as Bartol, Smith,
HIoratio Allen, et idc omne genus.
But my brother Cutting  says we complain that Mr. Allen
w-cill not use our improvement, not that he does use it; and
lie added, with an air of defiance, " You can not drive people
This plunger rises out of the cup with the valve, but when the valve falls again it
enters the mouth of the cup, and there confines the fluid by shutting off its escape.
Of course neither it nor the valve can go any further, and yet, as fluids are indestructible, nothing is injured. The form of the arrangement, as Judge' Nelson says
in this case, is unimportant, so that the idea of the inventor is there; and once
lhaving that, it is the work of the mechanic to give it different shapes to suit different engines.  "The novelty of the invention consisted in the new set of ideas
by which the patentee saw the possibility of dispensing with the motion" of the
engine to close the valve, and the substitution for that motion of an independent
one, controlling the valve by means of compressing a fluid in a close chamber
whereby the valve was suddenly checked, as it must be to produce the effect, without injury to the machine. It is obvious that the substitution of one fluid for another in the arrangement-wrill not alter its character or operation, since all fluids
whatever possess the same quality of indestructibility, which the inventor first
made available, by mechanical devices, to this invaluable purpose. It is proper to
say that this great invention, although patented only for regulating the closing of
valves, was entirely new, and might have been patented for any purpose in which
it is desired to arrest suddenly the motion of heavy bodies. For the purpose of a
cut-off it is perfect, as it admits motion as rapid as that of a gun-lock, and yet stops
it without injury. Beyond that, in this field, man can not go.




30
to do any thing." Pardon me, if you please, when I deny this
charge. We do not complain of any such thing. We admit
the right of Mr. Allen to use any thing he pleases; but we
complain that Mr. Allen stands between us and the public,
who desire the best thing, from whomsoever it may come —
who care nothing for Mlr. Allen or eMr. Sickels-who would
not pay three cents tribute to support the pompous magnificence of the Novelty Works if they knew they were doing itbut who are imposed upon by great swelling words of vanity
to our damage and loss. We complain that gMr. Allen, istanding as the trustee of the country to disburse $800,000 a year,
under the name of mail pay, which is in fact a fund given by
the people for the encouragement of American genius and skill,
has used it, as he admits, to su2press the best thing, and to advance his own private ends for the basest motives. We claim
that Mr. Sickels, having produced the best thing in the world,
is, according to Mr. Allen's own admission on this stand, one
of the beneficiaries of this fund, and we charge that he has
been defrauded out of his share of it, while the public have
suffered still more. If the proposal had gone to Congress to
pay these immense sums to swell up thle bursting bubble ot
Mr. Horatio Allen's vanity, would it have been granted? You
and I, gentlemen, pay our share of this, and we know what we:meant by it. We meant to encourage American genius in the
race for success, to produce the best result; and we never
thought that our trustee would be redcedl to the humiliation
of confessing in the witness-box that he had used that fund
to suppress the best thing.
And especially do we complain, that after having used all
these mighty agencies against us, and driven Mir. Sickels to the
point of starvation, you now set up the miserable prices at
which you compelled him to sell out his inventions to buy
bread for his little ones, as a reason why you, overtaken in
your career of cruelty and oppression, should pay no more. It
is for you, gentlemen, to say whether this plea shall prevail.
Gentlemen, I can not pass from the consideration of this case
without calling up some of its incidents, which, stronger than
the testimony of witnesses, record the plea of guilty to our
charge. You recollect, gentlemen, that in putting in my evidence, I offered the letters patent granted to Messrs. Allen &




Wells, and they were objected to. The usual resistance in
such a case is made by the plaintiff, and not by him whose
titie-deed is sought to be introduced.  His Honor remarked
that he supposed, of course, the defendants would put in their
patent, and he asked Mr. Cutting whether it was not their intention to do so. You all recollect his reply. Ite said nothat they had considered it better to try the cause on its merits,
without introducing any extrinsic matter-that they had resolved to simplify the question as much as possible-that the
only question was whether the engine of the Metropolis was an
infringement of our patent-and that question they were
ready to try, and not to try two patents against each other.
HIis Honor then ruled out my offer, but I gave notice that I
should insist on introducing it later in the case in another aspect-that is, to contradict Mr. Allen; and his Honor remarked
that he would decide that question when it arose. The cause
went on, and I did introduce the patent with crushing effect to
contradict Mr. Allen in respect to the question of tripping, to
the intense disgust of the defense generally.
When the defense went to pieces, and became the most complete wreck I ever saw lin court, by the cross-examination of the
defendant himself, it was necessary to seize some plank to float
off the survivors, and all at once it was suddenly discovered
that this patent was the plank for the drowning man; and in
closing, my brother Stoughton placed his case chiefly on that,
with a degree of boldness and with a sincerity of expression
peculiar to him. But that plank will not swim, as his Honor
will tell you.
Another thing: In opening, not a word was said about the
originality of the invention. That was conceded, as it well
might be —for every witness of the defense admitted that Mr.
Sickels was the first man in the world who ever liberated a
valve from its lifter to effect a cut-off, or for any other purpose;
and that he was the first man who ever regulated the period of
liberating by such means as these. When the wreck occurred, however, another straw was floating near by, and that
was Bennett's engine on the Dispatch, and Bennett was called.*
* The engine constructed for the steamer Dispatch, in 1838, has been re-produced this year, in the shape of a locomotive called "The Vampire," built by the
Novelty Works; and it served admirably to " suck" out of the enterprising firm of




32
Of him I do not speak, except to make a reflection-which is,
that when God permits a knave to live, he always makes a
fool, so that the disposition to do mischief may fail of execution
for the want of ability to guide it. After hearing his testimony
his Honor ruled it all out, on the well-settled principle of law,
that an abandoned experiment hurts no one.  The patent law
rewards the man who does the thing-not him  who has only
proved, so far as he proves any thing, that it can not be done.
That plank sunk.
But these two efforts, made in desperation after the defense
relied on had failed, are an admission equal to a plea of guilty.
Gentlemen of the Jury, the series of wrongs inflicted on this
inventor would have been incomplete unless surmounted by a
specimen of meanness more contemptible than ever has been
seen before, in a court of justice. You perceive, gentlemen,
that this controversy is not about a cut-off, nor yet about an
adjustible cut-off-these things are old; but about an adjustible cut-off capable of adjustment while the engine is in motion,
and at all points of the stroke, by a certain means. A machine
to do that is justly considered very valuable, and Mr. Allen has
flooded the country with engravings parading the " adjiustible cut-off" as his invention.  You all know now that this was
an impudent pretense, but it proves how valuable he thought
it to be, and how far he would dare to go in order to seize it.
Before this cause was half finished Mr. Allen saw this adjustible
cut-off slide out of his grasp, like water through a sieve. What
Page & Bacon, about $30,000. This engine, after having been heralded from
"The Novelty Works," with the announcement that it had, on trial, developed
one hundred and fifty horse power, succeeded, by the aid of another locomotive, in
reaching Paterson, on the Erie Railroad, sixteen miles from Jersey City. There the
Vampire went into hospital, and was attended in its dying hours by Mr. Horatio
Allen, as chief physician., After various " exercises of sagacity" in vain, the poor
beast gave up the ghost, and has been handed over for dissection and sale to the
New-Jersey Locomotive Co., which is now engaged in its anatomical analysis, in
the hope of finding something useful for a common locomotive, and the rest is in
the market as old iron.
The gentleman who named this machine is undoubtedly a wit, and was trying
the- temper of his weapon on the Novelty Works; for whether he had in his mind
the real vampire which sucks the life-blood of its victim, while it fans him with its
wings into pleasing slumber and dreams of hope; or whether he contemplated the
fabulous vampire, which is said to be composed entirely of moonshine, his polished
shaft reached the mark with an unerring flight.




33
could he do?  There was one revenge he yet had —one more
injury to be inflicted-and he seized the opportunity.  He said
that after all, the invention  was not of much value, and that
in his opinion no engine ought to be built to cut off at more
than half-stroke.  I asked him  whether it was not very important in a head sea to cut off longer than half-stroke, and he said
that if it was, the engine ought  to follow full stroke and not cut
off at all.  I suggested  that there might be  such a state of
weather that it would be desirable to cut off more than half
stroke, and yet not waste the steam necessary to full stroke;
but he denied the possibility."   I then ventured to express the
hope that Mr. Sickels had not done the art of engineering any
serious harm  by giving  engines the capacity to cut off where
the emergency might seem  to require, and it was a great relief
to me to hear that in  Mr. Allen's judgment he had done no
serious Mischief.
Now, gentlemen, what do you think all that means? Besides
the gratification it is to give this invention a bad name, now
that it is to be wrested from  him, he is preparing to fall back
Upon the patent of Mr. Sickels of 1842, which expired in May
last, and is now  public property, but which during its life-time
* The absurdity of this position of Mr. Allen will be manifest, when it is considered that in order to supply the steam necessary to fill a cylinder full every stroke at
working pressure, boilers about twice as large as necessary for the ordinary working of
the ship must be carried about-to be used in case of emergency only. If the boilers
are not of that size, the steam will run down in pressure at once if you work at
fifll stroke, and the engine will develop less power than if the pressure of steam is
kept up and cut off shorter. To give an example: Suppose two engines of the
same size exactly, provided with boilers capable of supplying the cylinder two
thirds full with steam at 25 pounds pressure; and suppose one to have the adjustible cut-off on and the other to be as Mr. Allen recommends. The usual working
of such engines would be to cut off at about one third of the stroke, or less; but
in emergency, the entire power of the boilers is needed, and they are driven up to
their capacity. ]Mr. Allen's engine can take steam for full stroke, or half-stroke,
but at no point between. At half-stroke his mean pressure would be 18.8 pounds
above the atmosphere to the square inch of piston. At full stroke, however, it
would be only 11.6 pounds-losing by that change 1.2 pounds to the inch; so that
such an engine would be doing its utmost -at half-stroke. In Mr. Sickels' engine,
however, the cut-off would be set to two thirds stroke, using up all the steam at
25 pounds pressure; and the result would be a mean pressure at 22.2 pounds
above the atmosphere-equal to 40 per cent. more than Mr. Allen's at fall stroke,
and 10 per cent. more than at half-stroke-a difference equal to the whole value of
the ship in certain circumstances. That is rather an expensive way of beating
Mr. Sickels!
2




was as loudly denounced by this gang of pirates, as this one is
now; and this piece of swearing is the preparation for that retreat. Let us follow him to the Novelty Works, and see the
second step. Mr. Jones, President of a Steamship Company, is
introduced with all the ceremony of an emperor's court into MIr
Allen's sanctum. Mr. Allen is a different man there, gentlemen, from Mlr. Allen in the witness-stand. There a crowd of
draftsmen can see in his solemn face "solid chunks of wisdom,'
which they never are permitted to cut out, and which, therefore,
grow in size. The engine-drivers who depend on his appointment, linger in the ante-room to await his appearance. Merchants about to build steamships, gaze with astonishment at
the pictures of engines hung upon the walls, and innocently
believe that all these marvels came out of Mr. Allen's brains.
"And still they gazed, and still the wonder grew,!Iow one small head could carry all he knew."
But here, gentlemen, the scene changes. Tied fast by the
law to the stake of that stand, till I was done with him, it was
necessary to turn out the contents of that head on the table
before you; and what a "beggarly account of empty boxes" it
was! He admitted he could not explain the difference betweent
the two machines, with the models to help him to do it. But
Mr. Jones is waiting, and let us listen.
MIR. JONES. —Mr. Allen, I have come to order an engine for
our new ship. Our engineers tell us that we must have yourl
adjustible cut-off, so that we can set it at any point. Our present
one gives us trouble in a heavy sea, and last year our ship was
nearly lost on a lee shore for want of?your valuable invention
of adjustibility. How much extra will you charge us for its
use?
M R. ALLEN.-M- uch obliged to you, Mr. Jones, for your
appreciation of my invention; but the truth is, that the Novelty Works have had that matter under consideration, and are
satisfied that by some ill luck they made a mistake, in recommending this thing. I assure you, Mr. Jones, it is the only
mistake we ever made, but the first time must happen to all
accidents. We are now determined to use no cut-off beyond
half-stroke.
IRM JoNEs. —But this is very remarkable.  Our engineer




was very particular about this, and told us that you had recommended the change yourself. The cut-off we now have is a-n,old-fashioned Sickels cut-off, which goes up to half-stroke only,
and that is the one which we want improved on in our new
ship. Do you really recommend us to retain that sort 
MR. ALLEN. — ot precisely. Your machine has a " daslpot;" we should call it a " controlling vessel;" and we should
"exercise our sagacity" in arranging the Itime when it would
work, so as to " radically change" the general concatenation of
the semi-spheroidal, double eccentricity of the toggle-joint in
the mainmast, so as to constitute a "valve-gear," which we
prefer to any cut-off whatever, and " which is a harmonious
whole," having " no abrupt motion" or "'sudden action."'This is very difficult to explain, Mr. Jones, but you understand.
Mr. Jones assents, of course, and retires exclaiming —What a
head!
Thus will -Mr. Jones' ship, and all others, be built till this
patent expires, without capacity to adjust during the entire
stroke; for Mr. Cutting tells us we can not compel people to
use our invention. AJnd when the laws of nature assert their
superiority over the works of man, and some unfortunate
steamer, with a precious cargo of human lives, goes ashore,
Mr. Allen will think it very strange that the opinions of the
Novelty Works are not better respected by the stormn, " that
bloweth where it listeth."
But M[r. Allen is not the first gentleman who.hlas taken consolation in cursing:the property of another, which he had
blessed when he possessed it himself. Sambo lad filched a rabbit from his master's warren, and as he carried it along under
his coat, he soliloquized thus: a Oh! fat bonny-good for stew
-good for roast-good for soup; what a supper for Dinah,and the babies!" Just then puss gave a bound, and was gqne.
Poor Sambo looked wistfully at her for a moment, and exclaimed: "Oh! go home, you half-starved, long-eared, popeyed, cotton-tailed varmint-you is enough to pizemn any one to
eat you, you is!" Gentlemen, do you think that Sambo's estimate of the value of that rabbit under these circumstances,
should control the Jury in assessing damages for its theft?
IHow true to its first pattern is human nature! The story of




36
a thousand years ago has its counterpart to-day; and in the
fable of the jackdaw  and peacock we have the type of this
case.  The jackdaw had plucked out of the peacock's tail some
feathers, and fixed them in its own. How he strutted with
these feathers, which the richness of the bird of Jove had furnished, and how his little circle rejoiced in his glory. If there
had been engraving in those days, the jackdaw would have
had a picture made of that plumage, with this inscription:
"The Jackdaw's expanding Tail."  But the peacock missed
his feathers, and the jackdaw was arraigned before the other,members of the flock.  "True it is," said the jackdaw, "I did
nlot grow these feathers myself-they came from the tail of my
friend, the well-feathered bird; but I claim  furnishing tho
mijoveable tail in which they are fixed, and I refer you to my
wtell-feathered friend to prove that he grew the feathers."  As
the investigation went on, however, feather after feather found
its way into the tail of the king bird, whose damaged plumage
showed too plainly whence they had come. The well-feathered
bird stood by, but never opened his mouth, nor made the
claim which the jackdaw had promised he would make; and
in despair the poor jackdaw at last averred that the peacock
had stolen the feathers himself. The assemblage broke up in
derision, leaving the poor jackdaw explaining to his astonished
admirers the disadvantages of long tails, and the great merit of
short feathers and plain plumage.
I am  met, gentlemen, by the extraordinary argument that
Mr. Sickels never did itse his invention with the way of lowering the valve described in his caveat;* and that, therefore,
* In this case, Mr. Sickels, in his caveat, described the very way of lowering the
valve practised by Mr. Allen, as one of the connections in which his invention
could be used. This was obvious enough to any one; but no one could be anticipated as ignorant enough to use it. When Mr. Sickels took out his patent, however, he exhibited no way of lowering his valve at all; but suggests the best wayr
though he did not describe it. His invention had nothing to do with lowering the
valve, only with liberating it from its lifter. It is now complained of that he did
not put all ways of lowering into his patent. If he had done so, he would, as an
honest man, have been bound to caution the public against this way as a bad one;
and the law does not require that. It only wants the useful things put into the patent. If an inventor were bound to put into a patent all the bad circumstances in
which he can imagine his invention to be placed by ignorance or design, volumes
swould not contain a patent. But he is only bound to show the best, and the law
will see to it that his rights are not infringed merely by using the invention in a




37
the defendants ought to pay no damages for using it in that
way. I recollect the time when I would have treated this
argument with the contempt which it deserves; but experience
has taught me a bitter lesson on that very point, in the case of
the patent of 1842, where I despised such an argument and
left it unanswered, and it killed my case. The answer is this:
the law requires the patentee to describe the best form of his
invention known to himself; and the reason of that law is,
that the public may have the best information in consideration
of the protection which they contract to give. If the inventor had put in his patent a worse form than the best, he would
have committed a fraud on the contract, by holding out to the
public a false statement. He would be equally unjust if, in
practising the invention, he should impose upon the public the
worse, when he had the better way. But how does that exctuse the infringer, who takes the invention and degrades it to
base uses? 3My horse can be ridden without a-saddle as well
as with one-he is fit for both uses. A thief steals him out of
imy stable, and rides him off bare-back. I-Ie is arrested, and
his counsel proves by me, when called to identify my property,
that I never rode the horse bare-back, but always with a saddlie-and further, that I had always carefully avoided encouraging people to use the horse that way. What a splendid plea
that would make!
The facts of this case have fallen on your minds but to create unfeigned astonishment and wonder. You, gentlemen, selected from the various walks of life, can not comprehend the
conduct of Mir. Horatio Allen, and the others who have joined
this crusade against 3Mr. Sickels; and I can not let it pass
without offering the explanation.  In the production of an
engine, there are two classes of persons needed, distinct in
their office and duties-the engine-builder and the engineer.
The former is the man who owns the shop, hires the men, and
makes the contracts; the latter the man who designs the work,
and he may be alive now or may have lived in the last generation, and have left his thoughts on paper for future use.
worse form. Men who do that are doubly knaves: first, by robbing the inventor
of his rights; and secondly, by cheating the public with an inferior article, when
the better one costs no more, and is much more valuable.




Any one can be an engine-builder who has loney, and
chooses to buy tools.and skilledlabor. It is not even necessary
to that office, that the person who exercises it should look wise,
or learm,the names of-things, and a certain jargon about " harmonious action,"  valve-gear," " perfect motion," and the like;
but:these capacities do no harm, and at times serve to impose
oh the ignorant for the real gold of knowledge.
There is no more reason why Mr. HIarper should be asked to
write poetry like Byron or novels like Bulwer, because he -manuafactures editions of those works with his tools and machinery,
than there is that the engine-builder should know any thing
about a steam engine, because his tools and machinery build
it. The parallel is just and perfect.
But the engineer is another creature. In the great scale of
being -which with God begain, there is no created intelligence
which approaches him in dignity. NText to the eternal Architect, at whose bidding the vast machine of the universe came
into being —whose cunning hand rmoulded the wondrous meOhanismn  of our frames- he stands; creating out of the airy
fabric of the brain the magic forms which never die. Look
back upon the track of time, and what survives its wreck l
Here and there upon the,strand a solitary monument of literature, of marvellous beauty —out of the millions of books
which have delighted their millions of men-survives to tell
us that tels rest have perished; but every creation of the engineer, from tilthe first dawn of day to the present hour, exists
among us. As time rolls on it but widens the circle and adds
lory;to the memory of those whose works survive them. The
names of millions have perished, but the thoughts they thought
will never die. Their blessings, like the air and light, are nowr
our daily life; but when we reflect, we know there was a time
when they did not exist, and that the art of the engineer produced them all. Civilized men have reared their monuments,
and worship-at their shrine. The splendid temple whose lofty
arohes spranlg into the skies, above the trees of the forest, and
the:palaces of kings, erected by a great nation and devoted to
them, is the world's tribute to genius-the acknowledgment of
the mastery of the mind. As I stood within its crystal walls,
and gazed into its gorgeous dome, the shadows of the mighty
dead in solemn pomp passed by. Archimedes, and Bacon,




and Watt, and Fuiton, Guttenberg, Galvani, Franklin, and
Toricelli, and a host of other immortal ones; and in shadowy
outlines their mighty works-the printing-press, the steam engine, the electric wire, the foaming steamer, the unerring compass, the roaring cannon.  The powers of thle earth attend
their footsteps —the lightnings of heaveli obey their commands.
My soul drank in the inspiration of the fairy scene, andl I felt
the dignity of my calling. Who would not join that glorious
brotherhood?  Ah! gentlemen, tcat path1 of glory is narrow
aold rough, aicl few there be who have strength to climb it.
Envy and jealousy are too heavy a load for that steep ascent.
Oppression and wrong have no place in that pure region.'Wealth can not buy-power can not command-even labor itself
can not insure access there. God-given genius must light the
road, for its path is through the dark shadows of poverty and
care, of disgrace and contempt. Yet many who have studied
only in the schools of this world, and who confound success
with merit, think that they can dare the flight. They have
seen the magic key of gold open the palaces of kings, and
command the adoration of the nmultitude, and they try that
means.  Of these is this defendant, who believes that the
power of wealth can secure his entrance. And how has he
made the effort? By crushing those who stood before him in
the path. By dragging down to the earth one of the sons of
genius, whose footstep already was on the portal which opens
to receive him. But how ignominious the failure! After the
struggle of years the circle has been run, and he has not
yet advanced a foot, and he never can. The highest glory
he claims is to have done an old t/ingy in a worse way than
Sickels; and what passport is that? 
Here, gentlemen, is the secret of this case. If Mrr. Allen
permits Mr. Sickels to live, he at once sinks to his true position,
and Mr. Sickels is the engineer: therefore his pride and vanity
say, Kill!
God in his providence does not confer all his blessings on
any one man. To Mr. Allen he has given overflowing wealth,
influential friends, exalted  station, and that other gift,
the power to do good-so rich if used, so fatal if abused.
What more ought he to desire? The flocks and herds are his,
and the cattle upon a thousand hills. Why should he seize the




40
little ewe lamb of this poor man?  How I envy him his blessings! How I would invite the struggling sons of genius to mny
arms! How I would supply their wants, and aid their steps!
How would I grow rich in the blessings of the grateful ones,
whose aspirations I had given to the day, and whose weary
path I had made light! And how the march of improvement
should keep step with the sun in his coming; not go backwards
and downwards, as now it does, like the sun in his setting.
The history of this litigation has been wrliten before it was
acted. It is the history of the litigation of W~att, with one exception, which is that Watt had some money and Sickels none.
Permit me to read it to you out of the work of Bourne on the
the steam engine.
"By some infirmity of human nature, mene who respect the
rights of other property, will often seize without compunctionl
upon that which has sprung out of the highest order of mental
exertion; and of all manufacturers, there is no kind vllose
wares are paid for with as much reluctance as the manufal(ture of ideas.  The Cornish miners paid the proportion ot
savings due to the patentees with the unwillingness natural to
men who conceive that nothing had been done to earn sueci:
rewards, and many of them eagerly sought for a pretense
to break the agreement into which they had entered. Thexcountenanced and supported a set of pirates who left no mean3l->
untried to wriest Mr. Watt's invention from his grasp; and so
formidable did this confederacy become, that in the imperfect
state of the patent law which then obtained, MIr. Watt appears
to have entertained serious doubts of his ability to maintain Iiii.
rights. The machinations of the cabal reached a head in 17,95,
in which year an action was begun against a Mr. Bull, by
whom several of the mine-owners were represented, for the erection of an engine on Mr. Watt's plan. The pirates contended,
as is usually done in the lack of a better argument, that t~he
patent was informal from the want of precision in the specification, a dishonorable plea at the best, for no honest person wouldi
attempt to seize upon the property of another, merely on account of a technical flaw in the title. Two of the judges.
however, called Buller and IHeath, thought this pitiful objection of weight; though Lord Chief Justice Eyre and Rooke
looked upon it as immaterial.  As the court was divided




41
eqfually no judgment was given; and this being looked upon
as a sort of defeat, several other infringements were begun. In
1779, however, the patentees commenced another action of
infringement in the Court of Common Pleas, which on
this occasion was against Messrs. Hornblower and Maberly,
and a verdict was given for the plantiffs. A similar case was
tried in the Court of King's Bench, and the Judges there were
unanimous in supporting the rights of the patentees against
the cupidity of the litigious highwaymen who aspired to legalize their robberies. It is incomprehensible to us how a man
of ingenuity, which Hornblower certainly was, could descend
to sucll arts as attempting to rob a brother mechanic of the
fruits of his ingenuity and perseverance; and we are still more
at a loss to account for the bitter hostility displayed by Braman
throughout these trials; who tried hard to make it clear that
Mr. Watt had no right to any patent whatever! If Mr. Watt
had no such right, who, in the name of Heaven, ever had?
And of what rich gifts would not universal humanity have
been defrauded if Watt had been discouraged from proceeding
further at the commencement of his career of improvement!
It is the steam engine, says a kindred spirit, that fought the
battles of Europe, and which now enables us to maintain the
Iarduous struggle in which we are still engaged with countries
less oppressed with taxation; so that upon the slender thread
of Watt's prosperity, which a court of law might have readily
severed, hung the welfare of nations and the repose of the world.
Fortunately for human nature, Watt's puny rival, Braman,
was not his judge; and the difficulties thrown in his path, as
they were insufficient to impede his progress, only stimulated
his powers to more active exertion."
For Watt read Sickels, and for Braman, Allen, and the record is complete, up to this hour. Whether success shall crown
our efforts, as it did his, is for you to decide.
Gentlemen, you have heard from his own lips, the story of
this inventor's life. It is the old story; the world knows it by
heart. It is written in the blood of the martyrs in this holy
cause, in every age since the world began. It is inscribed on
the marble monuments reared by succeeding.generations, in
cold mockery of the embittered life and melancholy death of
thle public benefactors of the last. We have learned it in our




school-books, and we see it in our streets. Our blood grows hot
with indignation as we read thle record of the past; but like the
Pharisees of old, we bear witness unto ourselves that we are
the sons of those who stoned the prophets, for we let them die
in our midst. The story is soon told: toil-poverty-disease
-contemlpt-' The law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,"
make up the melancholy catalogue. Ilope that comes to all,
has nearly died out, or only flickers a baleful light to cast a
gleam  on the desolation around. There he stood. Disease
has left its pallor on his cheek-poverty and care its ftrrows on
his brow. But when they hunted him to the wall he turned.
How my heart bounded in sympathy and unison with his!
The wretclled present faded from his view; the long years of
hope deferred, of poverty, disease, and death were gone, and
the dream of happier days rose before his mind with all its
pristine freshness. The temple of fame, whose radiant donles
have been so imperishably traced on the living canvas of one of
our own great painters, grew near and bright before his vision,
and he heard the music of the immortal choir, which ever
sings the praise of genius in its eternal aisles. "I meant (said
he) to do a thing which, when the fight was over, and I had
gone, should yet live. I meant to leave a record to my children which would not disgrace them."  Ah! gentlemen, there
you have the whole secret of the inventor's hope. The golden
apples which his genius planted, which his tears and his lifeblood watered, have turned into ashes for him; but there is
a hereafter where the robber can not come  there is another
little life which will breathe his name when he is gone, and
yet feel the joy denied him now I
3But a few words more, and I am done. I stand here not as
t.he counsel, but the friend of this inventor. We are bound
together in a bond of friendship, which I trust will never be
severed till the grave breaks its links. I have sworn to have
justice for him; and I will have it. I have asked it mildly of
the oppressor, and he refused with contempt. I now demand
it here. I may fail now, for I klnow the mighty power arrayed
against us, and I know from sad experience that the law is




43
"still for the strong too weak, the weak too strong."  But I will
never give up the pursuit as long as I have a dollar to spend
or energy to act. Others have aided me, and I thank them
from the bottom of my heart. MNly noble friend, whose invaluable advice and services I have had, has performed a labor of
love; and it is right that you should know it. It is one of the
privileges of his profession, that its professors enjoy, to vindicate the right and rebuke the oppressor, for the sake of justice
and truth alone; and it is a privilege to be prized and nobly
used, as he has used it.
But, gentlemen, to you we must look for the fruits of our
efforts. By your verdict you can repulse this injured man,
and send him back again more desolate than ever, to the
tender mercies of his oppressors. But that is no great matter
-men die, broken-hearted, every day in our mii4st, and the
world goes on; we eat, and drink, and are happy.  One, more
or less, is no matter. And besides, he has not much hope: that
flame of life is almost expended in himn; and I have not fanned
its embers on the hearth. Once before we were just as right,
and just as sure as now, and failed.
But there is a wider significance to your verdict than this.
You are deciding the most important cause which you ever
heard. You are proclaiming to the sons of genius, struggling
against adversity and oppression, that there is a sanctuary of
safety for them-a refuge for the hunted head-that
- " Power at these bounds
"Stops and calls back her baffled hounds;"
Or you are surrendering themu to the tyrant's power, and proclaiming that there is no hope for them  when wealth and
cupidity combine against them, and pride and vanity cry
havoc, and let slip the dogs of  war. Which will you do?
We await your verdict in trembling suspenwe.




C H AR G E.
At the close of the argument, the Court adjournzed till
the next day, when his Honor Jfudge Nelson cha~rged the
fury as follows:
GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY: This case having been so thoroughly examined by the learned counsel for the respective
parties, I am persuaded you are already familiar with every
fact and principle which are essential to an intelligent determination of it, and shall consider my duty discharged aftel
directing your attention to the material important questions
involved, divesting the case of irrelevant and immaterial matters that have been drawn into it in the -course of the trial.
The first question to which your attention should be directed
is the construction of the patent-is to ascertain the invention
of Mr. Sickels-h-ist discovery described in the specification.
and the right to the enjoyment of which has been secured under the act of Congress. This is essential, in the first place, inl
order to enable you to ascertain the extent of the right under
the patent; and in the second, to determine whether or not
the machine or arrangement of the defendant violates this
right. To aid you in the course of this investigation, it will be
advisable, in the first instance, to look at the principle of this
new arrangement of machinery, the new set of ideas involved
in this discovery, and which, it is claimed, have been embodied into a working machine, and adapted to practical use.




45
An examination of the invention in this respect, will more
clearly bring out that which the plaintiff claims to have discovered and described in his patent. It is stated by the patentee,
both in his patent and in his testimony upon the trial, (and there
seems to be no controversy among the experts respecting it,)
that previousto September, 1845, (the date of the patent,) the
valve-stem, which was used for the purpose of disengaging
and dropping the valve, and thereby cutting off the steam
firom  the cylinder, was disengaged by the motion of the
lifter of the valve; and that, as a consequence of this, there
was a difficulty in cutting off the steam beyond the halfstroke; and, as stated by the patentee, a nice and difficult
adjustment was required in order to effect the separation at
that point. To remedy this difficulty, is the purpose of this
improvement. The patentee gives up the lifting motion, which
had before been used for tripping the valve, and substitutes in
its place a motion' of the engine independent of this lifting
motion. In his particular arrangement described, and which
is embodied in the model presented, he takes the motion from
the eccentric strap at right angles to the usual valve motion,
and detaches the valve by that motion —through the instrumentality of the proper machinery-by means of a vibrating
sector operating upon an arm or wiper. This arrangement presents to the mind a new set of ideas, which constitutes the subject-matter of this invention. It is new, according to all the
experts. Previous to this, as we have already said, the motion
to trip had been taken from the lifter, and therefore it required
a new development and application of power, for the purpose
of avoiding the difficulty arising out of the use of the motion
of the lifting-rod. This power of the eccentric had not before
been applied for the purpose and object of the patentee. The
novelty of the invention consists in the new set of ideas by
which the patentee saw the possibility of dispensing with the
lifting motion as a means of detaching the valve and allowing
it to drop, and in deriving power from some other part of the
engine. He took it from the eccentric strap, and adapted it
to his purposes by a motion and arrangement of machinery
independent of and uncontrolled by the lifting motion. The
improvement, however, does not limit the patentee to the motion or power derived from the eccentric strap, for he says that




46
it may be taken from any other moving part of the engine,
always excluding the motion from the lifting-rod. That these
ideas were new, was conceded by all the experts, as we understand the evidence. I agree with the learned counsel for the
defendant, that the mere discovery of the fact of deriving power for the tripping of the valve from the' eccentric strap, or
from any other moving part of the engine not controlled by
the lifting-rod, would not constitute the subject of a patent,
although the idea was new; it is, however, the foundation upon
which the improvement rests, and without which it would not
hlave been discovered. The new set of ideas which of themselves are not the subject of a patent, in order to become,
patentable, must be embodied into working machinery, and
adapted to practical use. It is this embodiment and operation
of machinery for practical purposes which furnish beneficial
results to the public, and render the discovery patentable.
This has been effected by the arrangement of machinery whichl
appears in the models presented by the plaintiff-the machinery
worked by the eccentric strap by means of intervening arms
and levers, which, acting and controlling the arm or wiper,.
operate to detach the valve. This combination of machinery
embodied the new ideas of the patentee, and adapted them to
practical use, and thus rendered them the proper subject of a
patent.
Many parts of the gear or machinery necessary for workinga steam engine, and which have been brought out in the progress of this trial in the models produced by the parties, have
no necessary bearing upon this controversy-the patent is simply for an arrangement of machinery to control the tripping of
the valve. Of course, for the practical working of the machinery, it is necessary that a system of nlachinery or some contrivance
should be interposed to take care of tie valve in its descent to its
seat to prevent its breaking to pieces. But that is a different.
arrangement in the working of a steam engine when complete.
The simple detachment of the valve-stem from the lifter, is but
one of several parts. The easing of the valve to its seat so as to
prevent slamming or damage to the valve and the engine
generally, is essential, but has nothing to do with the contrivance for effecting the detachment. Different persons may prefer different modes for easing the valve, after it is detached, to




47
its seat. One of the several contrivances possible you saw in
the machine or model of the defendant. In this machine the
valve is eased down by the arm of the sector. Another contrivance (which is the favorite one of the patentee, and the
one to which he refers in his patent) is the water-dash pot-a,close vessel containing water, which checks the valve in its
rapid descent to its seat. By the contrivance of Mr. Corlies,
(which has been before this Court,) the valve is eased to its seat
by compressed air. There may be many other contrivances
for the same purpose. Suffice it to say that these contrivances
have nothing whatever to do with this controversy: hence it is
not important for you to inquire which of the several arrangements is best.
The patentee having discovered that he could trip the valve
~by a motion independent of the lifting motion, and therefore
not controlled by that motion, it is very obvious that such independent motion may be used to trip it at any desirable point
of the stroke of the piston, because it is an independent motion,
(as was very well said by one of tile experts,) a positive motion
used for tripping; and therefore it may be used at the discretion of the engineer, or of the person constructing the machinery to cut off the steam, to detach the valve at any point of the
stroke of the piston that may be the most useful. This fact led
to the second claim in the patent, that by the interposition of.a sector and the arms by which it could be worked, the engineer is enabled by the peculiar contrivance, to detach the
valve at any point of the stroke of the piston at will, during the
operation of the engine. In the progress of the trial it has
been suggested, and to some extent urged by the counsel for
the defense, that there was no noveity in this arrangement.
This is a question of fact for the Jury to determine, upon a
view of all the evidence in the case. The Court will not review the evidence, because all the experts called, both for the
plaintiff and defendant, conceded that the idea of taking the
power to detach the valve from an independent motion of the
engine, exclusive of the inotion of the lifter, was new; and
all admitted that it was valuable. After these unqualified concessions by the witnesses for defendants themselves, it is unnecessary to enter into an examination of this question. Whether MIr. Bennet had this idea, is immaterial, since, according




48
to his own testimony in the case, whatever improvements he
devised and put into operation on the Dispatch, were abandoned, and his machinery sold tor old iron, after a partial
trial. After this, it were idle, and a waste of time, to follow
out any inquiry respecting the organization of that machine.
The next inquiry is, whether or not the new set of ideas lying
at the foundation of the plaintiff's claim, and embodied and
adapted to practical purposes, has also been embodied in the
model or machines of the defendant, or, in other words, in the
tripping apparatus of the Metropolis. If the plaintiff's ideas
have not been embodied there, there is no infringement, and
the plaintiff is not entitled to recover. If they have been,
then there has been an appropriation of his property, (provided
his ideas have been embodied in a practical machine,) and he
is entitled to your verdict.
It was urged by the learned counsel for the defense, upon
the basis of the testimony of the experts, especially that of MIr.
Allen, that the defendant's arrangements, connections, and
combinations of machinery for tripping the valve and permitting it to drop to its seat, must be taken together as a whole;
that the entire arrangement and combination are essential for
the working of the machinery, and that therefore it is not to be
separated into parts, in determining whether or not it is an
infringement of the plaintiff's invention. This may be taken
as correct, but with this qualification: that if, in an examination of the defendant's combination, the.peculiar arrangement
and improvement of the plaintiff is found embodied and working there as in the plaintiff's arrangement, however it may be
surrounded and combined with other machinery, the plaintiff's
discovery is appropriated the same as if used alone and separate from those connections; and it will be the duty of the
Jury to determine whether there is in the combination and
arrangements of the defendant, any such incorporation of the
plaintiff's new set of ideas lying at the foundation of his invention.
The new form of the machinery embodying the new ideas,
is not a material part of the plaintiff's invention, for the reason
that the embodiment of his principle or ideas into working
machinery, is rather the work of the skillful mechanic than
that of the inventor.




49
Many inventors of improvements in machinery, because not
mechanics themselves, are obliged to obtain the aid of skillful
mechanics in embodying their principles or new ideas into
practical working machinery; and different mechanics would
perhaps embody them by different machinery, and by differont arrangements or combinations of machinery-all, however, subject to the principles and ideas of the inventor.
Hence the mere form of machinery must be disregarded, and
the Jury must look into the substance of the arrangement and
method of working for the purpose of seeing whether the ideas
of the inventor are incorporated into it. If they are, the patent is infringed.
One of the defendant's experts, an Apparently intelligent
(Engineer, inferred that the defendant's arrangement was substantially differehit from that of the plaintiff, because by following out the specification of the plaintiff, (which minutely
described the construction of his apparatus,) he could not make
the machine or the arrangement used by the defendant. This
proposition is also embodied in one of the prayers of the counsel for the defense, but its unsoundness is obvious upon established principles of the patent law, which declares that,formal chcanges of machinery do not evade the patent. Iowever different, apparently, the arrangements and combinations
of a machine may be from the machine of an inventor, it may
in reality embody his invention, and be as much an infringeTnent as if it were a servile copy of the plaintiff's machine.
According to the patent law, if the machine complained of
involves substantial identity with the one patented, it can not
be upheld. If the invention of a patentee be a machine, it
will be infringed by a machine which incorporates in its structure and operation, the substance of the invention, that is, by
an arrangement which performs the same service or produces
the, same effect in the same way or substantially the same
way.
In a case before the King's Bench in England, Chief Justice
Tindall made the following observations, with every word of
which I agree:
" Where a party has obtained a patent for a new invention,
or a discovery which he has made by his own ingenuity, it is
not in the power of any other person simply by varying in




form or in immaterial circumstances the nature or subject-matter of that discovery to obtain either a patent for it himself, or
to use it without the leave of the patentee, because that would
be in effect and substance an invasion of his right." The
Chief Justice therefore says to the Jury: "What you have to
look at for the present occasion, is not simply whether in form
or in circumstances that which has been done by the defendants varies from the specification of the plaintiff's patent, but
you are to see whether in reality, in substance, and in effect,
the defendants have availed themselves of the plaintiff's invention in order to make that fabric which thev have sold in
the way of their trade."
One machine is the same in substance as another, if the
principle be the same in both. The form of the machine may
be different.
Lord Chief Justice Gibbs says:
"Iremember that was the expedient used by a man in
Cornwall, who endeavored to pirate the steam engine. He
produced an engine which, on the first view of it, had not
the least resemblance to that of Bolton & Watt, who were
the patentees. Where you looked for the head you found the
feet, and where you looked for the feet you found the head;
but it turned out that he had taken the principle of Bolton &
Watt. It acted as well one way as another; but if you set it
upright, it was exactly Bolton & Watt's invention. I make
this observation because I observe it is stated that one acts upwards and the other acts downwards. One commences from
the bottom, and produces the lace by an upward operation.
The other acts from above, and produces it by an operation
downwards."
But the Chief Justice says that if the principle be the same,
it must be considered the same invention. These are the principles by which the Jury will be guided in an examination of
the contrivance of the defendant, which is claimed to be an
infringement, and to embody the new ideas, the principle, the
method of working, which is to be found in the arrangement of
the machinery of the patentee. As the Court has already said,
after a principle has been discovered, after a new -set of ideas
have been struck out by genius and thought, as in this case,
their embodiment in machlinery, their adaptation to the work



ing out of practical results contemplated by the inventor, is
very much the work of the skillful mechanic. And any man
in the field of discovery, after becoming acquainted with the
ideas of an inventor, might in many cases work them out in a
manner and by machinery very different from the arrangement preferred or used by the inventor, but his merit would be
far less than that of the pioneer who had explored and developed to the community all that was new and valuable, as in
the case before us, the use of a motion independent of the motion of the lifter, for the purpose of detaching the valve.
It will now remain for the Jury, in view of all the facts in the
case, and in view- of the general principles which the Court
has endeavored to explain, to say whether or not the plaintiff's
invention, in substance, is to be found incorporated in the arrangement and combination of the defendant. If it is, it will
be their duty to find a verdict for the plaintiff; otherwise, for
the defendant. The only question remaining for the consideration of the Jury, is that of damages. There are two modes of
arriving at these in the case of an infringement.
If the patentee has an established price in the market for a
patent-right, or what is called his patent-fee, that sum, with the
interest, constitutes the measure of damages. If the patentee
has not any established price for a patent-fee, then you are to
inquire as to the loss or injury which he has sustained by reason of the infringement, and, as stated by the counsel, the pro-'fits which the infringer has made by the use of the invention
of the plaintiff, may be taken as the measure of damages. Of
course the defendant can not complain of that, because, if in
fact he was an infringer, he has been using the property of the
plaintiff, and whatever profits he has made out of it, belong in
equity to the owner. It is a question here, whether or not
there has been an established patent-fee for this improvement
proved by the evidence. There is evidence that the patentee
sold one of his patent-rights in Philadelphia, for $250, and that
he sold another in Baltimore, for $500.  Eie sold several rights
to the Government, at the rate of $12.50 per cubic foot, which,
applied to the Metropolis, upon the evidence, would amount
to about $9000.  As it respects the $250 and the $500, you
have the explanation of the patentee himself. His object in
selling' at such prices, he says, was to get, the invention




52
into public use, and that he made sacrifices of what he deemed
its real value on this account, that the public might see the
successful working of his improvement. Undoubtedly this
circumstance is not peculiar to the plaintiff-this account is
perhaps the history of most inventions on their first introduction to public notice and use.  It requires effort, influence, and
sacrifice on the part of the inventor, to introduce them to the
public notice, so that they may acquire the confidence of the
community. The public are distrustful of new inventions,
and rightfully so: not one out of one hundred issued at the
present day is worth, in my judgment, the parchment upon
which it is written.  It is only now and then a valuable improvement is produced, and it soon becomes the subject of
litigation and contest; and even the most meritorious require
time, effort, influence, and sacrifice of money, to bring them
to the notice of the public. And it is quite proper that these
views should be taken into account upon the question of the
patent-fee. If the Jury are satisfied that it was sold less than
the real value of it, upon the views stated by the patentee, and
that sacrifices were made for the sake of introducing it into
public use, these considerations should be taken into the account in case of determining the measure of damages by the
patent-fee.  It is important that the Jury should take into account the fact that if they adopt the price of the patent-fee,
whatever they may determine that fee to be upon the evidence
in the case, it will operate to vest the title of the patent to the
extent of its use in the Metropolis throughout its term; and
they should state whether they adopt the patent-fee or the profits from the use of the inventions as the measure of damages;
for in the former case the title passes, and in the latter case it
does not pass, and your verdict will be for a compensation for
the use of the invention during the sixty days' use before the
suit.*$ The foundation upon which the statute of the United States respecting patents
rests, is the following provision of the Constitution, in which Congress is authorized"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."
It will be observed that the Constitution recognizes the " exclusive right" which
an author or inventor has to the creations of his own intellect and labor, as existing




The Court has considered the several prayers of the learned
counsel for the defense, and has given what instructions are
before and above any positive law whatever, and that it does not propose to
" grant " any such right, but only to " secure " it to those who already own it. And
this is self-evidently the true position, as no man is under the least obligation to
communicate to others the creations of his brain, but may enjoy them "exclusively "
till with him they are lost in the grave. Therefore, Congress is authorized to
"secure," by suitable statutes, the " exclusive right," so as to induce inventors to
make the discoveries they otherwise would keep secret, in order that "the progress
of science and useful arts " may be promoted.
Under this authority, Congress enacted the statute of 1836; and by its provisions
the inventor is vested, " for a term not exceeding fourteen years, [with] the full and
exclusive right of making, using, and vending to others to be used, the said invention
or discovery;" and the Courts are authorized to protect this " exclusive " enjoyment, both by injunction and by compensation in the nature of damages.
It will be seen in this case, by studying the law as it is correctly announced by
his Honor Judge Nelson, in conformity with the decisions of the Supreme Court,
that the " exclusive right " of an inventor to make and to sell his invention, is held
to mean, that any infringer may take it at,pleasure, paying for it whatever a jury
may say is the price at which the inventor would have sold it to an honest purchaser who recognized his title, and who would pay that price, without the expense,
delay, and vexation of a lawsuit. In this particular case, the verdict of the Jury
did not work a transfer of the title of Mr. Sickels to the Metropolis, but it was ill
their power to have done so, as the Court now holds the law, simply by finding a
verdict for some price, (say $250,) and stating that such price was for the patentfee. If they had found such a verdict, the Court ruled that the title would have
passed to the owner of the Metropolis: so that whatever had happened to the
inventor, by the lawsuit, the infringer would have got out of any trouble. The'e eclusive right" to "vend to others to be used," an invention, so solemnly " secured " by Constitution and by statute to an inventor, therefore means, that a Court
and Jury may, at their discretion, " vend it to others to be used," at whatever price
theyr may think fit to fix.
In civilized Europe, the machine which is found to be an infringement of an
existing patent, is decreed to be destroyed or confiscated, and the infringer must
pay all damage and costs. But here, by the magic of a verdict against him, an
infringer becomes suddenly transformed from a "pirate," into an honest owner of
a patented invention, duly paid for by a few words written in the minutes of some
Court, a true copy of which will at any time, when produced, establish his title and
prove to the satisfaction of every one but the plundered patentee, that the " exclusive right to vend to others to be used," thatparticular invention, is one of the commonest rights in the country, in the " exclusive " enjoyment of which any one may
share at pleasure. (Quere.-Would an infringer be better off by a verdict in his
favor?)
It is, perhaps, a proper occasion to notice the great difference between the rights
of inventors and authors, although both stand on the same foundation. Authors
have conferred on them for forty-two years the " exclusive " right to their works;
and the Courts have no hesitation in confiscating and destroying any book which
infringes a copyright; whereas, inventors have only an " exclusive " title for four_




54
deemed to belong properly to the case; and those, not given in
accordance with the prayers, may be considered as overruled,
or regarded as irrelevant.
The- following  named gentlemen. composed the jMury;:
LOUIS MATHERi,                      ID)VID HOLImES,
PHImAIWERZV vE S    X'.RB,         JoHN B. McPuansox,
WILLIA   P. HILLIARIY,              BARENT V. S. GARRETT,
EDWARD T. DUGAN,                    EZRA LUDLOW,
JOIN F. SoIr,;                      ABAaaM  MAZE,
PHILIP HARDY,                       BEN.JAIIN. C. WVENDELL;.
who: retired after the; charge of the Court, and returned a
verdict of $720' damages- for, sixty days' use of the patented improvement on the steamer Metropolis.
teen years, and that, oQnly " excludes " those, who, frolum the pressure of other business, have no timne or desire to avail themselves of the state of the law, and to take
it. A book, however, is mot. valuable to its author and to the public, during the
first few years; of its existence, and practically, a forty-two years' monopoly ex-,
hausts the entire value of the property, and leaves nothing to the public; but an'nvention grows more and more valuable every year, and commonly is of no value,
either- to its author, or to the public, during the fourteen years of the patent. The
copyright to e~ey:- book: writte  during the life of Watt, would not now be worth
one millionth part ofa, patent for hisinvention, and the disproportion grows greater
every day. The copyright in a book is a pyramid of which the author takes the
base, and generally the whole mass to: the apex, leaving to the public, in compensation for its protection, nothing, or at most a small pQint, which soon tapers out to
nothing; but a patent is the same pyramid1 in which the inventor, for his share, has
the apex, leaving to. the public the base,. wbhi ever spreads out, growing and increasing till the day of doom.,
What justice or sense: is, there in this distinction between authors and inventors, so made by statute.? and above all, why should Courts aggravate the ills under
which inventors labor?  Surely it is time that, Congress came tqthe relief of inventors, and gave them some, better protection than this I




APPENDIX.
LETTERS written a year ago in the hope of detaching the " Bay State
Steamboat Company" from Horatio Allen, and of inducing them, without a law-suit, to do justice to Mr. Sickels. Under Mr. Allen's promises
of support, they chose his side of the contest; and I never could get
an answer to my letters from them, or an interview with him or with
Mr. Smith, in the presence of the parties they had so grossly misled.
It will be seen that I have fulfilled, to the letter, the promise I then
made, to prove my assertions true in a court of justice, if this cause
ever came to trial.
NEW-YOR,. Dec. 10, 1855, No. 57 Chambers st.
COL. BORDEN, President Fall River Steamboat Co., Etc. 
DEAR SIR: From some remarks made by you during our recent
casual interview in New-York, I am satisfied that whenever you will
take the trouble to look into the matter for yourself, even to a very
limited extent, you will be convinced of the justice of Mr. Sickels'
claims to consideration as an improver of the steam engine; and that
you will appreciate the importance of availing yourself of his inventions in your boats. I therefore have determined to make a statement to you, the truth of which you can easily prove; which, I think,
will induce you to change your policy in regard to your steamers.
First. There are four improvements upon the engine of the Metropolis which distinguish that machine from engines made twenty years
ago, and without which it would only differ from them in its greater
size, and superior finish. These are:
1st. The arrangement of the steam-valve gear, whereby the steamnvalve is closed to effect the cut-off at any part of the stroke desired, by
a motion derived from an eccentric on the main shaft of the engine.
2d. The arrangement of' the exhaust-valve gear so that a greater
vacuum is obtalned, and the engine secured against accident from sudden stoppages, or from working water.




56
3d. The arrangement of the hand-gear, so that one man can work
that large engine as easily as he can the smallest stationary engine.
4th. The balanced packing of the piston, whereby the friction of the
piston is taken off from the engine, while at the same time leaking is
effectually prevented.
Besides these, I believe there is no peculiarity of construction on
the Metropolis engine. Of course the " silver dial" clock, the revolution counter, the unhooking-gear to act in case the engine should go
to pieces, the polished steam-chest with its silver plate, and such like
traps (all of which serve some good purpose) do not contribute to the
better working of the engine.
To whose genius are you indebted for these four improvements? I
suppose you have never been told that they are Mr. Sickels' invelntions; but such is the truth   About the last three there is no question
by any one; although in an article published in the Franklin Journal
in July last, signed " E. W. S.," the hand-gear is praised, but the name
of its inventor is not mentioned. Mr. Smith will tell you that Mr.
Sickels gave him the ideas for all three of these improvements. For
two of them-the hand-gear and balanced packing-patents have not
yet been obtained, and, therefore, no claim in lawt can be made against
you for them; but in justice, Mr. Sickels is entitled to have the credit,
if not the profit, and I am sure that you will not deny that to him.
For the exhaust-toe, a patent was granted in 1844, many years in advance of the age.
As to the cut-off there is a question made by Mr. Allen, whether
the one on the Metropolis is like that patented by Mr. Sickels; but
there is no question that in the year 1845 he patented doing that very
thing now done on the Metropolis. I inclose the claim of his patent
to you, and if you will read it to your engineer, who has never heard
of it that I know of, and ask him if that does not describe the very
thing the cut-off of the Metropolis does, I have no doubt he will tell
you it does. Indeed, you can see for yourself that it does.
But if the patent of Sickels does not cover that cut-off on the Metropolis, it is because they have applied it so badly that but a part of thebenefit which it ought to yield is realized, and the rest is lost; and
the defense taken by Mr. Allen is, that this cut-off works so imperfectly, in comparison with the Sickels plan, that it can not be said to
be the same thing. By looking at the "indicator cards" taken from
the Metropolis by me and sent to you, you will see that 140-horse
power at least is lost by the manner in which the engine lowers its
valve, after it is detached from the lifters; which manner of lowering
the valves is the invention of Mr. Allen, and to accomplish which he
uses the invention of Mr. Sickels to detach the valves from the lifters
in order that they may be lowered.
In making these statements I do not desire you to consider Mr.
Sickels responsible for the bungling manner in which his different inventions have been applied to your boat. Infringers never get the
idea as perfectly as the inventor; and in applying it without the aid
of his personal superintendence, they generally lose half of its value;
especially in so delicate a machine as a steam engine, where the mind




57
which directs must possess the power to follow and see the operation
of the invisible agent through its dark channels, with as much clearness as if it were visible, and could be weighed in a balance. In applying these four inventions to your boat, the usual result appearsnot one is properly applied, although they all embody the inventions.
Thus the cut-off loses probably 300-horse power which is paid for in
coal, and which costs about $50 a trip; that is, if the cut-off were properly applied, the engine would run at the same speed as now with
a:bout ten tons less coal a trip. Still it saves over the worst forms of'
cut-of, and so is an advantage; that is, the boat might be worse if a
very bad fly cut-off were put on. The exhaust-toe arrangement saves
only 23-horse power, as they have applied it. For ten dollars it can
be made to save 40-horse power, simply by altering the proportions
a little. The hand-gear, in place of balancing all the weight of the
mloving parts, only balances the valves and rods, leaving the starting
bar out of its influence. It would cost no more to make it right than
wrong. It is right on the ferry-boat Colden, where iMr. Sickels applied it for experiment at his own expense. The balanced piston pack-ing, I am told, is not used, because they do not know how to adjust it.
If so, not less than 20-horse power is lost there, (which ought not to
be,) either by too much friction, or by leakage of steam past the
piston.
You will be told that all these improvements are of no value!
Why then did they put them on the boat?  You will be told that the
difference between the results when the exhaust-toes are up or down
can not be counted in revolutions. That is true as they have it; but
why? Twenty-three-horse power is about one per cent. of the actual
power, which is the same as five ounces of steam on the boiler. The
variation of pressure is more than that during the time of any count
you can make; so that for five minutes you can not see the difference.
Yet, it is certainly true that 23-horse power more is constantly being
created on the engine, and that its effect is felt. MlIr. Allen will tell you
that where two "cards" are taken from the same engine by the same
indicator, (supposing it to be in order,) the difference shown upon
them is the actual difference in power.
Now, sir, I desire you to ascertain by inquiry of Mi[r. Smith or
others, whether all this is not true. Ask the people who are most
interested, to deny it; they are good enough witnesses for me. Ask
them to put their names to paper denying any one statement made
in this letter, and give it to me in writing. If it is true, I have this
proposition to make: Mr. Sickels shall release you from all claims,
and shall license you to use all of his inventions on the Metropolis,
provided you permit him to apply his improvements as they ought to
be applied to that boat, and pay the shop bills, at any shop you may
select, for doing the necessary work, he giving his time to the work'and asking nothing for himself. If you will do that, your boat shall
run the same time she does now for twenty per cent. less coal than
now; and in doing it no alteration shall be made, which Mr. Smith
disapproves of. The cost of making the necessary changes will not
exceed probably $2000; which the boat will save in sixty days in fuel.




I mnake this offer to show you that both Mr. Sickels and I are actuated by a desire to promote your interest, and the cause of science;
and that in selecting you as defendant in suits, whose chief object
is to establish the truth of what I here state, we have only done so
because your liberality has produced the largest and finest boat in the
world, exhibiting at the same time in the strongest possible light the
ignorance of infringers, and the injury which that ignorance is daily
inflicting upon the commerce of the country-thus affording a conspicuous mark at which to direct the arrows of truth.
If, however, you feel bound to encourage coal companies by burning
as much of their products as possible, we can only ask you to pay a
fair price for the improvements which you do use in their most imperfect form, and must look further to find some one else whose means
of paying for fuel are more limited than yours, and who, therefore,
will feel some interest in saving a fifth part of what he otherwise
would consume.
As a preliminary step towards making up your mind, I would suggest that you address a note to my friend, Mr. Horatio Allen, and to
Mr. Smith, stating that you are informed that by applying a perfect
Sickels cut-off to the Metropolis, instead of the mongrel one now there,
a considerable saving of steam could be effected; and that the present
cut-off wire draws the steam, by the slow closing of the valves, so that
at the moment of closing, the pressure has been reduced to about 12
lbs. in the cylinder from 21 lbs. in the boiler, thereby requiring much
more steam to do the same work; and requesting their opinions in
writing whether or not your information is correct; and asking them
whether the cut-off now on the Metropolis is the best known cut-off,
and whether Sickels' is not the best. If you will do that, I have no
doubt of the result, because both of these gentlemen have frankly admitted to me that they knew Sickels' cut-off was the most economical
one in the world, and I ant sure that neither of them will put his hand
to a contrary statement in writing. As to how much it will save,
that is a matter of calculation; but Mr. Allen and Mr. Smith will
both admit, I have no doubt, after examining the cards taken on the
boat, that it can not be less than 150-horse power, and most probably
will be 300-horse power.
We ask no greater credit for our statements than we can demonstrate them to be entitled to; and we are willing to be brought to
the most rigorous test which can be applied by those gentlemen,
whose judgment you have adopted in building your boat.
I write this letter, not as the counsel of Mr. Sickels, but as his
friend, esteeming him justly for those qualities of mind which have
placed him as far above any other engineer of this day, as Watt was
above any engineer of his; and for those qualities of heart which constitute him one of the purest and most disinterested men I have ever
known.
Nor do I wish you to consider me as giving expression to other
men's opinions. They are my own-not gained in a lawyer's office,
but by close study of the subject itself, scientifically and practicallyat one time earning wages for running an engine, which I did in order




to perfect my knowledge of details, and since industriously pursuing
the:investigation both here and in Europe, for the love of the science
itself. I speakl, therefore, as an engineer, and what I promise I' think
I can convince any other engineer can be performed, by demonstration whose truth all will admit.
Respectfully,
-Your obedient'servant,
EDWARD N. DICKRERSON.
NEw-YOREK Dec. 12, 1855.
DEAR SIR: Since writing'the inclosed letter,' have seen Mr. Horatio Allen, and submitted to him the calculations, and the cards upon
which its statements were miade.:He thought the ofer I have made
was a fair one, and ought to be acted on. I-have sent him a copy of
the inclosed letter, and requested him  to make any objections to it
which he could in writing; so that if:there is any error it can easily
be corrected.
I have also taken the trouble to calculate the power of the Metropolis, from the card published-by Mr. Smith in the iWanklin Jdournal
for'July, and the result I send you. That card shows a mean pressure of 26.1S lbs., using a cylinder full of steam at 15 lbs. pressure.
The same power can be had with Sickels' cut-off, by using:a cylinder
full at 12 lbs., as shown by the figures under No. 2. Mr. Smith or
Mr. Allen will admit the truth of these calculations.  The saving will.
be then 20 per cent. in steam and fuel, to get the same steam-pressure.
T-hen -we sBhould get -oneanld a half pounds better vacuum than now,
which is equal to 120-horse power.  Now they have to pour oil into
the boilers twice a day, in order to keep down the water from foaming
over. The difficulty arises from the fact that the valves are kept open
for so long a time as to draw water from the boilers.  This operation
you will understand if you open the gauge-cock of a boiler in which
the water is lower than the cock. At first only steam comes out, but
if you leave open the cock a little while, water comes. In an engine,
the same result happens on a larger scale.  When the engine takes
steam  for a short time, no water comes; but if you keep drawing
twice -as long, it does. The Metropolis, for instance, keeps her valve
open and wire-draws the steam for 7 feet of her stroke, and then gets
only as much:power as if she kept it open without wire-drawing for
four feet. The effect is to draw water over, reducing the vacuum,
and burning fuel to heat the very water which destroys' it.'All this
is clear loss, which we would save.
Your engine now thumps, unless keyed up very close.'  The engi* This "thump" continued until, in July last, it had so far disintegrated the
cross-head of that engine by its constant impact, that the cross-head parted one
evening while the passengers were at the table in the lower cabin. -The prompt



60
neer (who, by the way, is a most excellent and careful man) keeps it
keyed up with the greatest care. This is very hard on the engine;
but it can not be avoided, as it results from the rapidity with which
the engine lifts the steam-valve, which is necessary in that mongrel
form of cut-off.  We will take out that " thump," so that your engine
will work smoothly with the keys slack. The Baltic, whose steanmvalve gear was made by Mr. Sickels, works with so much ease that her
shaft can lift a quarter inch on its blocks without any jar at all. This
Mr. Smith knows to be true, as he noticed it on the trial trip of the
ship.  I have taken cards from the Baltic in the middle of the ocean,
and know for myself this truth, and Captain Comstock will confirm it.
In view of all these facts, I will make another offer to you in respect to the Metropolis, which is an alternative one. We will leave
things as they are at present in regard to the exhaust-toe patent-you
paying Mr. Sickels whatever can be agreed upon, or whatever he can
recover by a verdict; and as the attorney of Mr. Win. B. Sickels, I
will dimiss the suit on the cut-off patent without any compensation or
costs. Then we will, at our own cost, make the necessary alterations
on the Metropolis, (doing the work in the best manner possible, subject to the approval of your engineer so as to correspond with her
finish,) for $4000; payable when the boat runs as fast as she now does,
with 20 per cent. less fuel consumed, and when she runs so easily that
the keys can be slackened between the piston-rod and the crank, without causing the engine to make any greater jar than she now does when
keyed up close. The present cut-off is all broken down, and you have
to put in a new cut-off this winter. It is only a question, how you
will do it.  Sickels' cut-off in its perfection, certainly can not be any
worse than it now is; and unless it is 20 per cent. better you have
ness and efficiency of the engineer department of that boat averted a destruction
of human life appalling to contemplate. The engine was " unhooked" instantly,
before the piston-rod could break loose from the links. If it had broken loose the
piston would have gone through the lower cylinder head and as the engine has no
bulkheads around it, the steam would have filled the cabins instantly, and the lives
of the passengers would not have been worth a minute's purchase. Under the admirable discipline of Captain Brown, no alarm was excited, and the general impression was that the air-pump cross-head only had broken. The " sagacity" of
the Novelty Works was again invoked, and a new cross-head one eighth of an inch
larger in diameter than the old one, substituted, which is now undergoing the same
process which destroyed its predecessor. The difficulty is, that the engine takes
steam too rapidly, and that the cross-head is too small-its strength not being
greater than one fourth of the tensile strength of the links. As the Company are
now about to subject the valve-gear of that engine to Mr. Allen's sagacity again,
rather than pay Mr. Sickels for the use of his improvement, although in the Franklin Journal, of July, 1855, E. W. Smith, engineer of the Company, is very emphatic on this valve-gear, and says the boat is "fitted with adjustible expansive gear,
and every other approved appliance for getting the most useful effect out of the
steam," I would suggest that they avail themselves of the opportunity to make a
larger cross-head.




61.nothing to pay. Your engineer can keep the parts removed, and we
will replace them if you desire it, after a trial of the perfect Sickels.
You will naturally say in reply to all this, that it is altogether improbable that these statements and calculations are true; for that if
they were, you would not have been permitted by those who have
had the management of the mechanical part of your business to spend
such immense sums for fuel, which might have been so easily saved.
I admriit the force of the objection, and agree that some explanation is
necessary. Mr. Sickels made his invention while working for $3 a
week as an apprentice-boy.  Almost all the engineers of the day
committed themselves to the position that it was absurd and useless;
and years passed before he could get the opportunity to establish its
value. When he did, he had no means with which to prosecute his
success, and the foregone conclusion against the thing formed a great
obstacle to its introduction. In the U. S. steamer Saranac, where
Sickels took out the same gear as you have in the Empire State and
Bay State, and put in his, a saving of more than 30 per cent. was effected, as the official reports at Washington prove. Such results at
once drove engineers from the old plans, either to adopt Sickels' or
to invent some other which could be put off upon the community as
equally good.
The Novelty Works being at the head of the business, found itself
in this difficulty, and immense efforts have been made by them to invent some method of effecting the object which should place them independent of this "apprentice-boy" and his invention. When Mr.
Collins undertook to build his ships, he investigated to ascertain the
best form of cut-off to be applied; and obtained numerous certificates
proving to, his satisfaction the superiority of Mr. Sickels'. He therefore resolved to apply it to three of the ships, and employed Mr.
Sickels to make the drawings. Soon, however, Mr. Sickels found difliculties were thrown in his way, and when the time came, Mr. Allen's
cut-off was put upon the Arctic and Atlantic, and Stevens' upon the
Pacific-leaving him the Baltic only. Mr. Collins was overruled by
the Novelty Works; and Mr. Allen frankly said that the ships were built
for their credit, and not for Mr. Sickels', and that if he wanted to have
his plans adopted he must take the stock which they held. As a matter of business, perhaps this was all well enough. I will not here say
that Mr. Allen is bound to adopt the best things in ships in which he is
interested as part owner, when he has an inferior plan of his own. On
government ships, where large payments are made by government for
the sake of getting the best thing, perhaps the case differs; but Congress
is the place to settle that. Recently they have taken out the Stevens cutoff from the Pacific, and put in a mongrel Sickels cut-off, dropping the
valves free from the engine into some kind of a dash-pot; and by that
simple change they have gained six hours in her time to Liverpool, as
they say. Its only gain over the old one is in the greater rapidity of
closing-that is, in its approach to a perfect Sickels cut-off; yet they
will not use a perfect Sickels cut-off, and openly acknowledge their
obligation to its inventor. When the Bremen line of steamers was
built, Mr. Sickels offered gratuitously (as he now does to you) to give




(2
his cut-off to those ships. The Novelty Worlks Co. refused to allow
this offer to be accepted, and Mr. Allen's cut.off is applied to all the
ships of that line. Still Mr. Allen admits Mr. Sickels' to be the best,
when he expresses any opinion on their comparative merits.
In the case of the Metropolis, Mr. Smith knew that Sickels' was
the best; and that the cut-off you now have would cost the company
not less than $40 a day for fuel more than it. Yet the immense power
of the Novelty Works was too much for him, and Allen's cut-off was
applied. In doing this, Mr. Allen was acting of course for his own
interest, as a regular business transaction, and Mr. Smith might well
enough justify himself by the example of Mr. Collins, who was compelled to submit to the power of this formidable corporation. Mr.
Smith, like other engineers in New-York, is more or less dependent
upon the patronage of the Novelty Works, and ought not, and can not
be expected to offend them.
Under such circumstances, and against such odds, Mr Sickels has
struggled along for years in poverty and want; devoting himself to
his profession, and thinking more of that than how to meet and overcome such opposition. I have now undertaken to bring these facts
to light, and to.test the question whether ship-owners, and the commerce of the country, shall be taxed such enormous amounts as theyir
have been, in order that the builders of engines may exult in the reflection that they have been able to suppress one man of genius, and, by
force of capital, to supply the want of skill. The question, you will
readily see, between Mir. Sickels and the Novelty Works and other
builders, is as to who shall have the control of steamboat enginebuilding; for, if the.fact can be made known, that his inventions will
save inot less than one fifth of the fuel used on a boat, over any other
form of cut-off, all boats must adopt it; and he would have it in his
power to say who should build the engines. At present the patent
is owned by Mr. WVm. B. Sickels, not the inventor; but the question is only transferred to another party by that fact. Hence thec
desperate nature of the contest, and the powerful means employed to
suppress the invention.  Boat-owners have been used by enginebuilders as the tools to fight their battles with, and your share.of the
expenses of the war, has not been less than 8200,000 in fuel burned,
which ought to have been, and would have been, saved, if you had
used Sickels' inventions. You have been burning about ninety tols
ofcoal a day for eight years. Tell per cent. on that principal and interest, is not less than $135,000; and I can show you any time in the
presence of Mr. Allen and Mr. Smith, or either of then,, that you
have lost twenty per cent., or $270,000, by not using Sickels' cut-off.
In this fight, Stevens' cut-off, such as you have on the iEmpire, State
and Bay State, is not formidable to engine-builders, as it is no better
than other plans for lowering the valve by the motion of the engine.
Therefore, the patentee has no power, and engine-builders permit
the invention to be used without opposition. If any thing I here
state is denied as a matter of fact, I am Iprepared to prove it; and
one object I have in the cut-off suit brought against you, is to estab-.lish these things in a court of justice before the country, and I will do




it if the suit comes to trial. Mr. F. Sickels knows it too well. Its
operation has been to deprive him of his patent, which is now owned
by Mr. Win. B. Sickels, and to keep him in poverty for years.
Now, sir, I appeal to you whether it is worth your while to fight
the battles of other people any longer at this enormous expense. Let
Mr. Sickels give you the fruits of his years of study and labor as a
present. Mr. Win. B. Sickels will consent, so far as the two patents
owned by him are concerned. You have no interest in suppressing
the truth, but rather in divulging it. Before you decide against this
offer, I beg you to give me an interview, in the presence of Mr.
Smith and Mr. Allen, or either of them, and then it will be made apparent by their admission of the principles which control the case,
that all I have stated must be correct.
If it is objected, that this is the offer of theorists and not of practical
nmen, (or, as the Novelty Works express it, of responsible men,) I answer, that Mr. Sickels is one of the best practical workmen in the
country; that he put his cut-off on the Baltic with his own hands,
first making the drawings and then working on the machine. Let Mr.
Smith or Mr. Allen be asked whether this work will not be perfectly
done if Mr. Sickels does it: neither will deny his ability.
If Mr. Allen says that this cut-off on the Metropolis can be so improved that it will work any better than it does now, I answer, that
if Mr. Allen will name any engine on which any of his cut-off is applied as it ought to be, and will allow me to put on the indicator, I
will show you and him that it is no better than the Metropolis, and
that the evil is inherent in that principle of the machine which Mr.
Allen has engrafted upon the Sickels patent, which is the slow lowering of the valve in place of the quick dropping —a truth which Mr. Allen
felt the force of, when he applied to the Pacific a drop cut-off in place
of the Stevens this year.
Very respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
E. N. DICKERSON,
To Col. BORDEN.                   No. 57 Chambers street, N. Y.
Copy of letter to HoRATIO ALLE, Esq., inclosing copies of the preceding two letters to Col. Borden.
MIY DAhR SlR:
As I promised the other day when I had the pleasure of seeing you
at the Novelty Works, I inclose you a copy of the letter I had then
written to Col. Borden, dated Dec. 10.  Since then I have added
another, dated Dec. 12, and I inclose a copy of it.
You will readily perceive, from reading these letters, that Mr.
Sickels is actuated more by a desire to advance science than to make
money; and that he will feel himself well paid for whatever labor it
may cost him to do it, if he can establish, to the satisfaction of the




64
owners of steamers, that a large saving of fuel can be made, by any
change in the parts of the engine.
I can also assure you that Mr. Sickels feels no ill-will towards you,
or the other gentlemen, who, having the good fortune to possess
wealth, have been able to advance your own inventions and to suppress his; and that he is just as ready now as he always has been to
cooperate with you or with any other engine-builder, in producing the
best mechanical results.
The propositions contained in the letters to Col. Borden, you will
find to agree with your own experiments, made (as you told me the
day before yesterday) to show the point at which the cut-off valve, on
such a cut-off as the Metropolis, closes; and the method of calculating
the power from the cards, is the same as given in a book entitled,
" The Steam-Engine Indicator," published by Stillman, Allen & Co.,
1853; so that we will not differ about the results of the calculation.
Now that the facts of the Metropolis are established, both by the
cards published by Mr. Smith, in the Franklin Journal, and by those
taken by me, and it is apparent that her loss of power is enormous, I
hope that you will cooperate with me, in helping Col. Borden out of
the difficulty. I-is princely liberality entitles him to the best; and, I
think, all of us who are devoted to the cause of science ought to assist
him to get it. I have assumed in my letters that you will do so, and
I trust that I shall not be disappointed. A word of approbation from
you would settle the question; and, perhaps, your opposition would
defeat Mr. Sickels again. You know how well the cut-off on the Baltic, which Mr. Sickels put on, has always worked, and how smoothly
her engine runs; and you know how capable he is to do this thing
perfectly. Which way will you throw your influence? Will you
not recommend Col. Borden to have those steam-valves suddenly
closed, in place of lowered as'slowly as they are now, with such an
immense loss of pressure by wire-drawing? No work shall be put on
but the best, and the finish of every piece shall be approved by you
before it is put on the engine. The Sickels tripping apparatus now
on will be left, and the only change will be to drop the valves in
place of lowering them by the trip. The great advantage of rapid
closing you have always admitted to me, and that is all we wish to
realize by the change.
I am sorry to trouble you, in the multitude of your affairs, about
this little thing; but the important results whidh will ensue to the
commercial interests of the country from -this experiment, I think,
justify me in calling to my aid all those whose knowledge of the truth
will make their influence important. Thanking you for the good opinion you have expressed about my little inventions, I remain
December 12th, 1855.            Truly yours,
EDWARD N. DICKERSON
_HORATIO ALLEN, ESQ.,
Novelty Works, etc., etc.




Comparison between the performance of the 2Metropolis, as exhibited ins
a card published by E. W. SMITH, Engineer of the Line, in the
Franklin Journal for July, and the performance she should make if
properly worked.
No. 1.
Elements of the Card published by E. WV. S., in Franklin Joutnal.
PRESSURE AT END OF EACH FOOT OF    AVERAGE PRESSURE OF EACH FOOT.
STROKE.
1st foot,   -   -   -   35 lbs.
At the end of 1st foot, -  -  35  lbs., 2d  "                      34.87
"    2d   "  -  -  34.75        3d  "        -   -   -   34.52
3d   "  -  -  34.30        4th"  -   -   -   -   33.80
4t" th        -  -  33.30       5th"   -         -   -   31.65'"    "    5th  "  -  -  30.00       6th "  -   -           -   28.00
6th  "  -       26.00      7th"  -   -   -   -   24.50
"    i"  7th  "     -    23.00       8th "  -   -           -   21.70
"'    "    8th'  -  -  20.50       9th     -      -   -       19.62:' "      9th      -       18.75     10th"  -   -   -   -   18.00
"i    i"   10th "  -  -  17.30       11th"  -   -   -  16.80'    11th "  -  -  16.30        12th'  -   -   -   -   15 75
12th"  -  -  15.00
314.21 lbs.
314.21 lbs. divided by 12, shows an average steam-pressure during
the entire stroke of 26.18  from which the loss by imperfect vacuum
must be deducted to give the true power developed.
No. 2.
Elements of the Card which the Metropolis would make, if properly
worked.
PRESSURE AT END OF EACH FOOT OF    AVERASE PREfSSUvE OF EACH FOOT.
STROKE.
1st foot.    -       -   40.00 lbs.
At end of 1st foot, -   -   40.00 lbs   2d  i"                  40.00
"  2d  "   - t       40.00       3d   "                   40.0O
3  d  "   -       4000       4th          -   -   -    9.20
"   "  3.6     -   -   40.00  5th               -   -          2.40
" 4th      -   -   36.00         6th        -             26.40
"  5th     -   -   28.80         7th  "     -   -   -   22.20
"    6th "   -   -   24.00       8th  "     -   -   -   19.20
7th          -   20.50        9th  "                   17.00
"  8th "        -    18.00       10th "               -   -   15.20
" 9th  "   -   -   16.00         1 1th           -        13.70
" 10th     -   -   14.40         12th"      -   -   -   12.50."'  11th'   -   -   13.00
"   "  12th    -   -   12.00                                 317.80 1bs.
317.80 lbs. divided by 12, shows an average steam-pressure during
the entire stroke, of 26.48 lbs., from which the loss by imperfect
vacuum must be deducted to give the true power developed.
The Metropolis can  only make a vacuum  of eleven and a half
pounds in her cylinder. In the report published by E. W. S., in page
3




70 of thie Frncklin Journa Ifor July, the vacuum in the condenser is
shown at 25" inches-equal to 12.62 lbs.; but in preparing the card
for publication the vacuum in the cylinder is shown at 13.65 lbs.,
which is a pound lower than in the condenser. There is no engine
in New-York, probably, in which the vacuum in the cylinder is as low
as in the condenser, by at least a pound-the Metropolis, however,
(asx E. W. S. reports her,) exhibits an effect greater than the cause
which produced it, and shows a lower vacuum in the cylinder than in
the condenhr, where it is produced.
The following letter, though not strictly connected with this case,
was written and published during its progress, and refers to the general subject under consideration.  I now re-publish it, hoping that it
may be brought to the notice of Congress, and that some legislation
may be had in accordance with its suggestions.
TII AxCCI:U)NT ON THE nBAY STATrE.
To t/ge Editor of tihe Nez —York Tribune 
Sin: The public heart is again lacerated by another frightful dismater on the steamer Bay State, resulting in death and misery, and
exciting a thrill of horror in every breast. This is the third time within
as miany years, that innocent passengers, full of life and hope, have been
hurried into eternity by a death of agony on the boats of this line;
anmd it occurs to me that the public mind is now ripe to hear the rea-:on and to demand the remedy.
On all steamboats on the Sound, the engine and boilers are sepaI-ated from the passengers by thin partitions of panel work, held in
their place by buttons, and easily removed by the most trifling force.
And a part of this screen often is, as in the Bay State, Empire State,
and aetropolis, composed of a plate of glass, placed there for the purpose of exhibiting to the astonished gaze of passengers the polished
exterior of the machinery, and silver plates parading the names of the
builder and of the draftsman who made the drawings of the engine.
The little girl who was killed last week on the Bay State, stood looking through this window when the gush of steam occurred; and in
1852, on the same boat, the plate-glass was driven into the cabin by
the rushing gas, and about eight persons found its gilded frame-work
the portal of the grave.
Now the remedy is obvious, and consists in inclosing the engine
and machinery in bulkheads of thin iron or thick planking, having
doors opening inwards, and kept shut with springs, so that there would
be no opening except overhead, through which the steam might escape
in case of accident. If such had been the protection on these boats, no
one would have been injured on the Bay State, three years ago, nor on
the Empire State this year, nor would the little girl have perished




now; and the far-spread desolation of these accidents never would have
happened.  But, until the remedy is demanded by public opinion,
expressed through a statute, I have no hope to see the remedy applied,
and therefore I think this a fit moment to create public opinion, with
a view to this result.
I beg here to say that, so far as I know the proprietors of the Bay
State line, they will be the first to adopt any new measure of precaution, and that they have always been the first and most liberal to
piovide for the safety and comfort of their passengers. They have been
unfortunate of late; but that has resulted from bad advice, and not
firom bad intentions.
The great difficulty to be encountered in this reform is the vanity
of enginebuilders, who control the construction of this part of the
boat, and who use every boat as a floating advertisement for their
shops. Thus on the Mletropolis about 500 feet of polished iron, with
X; big silver plate, are exhibited through tihe plate-glass window to:the ignorant, who suppose the bright work to prove the value of
the machine; when, in fact, every elgineer knows that the engine.
would be better if the parts which are polished were incased in noinconductors, to prevent radiation, and that the shops use the vanity
of owners, who also are tickled by a splendid front, to charge them
thousands of dollars for useless scrubbing, and so increase the profits
of the job and the cost of the boat.
I have thought, however, that this opposition could be reconciled
by taking the same number of square feet of iron on the bulkhead
that they would polish on. the engine, scrubbing that bright, protecting it by a rail from the touch, and, if you please, setting a glass before it, and adorning it with silver plates and filagree dials.
If, however, owners will persist in retaining ithe present order of'
things, I would suggest that they add to the silver plates a notice like
this: "Caution-Passengers are notified that they stand before this
glass at their own peril longer tihan time enough to read the names
here inscribed."                    Truly yours,
ED W)D. N. ) (1,fRE.'O. S I.
New — York, Nov. 3, 1855.
Another statutory provision would afFord great security to passengers:-A section, requiring the owners of steamboats to print in
large letters a list of all the killed and wounded on that boat, together with the manner of the death or injury, and to keep it hung up
in the main gang-way of the cabit.. The consequence would be
that in selecting a boat for travel the passenger would examine the'" dead list," and choose that boat which had none. Why ought not such
a clause to be enacted, to operate prospectively, so as not to impair
the value of property now   If it were there would be no weak crossheads, nor engine.s wnithout bulkhead protections, hereafter.