United Spates GiPGui 
 
 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 
 
 IN EQUITY. 
 
 PULLMAN'S PALACE CAR CO. > 
 
 f.v. / 
 
 ( Motion for Injunction 
 
 WAGNER PALACE CAR CO. AXD THE pe ndente lit,: 
 
 LAKE SHORE & MICHIGAN SOUTH- ' 
 ERN RAILWAY CO. 
 
 Abstract of Points taken in the Closing Argument 
 on the Motion by B. F. Thurston. 
 
 & TOWLE, 
 
 SOLICITOUS FOR COMPLAINANT. 
 
 B. F. THURSTON, 
 
 OF COUNSEL. 
 
 BARNARD & QUNTHORP, LEGAL PRINTERS, 41 A. 40 LASALLE ST., CHICAGO.
 
 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 
 
 IN EQUITY. 
 
 PULLMAN'S PALACE CAR CO. 
 
 vs. 
 
 Motion for Injunction 
 
 WAGNER PALACE CAR CO. AND THE / pendente 
 LAKE SHORE & MICHIGAN SOUTH- 
 ERN RAILWAY CO. 
 
 Abstract of Points taken in the Closing Argument 
 on the Motion by B. F. Thurston. 
 
 MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONORS: 
 
 This is a motion for an injunction pending the progress 
 of the cause to final hearing. 
 
 I am aware that the complainants are bound to place 
 themselves within the requirements of the court in such 
 cases. I recognize that they must show a prima facie 
 title to the invention, the validity of which is not seriously 
 impeached. The seriousness of the impeachment, how- 
 ever, is not measured by the earnestness of the attack 
 which the defendants may make, but by the sufficiency of 
 such attack to raise a reasonable doubt as to the validity 
 of the subject-matter of the patent. I recognize, too, that
 
 it is the duty of the complainants to satisfy the court that 
 there has been an infringement committed on the part of 
 the defendants. 
 
 The present case, while it is peculiar in the circum- 
 stances that the Sessions patent is of recent date, is also 
 more peculiar in the circumstance that the infringement 
 which the defendants have committed has been most open, 
 determined and flagrant. I humbly submit that the con- 
 duct of the defendants in appropriating for their own 
 benefit every feature of improvement which the Pullman 
 vestibuled train exhibits, should properly induce the 
 court to exercise its power to prevent a further continu- 
 ance of the wrong in case it shall be found that the Ses- 
 sions patent covers any legal subject of invention what- 
 ever. This proposition leads me to ask your Honors to 
 consider for a single moment what is the theory of the 
 law with respect to issuing the preventive writ of injunc- 
 tion pending the hearing of a cause. As I understand 
 the theory of the writ, which it is purely within the dis- 
 cretion of the chancellor to grant or refuse according to 
 the circumstances of the particular case, its object is to 
 preserve the existing state of titles to properties as they 
 were at the commencement of the controversy. It is in- 
 dispensable that the party seeking the writ shall have a 
 title to the invention which he asserts by his patent which 
 is not open to serious doubt or question. It is also indis- 
 pensable that the invention should have been substantially 
 appropriated by the defendant. The purpose of the writ 
 being essentially to preserve titles in stalu quo, it is proper 
 to regard the particular circumstances which surround 
 each application. The present case is not the ordinary 
 one where a defendant has manufactured an apparatus or 
 machine under the authority of letters patent of his own T
 
 professing to contain an improvement which has resulted 
 from his own effort and study, notwithstanding that it 
 may trench upon the prior title of another; it is an in- 
 stance where there has been, from the commencement of 
 the exhibition to the public of the Pullman vestibuled 
 train, a determined and deliberate appropriation of every 
 substantial feature of construction, whether patentable or 
 non-patentable, which such train exhibited. True, the de- 
 fendants were not advised, because the patent had not 
 then issued, what was the specific improvement which had 
 been added to the general vestibule construction by Mr. 
 Sessions, but the train which contained such improvement 
 was in regular service, and the defendants were quite 
 competent to understand and appreciate that the feature 
 of uniting the ends of two cars by means of heavy metal- 
 lic frame-plates backed by springs, and thus causing a 
 vertical spring buffer to be interposed between the super- 
 structures of cars, whereby the frictional surfaces of such 
 frame-plates under opposing spring, pressures would 
 operate to check the tendency of the cars to oscillate or 
 sway when in motion, was an extraordinary novelty in 
 train construction. 
 
 In view of the attending circumstances set forth in the 
 affidavit of Mr. Pullman, where he refers to the visit of 
 Mr. Webb to him to solicit a license, the passage in the 
 affidavit of Mr. v Webb reads strangely where he says that 
 owing " to the earnest desire of said Wagner Company 
 " to avoid all possible controversy or ill feeling, it was 
 " finally concluded that it was wiser to obtain a license from 
 " said Pullman's Company under any and all patents that 
 " might thereafter be obtained by it on vestibuled cars, 
 ''provided such license could be obtained for a very small or 
 " nominal consideration." Prior to the time of lhisinterview>
 
 the Wagner Company had caused one or more of its con- 
 structors and draughtsmen to travel upon the Pullman 
 train for the purpose of making drawings and sketches of 
 the vestibule construction, and for the purpose of ap- 
 propriating the improvement to the use of the company 
 without any regard to whether there was any patent 
 property existing in it or not. At the date of this inter- 
 view between Mr. Webb and Mr. Pullman the defendants 
 were actually engaged in adding to their cars some of 
 which had been built for them by the Pullman Company 
 the vestibule addition. 
 
 Further comment as to the extent to which the defend- 
 ants have appropriated every mechanical idea which is 
 contained in the Pullman train is rendered unnecessary, 
 from the fact that we have placed before this court an 
 exact duplicate in miniature of both the Pullman and 
 the Wagner trains. When placed side by side these 
 trains cannot be distinguished from each other. The de- 
 fendants have copied not only the mechanical features of 
 construction, but also those characteristics of form and 
 proportion which have made the Pullman vestibuled train 
 a startling individuality. 
 
 The outrage which has been committed by the Wag- 
 ner Company is certainly unparalleled in the history of 
 wilful appropriation of the product of s-ludy and thought 
 on the part of another. Even if there were no patent 
 property at all resident in the vestibule structure, it must 
 be conceded that the merit which belongs to this confess- 
 edly great improvement in train construction is due to the 
 Pullman Company, and the taking possession of it bodily 
 by the defendants comes very close to that class of cases- 
 which courts of equity condemn as invasions of trade 
 properties. If, however, there exists in the vestibul-e
 
 organization a feature of mechanical construction which 
 is properly the subject of letters patent, the court, I sub- 
 mit, under the extraordinary circumstances of this case, 
 ought to regard such patent property with most favor- 
 able consideration, and protect the complainant to the ex- 
 tent of that ability which a court of chancery exercising 
 a sound discretion to prevent wrong-doing can appro- 
 priately exert. 
 
 Upon applications for a preliminary injunction it is 
 always of advantage for the parties seeking the writ to 
 show that there has been an acquiescence on the part of 
 the public for a considerable period of time in the validity 
 of the claim to the patent property which he asserts. 
 Manifestly, it is not indispensable that there should be a 
 long period of acquiescence as a condition of the granting 
 of the writ. Where the fact exists it is an aid to the 
 plaintiff's equity, for the reason that it is corroborative 
 of the assertion that he holds a valid title. The Sessions 
 patent was granted on the I5th of November, 1887. It 
 was applied for in April preceding, or about the time 
 when the first completely equipped train was put into ser- 
 vice on the Pennsylvania road. If by acquiescence is 
 meant appreciation on the part of the public and an open 
 recognition of novelty and merit in its construction, then 
 there has been a degree of recognition almost unexam- 
 pled in the history of inventions on the part of the general 
 public. The law cannot be so unreasonable as to require 
 as a condition to the protection of an inventor that no rival 
 in business shall have deliberately pirated the invention. 
 It is true that the plaintiff and the defendant companies 
 are the two parties who are equipping railroads with 
 sleeping and parlor car accommodations, and therefore 
 the body of persons who are to exhibit acquiescence in a
 
 patented property, in the sense of refraining from tres- 
 passing upon it, are limited practically to the defendant 
 company. On the part of this defendant there has been 
 the highest evidence of acquiescence in the value of the 
 improvement, from the fact that it has appropriated it, 
 and from the further fact (belittled as it is now sought to 
 be) that it became alarmed at the possible consequences 
 of its own meditated conduct, and sought to obtain a 
 license. I concede that at the time of this application for 
 a license it was not advised precisely what subject of 
 claim would be embraced in one or more patents relating 
 to the vestibule construction, but the defendants well 
 knew that there were frame-plates forming part of such 
 vestibule, and that the plates of adjacent cars, when 
 coupled, bore against each other under frictional contact; 
 and while indeed it was their purpose to acquire an entire 
 right to make use of the whole vestibule connection, such 
 purpose included a design to embrace the Sessions as well 
 as every other patentable feature. It does not impair the 
 legal effect of their acquiescence in the complainants' title 
 to a patent .property in the vestibule, that upon the refusal 
 of Mr. Pullman to accede to their wishes, the necessities 
 of their business induced them to take possession of the 
 whole subject-matter of the improvement in train con- 
 struction, and abide the issue in the courts. It was plain 
 to be seen that the traveling public would never be satis- 
 fied in the future with anything less in the way of pro- 
 vision for comfort and safety, and therefore it is in every 
 sense true that the wilful piracy by the defendant empha- 
 sizes the strength of the complainants' title. One thing 
 was certain; the public would patronize the line that was 
 equipped with vestibuled cars. It was not under the law 
 punishable as larceny or robbery to capture the improve-
 
 ment for their own profit and advantage. There was 
 enough uncertainty as to the outcome of any remedy 
 asked from the courts to make it possible that some acci- 
 dent would turn in their favor, and thus leave them in 
 possession for a considefable period before a final hearing 
 could be reached, and, therefore, as a business necessity, 
 they proceeded to do that which satisfies in the highest 
 degree the requirement of a chancellor that there shall be 
 a pregnant suggestion of title as evidenced by recognition. 
 
 The defendants desire to treat this question as at best 
 only a matter of money damages, but the court will 
 remember that licenses to use such inventions as may 
 exist in the Pullman vestibule are not on sale. It is a fact 
 that not a dollar is charged by the Pullman Palace Car 
 Company to the roads which they equip as a license fee 
 for the use of the Sessions invention. The value of this 
 patent property to the complainant is largely dependent 
 upon the exclusiveness of the enjoyment of the same by 
 the complainant company, and therein resides the irrepa- 
 rable injury which the complainant will sustain in the 
 event that its right is not upheld. The Pullman Compa- 
 ny, as well as the Wagner Company, are not merely car 
 constructors; they are operators of car equipment in con- 
 junction with the railroads equipped by them, and the 
 profit which they derive is not based upon an exclusive 
 license fee, but upon the enjoyment by themselves of the 
 property covered by the patents, and from the increased 
 profits derived from the patronage of the public in select- 
 ing the accommodations furnished by one company in pre- 
 ference to those furnished by the other. 
 
 No one can question that a court of chancery has 
 ample power in its discretion to issue the preventive writ 
 of injunction pending a hearing upon the merits of a case
 
 
 8 
 I 
 
 in the event that good conscience requires this protection 
 to be afforded. Prior to 1862, the rule ^as very much 
 stricter in its application to the protection of patent prop- 
 erties. A court of chancery would not entertain a bill in 
 equity to repress an infringement unless the title of the 
 patentee had been first vindicated in a court of law. By 
 common consent the justices of the Supreme court re- 
 cognized the propriety of relaxing this ancient rule, and 
 thereafter actions at law in the federal courts based upon 
 letters patent became the exception rather than the rule. 
 While indeed it is true now, as heretofore, that the party 
 seeking the writ shall show a clear -prima facie title to his 
 invention, and that the court shall be satisfied that the 
 equity of the case clearly preponderates in his favor, it is 
 not necessary that the court should reach the conclusion 
 in favor of the plaintiff by any particular order or kind of 
 proof. The essential inqufry, I submit, is whether any 
 reasonable doubt has been cast upon the validity of the 
 plaintiff's patent by any showing on the part of the de- 
 fendant sufficient to i mpair the effect of the prima facie 
 evidence of validity based upon the fact that the patent 
 has issued from the government. If this can be answered 
 in the negative, and if it further appears that the defend- 
 ant is utterly devoid of any merit in himself, but has 
 been guilty of wilful and deliberate piracy, then every re- 
 quirement for the exercise of the court's power to grant 
 the writ has been fulfilled. 
 
 This general doctrine has been recognized in several 
 cases both in this country and in England, as will be in- 
 stanced by the following cases: 
 
 Foster v. Crosstn, 23 Fed. Rep., 400; 
 Hussey Mfg. Co. v. Deering, 20 Fed. 
 Rep., 795.
 
 In both these cases the patent had been issued for only 
 a few months. 
 
 I have information from Mr. .Lee, the senior counsel 
 for the moving party in the case of Eastman Dry Plate 
 and Film Company v. Anthony, which case is not re- 
 ported in the books, that an application was made for an in- 
 junction and a restraining order based upon a patent which 
 had just been issued from the Patent Office, under the 
 circumstances where the defendants had obtained from a 
 workman who had left plaintiff's employment sufficient 
 information to enable them to construct a machine like 
 the one patented. The defendant at the hearing purged 
 himself of any intent to infringe, and declared that so 
 soon as he was informed that a patent had issued he gave 
 orders to stop any further progress with the machine. 
 The injunction under these circumstances was denied by 
 Judge Shipman on condition that the defendant would file 
 a stipulation not to infringe upon the patent pending the 
 suit. This case is especially pertinent, for the reason 
 that the validity of the patent was denied, but the circum- 
 stances under which the defendant had commenced the 
 manufacture of the machine savored so much of bad pur- 
 pose as to warrant a binding requirement that the defen- 
 dant would not use the invention pending the issue of the 
 case. The parallelism between this unreported case 
 and the one now before the court is very striking. 
 
 The doctrine on this subject is stated in Kerr on Injunc- 
 tions, p. 402, in these words: 
 
 " But it is not a matter of course that a patentee 
 should establish his right before applying to the 
 court. If the question as to the validity of the 
 patent be free from doubt and difficulty, or a fair 
 prima Jacie case be made out, the court may inter-
 
 IO 
 
 fere, notwithstanding that the patent may be a re- 
 cent one. The conduct or admissions of the defend- 
 ant may amount to sufficient -prima facie evidence 
 on which to grant an injunction even in cases 
 where there is a doubt as to the validity of the 
 patent." 
 
 Again, Mr. Agnew, in his treatise on the English law 
 relating to patents for inventions, page 312, says, after 
 stating the rule as it is observed in this country: 
 
 " But the court has power to grant an injunction to 
 restrain the infringement of a recent patent without 
 requiring the patentee to establish his right, if it 
 appears that such course will do justice between 
 the parties." 
 
 The Vice Chancellor in Gardner v. Broadbent, 2 Jur., 
 N. S., 1041, says: 
 
 "There is no law of this court which prevents a 
 patentee by the recency of his patent from apply- 
 ing for an injunction ex parte, and I wish it to be un- 
 derstood that the law of this court is laid down by 
 Lord Eldon in the case of the Universities of Ox- 
 ford and Cambridge v. Richardson" 
 
 The same Vice-Chancellor says, in Clarke v. Ferguson, 
 i Giff., 184: 
 
 " It is not a mere matter of course, because a patent 
 is recent, to call on the patentee to establish his 
 rights at law before he can obtain relief in this 
 court; it is in the discretion of the court to require a 
 plaintiff to assert his rights at law, or otherwise, ac- 
 cording to the nature of the case." 
 
 In this case the injunction was granted in view of the 
 circumstances of the case. 
 
 Lord Justice Bruce, in Renard v. Levinstein, 10 Law 
 Times, N. S., 177, commented upon the recent grant of a
 
 II 
 
 patent before him, and in denying the motion on other 
 grounds says: 
 
 "Its age is no objection to an interlocutory injunc- 
 tion of itself." 
 
 The question has been decided by Judge Wallace in 
 the Grape Sugar cases, 10 Fed. Rep., 836. He re- 
 marks: 
 
 " Formerly the rule undoubtedly was that a prelimi- 
 nary injunction would not be granted unless the 
 right secured by the patent was fortified by evi- 
 dence of the exclusive or recognized enjoyment of 
 the right or by former adjudications sustaining it. 
 In more recent practice this rule has been relaxed 
 when the validity of the patent has not been as- 
 sailed and the proof of infringement is clear. 
 North v. Craivshaw, 4 Blatch., 70; Biirleigh Rock 
 Drill Co. v. Loddell, i Bann. & Ard., 635; Steam 
 Gauge & Lantern Co. v. Miller, 8 Fed. Rep., 
 
 3M-" 
 
 Judge Walker recognized the same general principle in 
 the caseof Butler v. Ball, 28 Fed. Rep., 754, when he 
 granted an injunction, under the peculiar circumstances of 
 the case, against a party, prohibiting him from making a 
 structure which was the subject of an application for letters 
 patent which had not issued at the time that the order was 
 applied for. 
 
 THE SESSIONS IMPROVEMENT. 
 
 I am now brought to the inquiry as to what is the sub- 
 ject of invention set forth in the Sessions patent of Novem- 
 ber 15, 1887. After we understand the subject to which 
 the patent specifically relates, it will be easy to proceed to 
 inquire whether in any alleged anticipatory matter that 
 has been brought before the court on the part of the de-
 
 12 
 
 fendants there is any hint or suggestion of the Sessions 
 improvement. 
 
 There is one characteristic of the improvement set forth 
 in the Sessions patent which must be kept in mind through- 
 out the entire discussion, because it is radical, and dis- 
 tinguishes the device or apparatus which he has patented 
 from any prior construction described in any letters patent 
 or existing in the art. That prime character is the em- 
 ployment of frame-plates as they are termed in the patent, 
 or equivalent series of buffers forming a part of the car 
 structure, or, in other words, constituting an extension of 
 the car-body to a point some inches beyond the vertical 
 plane of the end of the car. It is required that these 
 frame-plates shall be 
 
 "arranged, as shown in the drawings, at each end of 
 the car, in vertical planes which are parallel, or sub- 
 stantially so, with vertical transverse planes passing 
 through the body of the car, and when the car is de- 
 tached from a train, these frame-plates will be projected 
 beyond the ends of the car by the influence of 
 backing springs such as are indicated at Fig. j." 
 
 And again 
 
 " The end to be accomplished is to cause the 
 frame-plates to act as spring buffers whenever cars 
 are being coupled, or whenever a train is suddenly 
 checked or started, and to also act as frictional re- 
 sistance plates to oppose or counteract the influences 
 which tend to induce a swaying or oscillating move- 
 ment in the several cars of a train." (Page 2, lines 
 
 5-22.) 
 
 In the introduction to the specification the purpose of 
 the invention is stated to be twofold; first, to diminish the 
 racking effect upon the car-body when the apparatus acts 
 as a spring buffer, and " consequently to diminish the
 
 13 
 
 " tendency to a swaying or oscillating movement, which 
 " is developed whenever a train is running at high speed 
 'upon an ordinary railroad track." (P. i, lines 25-35.) 
 
 In the description of the apparatus the connection of 
 the frame-plates with the car-body by means of strong 
 " rods or bars c c'" attached at one end to the frame-plate 
 at its upper corqers, and capable of sliding between keep- 
 ers bolted to said vestibule extension or to the car-body is 
 pointed out by reference to the drawings, particularly to 
 Fig. 4, where the matter is plainly shown. The lower ends 
 of the frame-plates are shown and described as connected 
 with the main buffer springs arranged underneath the car 
 platform. It is manifest from this description that the 
 frame-plates and the connecting attachments of the same 
 with the car-body constitute an extension of the frame of 
 the car-body itself, and that such extension has no 
 capacity to move sidewise independently of the movement 
 of the body of the car with which the same is connected, 
 for the reason that the frame-plates are held in vertical 
 planes substantially parallel with the vertical transverse 
 planes passing through the body of the car by means of 
 such connecting sliding bars c c', and the attachment at the 
 foot to the main platform buffers. 
 
 This characteristic, as I have said, should be kept in 
 mind, because it is in contrast with various prior struct- 
 ures which are designed to enclose the ends of cars, and 
 which are articulated so as to be capable of sidewise 
 movement independent of the sidewise movements of the 
 car-body. One of such instances will be found in the 
 prior patent to Charles S. Smith of October 24, 1882, to 
 which I shall have occasion hereafter to allude. 
 
 It is clear from the patent that these frame extensions
 
 of the car-bodies are forced outward by the influence of 
 their top and bottom backing springs to a point several 
 inches beyond the vertical planes which these same frame- 
 plates will occupy when the cars are coupled together. 
 It follows of necessity that the faces of these plates, in 
 contact when the cars are coupled into a train, will press 
 against each other with all the force due to the pressure 
 of their backing springs, and thus the necessary effect of 
 the construction will be. 
 
 " to provide a resistance to this tendency to oscil- 
 lation, by checking the same at the outset before the 
 impulses which produce it have accumulated. The sur- 
 faces of the spring-backed frame-plates in contact are 
 capable of resisting all ordinary impulses to oscillation 
 induced by the movement of the train." 
 
 In the same paragraph it is further stated: 
 
 " The effect of combining the cars of a train by 
 the aid of frictional surfaces in contact under consid- 
 able pressure, such as I have shown, is to dissipate 
 all the lateral movements of each car throughout all 
 the other cars so connected, and thus give steadiness 
 to the whole train. This result will not only greatly 
 facilitate the" ease in passing from one car to another, 
 but will enable trains of the same weight and motive 
 power to be run safely and comfortably at higher 
 speeds over the same road-bed than heretofore." 
 
 (P. 2, line 125, to p. 3, line 7.) 
 
 I agree with the learned counsel for the defendants that 
 the Sessions patent does not profess to embrace a vesti- 
 bule enclosure for the ends of cars. It is an apparatus 
 which is of the greatest value and utility when the plat- 
 forms of cars are enclosed by a vestibule, because it en- 
 ables a close joint to be made between the abutting ends 
 of cars, which will exclude, to a great degree, dust and 
 -snow. But the improvement is capable of being applied,
 
 as the patent states, to railway cars of the ordinary type, 
 not provided with enclosed platforms. It is an apparatus 
 which is capable of accomplishing all the advantages 
 which can be claimed for any previously existing spring 
 buffer. It is distinguishable, as I will presently show, 
 from any prior arrangement of a buffer between the 
 superstructures of cars, in the important circumstance 
 that the adjacent faces of the plates are constantly under 
 opposing spring pressures. The value of this construc- 
 tion, furnishing as it does a spring cushion interposed 
 between car superstructures, is greater than that of any 
 prior device to resist the effect of collisions upon -railroads, 
 by maintaining the integrity of the car-bodies. A chief 
 value, however, of the improvement, and the one to which 
 special emphasis is given in the patent, resides in the 
 ability of the device to check those slight tendencies to a 
 tremulous or vibratory movement which are so disagree- 
 able to the passenger when a train is running at high speeds. 
 This subject is set forth fully in the affidavit of Mr. Pull- 
 man in the illustration which he draws from the operation 
 of a child's swing, which is capable of falling through 
 large arcs of vibration as the result of a succession of 
 aggregated impulses, each one of which is trifling in its 
 force. Again, it is well known, as the patent states, that 
 " the cars of a train do not generally sway in unison, but 
 " oscillate according to the effect of particular accidents or 
 "influences", and the effect of these friction plates, which 
 are incapable of sidewise movement independently of the 
 car-bodies to which they are attached, is to dissipate these 
 lateral movements throughout the connected cars, and 
 thus give steadiness to the train. 
 
 The criticism that the patent does not point out how 
 strong the backing springs should be is sufficiently an-
 
 i6 
 
 swered by the statement in the patent that the frame- 
 plates are brought face to face in close frictional contact, 
 and backed by powerful springs, and that the effect of 
 the improvement, as required by the description and the 
 claim, should be such as to furnish a frictional resistance 
 in opposition to the forces which tend to set up vibrations 
 or oscillations in the car-bodies. 
 
 The testimony which has been presented in support of 
 the motion can leave no reasonable doubt upon the mind 
 of the court as to the effect of the frame-plates in practical 
 use being all that the patent claims. After making every 
 allowance for the thorough construction of cars in other 
 respects, including the strength of the framing and the 
 proper adjustment of the different parts to each other in 
 the direction of balancing the effect of forces to which a 
 train is exposed in running, there remains a great deal in 
 the way of a tendency to vibrate, which is only corrected 
 by the presence of vertical buffer plates in frictional con- 
 tact. We have presented a large number of testimonials^ 
 under oath, from persons in the community whose intel- 
 ligence, respectability and freedom from influence will be 
 recognized by this court. It is impossible that these gen- 
 tlemen, who have volunteered their testimony to the 
 superior comfort of the vestibule train over the best form 
 of train previously known, can be under a delusion. 
 They have been selected for the reason that there could 
 be no suspicion that their testimony was induced by any 
 desire to render a favor to the complainants. It must be 
 a fact when they testify that the movements of a train 
 provided with the Sessions improvement are more steady 
 comfortable and uniform. The vestibule enclosure makes 
 a passage from one car to the next more comfortable and 
 easy, but it has no effect in giving steadiness of movement
 
 to a train in case the ends of the adjacent cars are not com- 
 bined together by the Sessions device. When we are 
 told that the lamps of a car are capable of being burned 
 with a higher flame than heretofore, it must be a fact 
 that the vibrations of the car-body have been reduced- 
 When it is testified that the upper berth of a car in a 
 Pullman vestibuled train is rendered more comfortable, 
 and that the occupant can sleep more quietly, because 
 there is less lateral movement, it is at. least probable, 
 when we find mechanism designed to accomplish that end, 
 and manifestly embodying the forces capable of bringing 
 about that end. 
 
 The testimony of conductors upon the train should not 
 be disregarded because they are the servants of the com- 
 pany, when they tell us that persons afflicted usually with 
 travelling nausea are not so affected when traveling upon 
 a Pullman vestibuled train. This fact is testified to by 
 persons whose nervous organizations subject them to that 
 malady, and therefore the testimony of conductors in that 
 respect is independently confirmed." 
 
 Again, it cannot be the mere effect of imagination when 
 the traveler in visiting the dining car, finds that his soup 
 is not thrown into his lap or his wine bottle overturned. 
 Our testimony shows that passenger cars quite as heavy 
 and as well appointed in every respect as those 
 of the vestibuled train were in common use be- 
 fore the vestibuled train came out, and yet it is 
 true that the passengers over the line of the Pennsyl- 
 vania railroad traveling in such equipment experience dis- 
 comforts that they do not feel when travelling upon the 
 vestibuled train; and thus I feel that I am justified in say- 
 ing that the whole body of proof which the complainants 
 have presented, from the conductors in their employ,
 
 i8 
 
 from the general and divisional superintendents of rail- 
 roads, and from passengers of intelligence and respecta- 
 bility, who are able to compare the former order of things 
 with the new, establishes in a conspicuously certain way 
 the practical value and importance of the Sessions appli- 
 ance. 
 
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONSTRUCTION OF ENGLISH 
 AND AMERICAN RAILWAY CARS. 
 
 In this connection it is pertinent that I should direct the 
 attention of the court to the difference betvven English 
 railway carriages and their combination with their run- 
 ning gear, and American railway coaches in universal 
 use. The matter has a bearing not only upon the 
 importance of the Sessions improvement, but it will also 
 help us to understand presently the prior English devices 
 for ameliorating the effects of a collision which are set 
 forth in several patents of prior. date; 
 
 The ordinary car in use in England prior to the intro- 
 duction of Pullman cars into Great Britain consisted of a 
 strong platform, about eighteen or twenty feet in length, 
 upon the under side. At each end are down-hangers, which 
 are furnished with vertical slots, within which axle-boxes 
 are mounted, and through which boxes the carriage axles 
 pass. With the exception of a capacity for vertical 
 movement in such down-hangers, the car-axles are 
 rigidly connected with the platforms. It is intended that 
 such car platforms shall be so short as that the distance 
 between the centers of the axles at each end of the car 
 shall fall within a unit of the curve of the railroad track. 
 The superstructures of English cars have about the 
 strength of Concord stage-coach bodies. The whole
 
 reliance is upon the strength of the platforms which sup- 
 port such bodies. Again, the height of such super- 
 structures is only about seven feet two inches. All this 
 clearly is made to appear in the replying affidavits of the 
 complainant. Now, the American system of construct- 
 ing railroad cars involves the employment of a car-body 
 from forty to seventy feet in length. It would be impos- 
 sible for a car-body of this length, if provided with rigid 
 axles at its ends, to follow the curves of any ordinary 
 roadbed. Consequently the car-bodies are mounted upon 
 trucks, which are capable of swiveling, so as to conform 
 to the curvature of the roadbed independently of the car- 
 bodies. Each of these trucks, as is well known, carries 
 from four to eight wheels. Ordinarily in the cars of the 
 complainants and defendants each truck is provided with 
 six wheels, and the distance between the centers of the 
 extreme axles of the wheels of the truck is entirely 
 
 / 
 
 within the unit of the interior of the curve which would 
 be employed in railroad construction. It needs no argu- 
 ment to establish the fact that a car-body mounted upon 
 trucks, capable of swiveling under the car, has a very 
 much less rigid base support than would be the fact in 
 case the car were only eighteen feet in length and had its 
 running gear practically rigidly connected with the cat- 
 platform. Again, the height of the American car is three 
 feet in excess of that of an English car. This is for the 
 purpose of accommodating a tier of upper berths, or, in 
 day cars, for t airiness and ventilation. It is within the 
 experience of every traveller on railways in this country 
 that a fast-running train over an ordinary roadbed has a 
 tendency to set up vibration. One has only to observe 
 the swaying of the signal cord which runs through a 
 train to appreciate this fact. This oscillatory movement
 
 20 
 
 under ordinary conditions may not be very great, but it 
 is always disagreeable. It interferes with the reading of 
 ordinary print; it produces a general nervous discomfort; 
 to many people of sensitive organization it is a cause of 
 serious inconvenience. Any device which will tend to 
 lessen this cause of discomfort is surely a blessing, but 
 when we consider that the same device which effects this 
 is capable also of preventing in a great degree the mainte- 
 nance of those larger vibrations of car-bodies which are 
 induced by the curves of a railway track, as well as by 
 the unevenness of the rails, we can understand that there 
 has been added a safety appliance of the highest value. 
 
 The swaying movement of cars does not spring into 
 existence at once; it is the result of a succession of im- 
 pulses which are constantly applied. Each impulse is 
 added to the preceding ones until finally the train lakes 
 a curve in an opposite direction, and then the swaying 
 movement is suddenly arrested with a shock, and a new 
 set of oscillations are again engendered to be again arrest- 
 ed with a shock when the train takes a curve in the 
 reverse direction. No one contends that such extreme 
 conditions may not exist as to compel car-bodies to sway, 
 notwithstanding the interposed friction 'resistance plates. 
 Undoubtedly the weight of a car-body is very great, and 
 its momentum after the swaying motion has been set up 
 is almost irresistible. It is the purpose of the Sessions 
 improvement to diminish these ill effects attending rail- 
 way travel by a device which checks at the outset the 
 tendency to vibration. It is no answer to the value of 
 this device to say that there are some conditions where 
 the forces creating oscillation are superior to the forces 
 arrayed to check it; the sole question is, does the appli- 
 ance of Sessions have a tendency to check car oscillations,
 
 21 
 
 and is it operative for that purpose? If the question is 
 answered affirmatively, the utility of the contrivance is 
 settled so far as the law requires to be satisfied. 
 
 In this connection I am brought to a consideration 
 which has been advanced by Mr. Payson, and to which, 
 in my view, he attaches altogether too much importance. 
 In the view of the defendants, if I rightly understand 
 them, the presence of frame plates having their faces 
 bearing against each other under the influence of oppos- 
 ing springs, cannot sensibly diminish the tendency of cars 
 to oscillate. I will not here refer to the positive testi- 
 mony of the witnesses who have testified for the com- 
 plainants on this subject; I have already done that; but I 
 now refer to the mechanical agencies which are brought 
 into play to prevent or diminish oscillation. In the first 
 place, the feet of the frame in the preferred construction 
 shown in the Sessions patent are combined directly with 
 the powerful platform springs. These springs would 
 ordinarily exert a pressure of from twenty to 
 thirty thousand pounds. Now, the effect of this 
 pressure is felt throughout the whole altitude of the 
 frame-plates. Suppose, for example, the feet of the 
 frame plates were welded fast to the bars which 
 are combined with the platform buffer springs, and 
 that the pressure of such springs at the feet were twenty 
 thousand pounds. It would follow, of course, that a pres- 
 sure of twenty thousand pounds applied to the top of the 
 frame-plates must be exerted in order to press backward 
 the frame-plate, assuming, of course, that the welded 
 joint maintained its integrity. On the other hand, if the 
 frame-plates so combined with the platform springs were 
 hinged to their rods, so that the frame-plate could be 
 moved backward or forward upon such jointed connection,
 
 22 
 
 then pressure applied to the top of the frame-plate would 
 not influence the spring exerting its force against the feet 
 of the frame, but such pressure would cause the plate to 
 be bent backward away from the vertical line. Now, in 
 fact, these frame-plates are, as we have already seen, 
 combined with the car-body at their tops, so as to form an 
 extensible end of the car framing, by means of rods c c' 
 arranged to slide in keeper guides. Now, it follows, 
 under this arrangement, that the force of the platform 
 springs must be felt to some extent clear to the tops 
 of the frames. In addition, however, there are the 
 special top springs which are capable of exerting a pres- 
 sure of many hundred pounds, which rapidly increases in 
 proportion as the backing springs are under compression. 
 The defendants have omitted, in their discussion upon 
 this subject, to consider the favorable point at which the 
 pressure is applied by the Sessions top springs. When 
 we keep in mind the fact that the car-body is mounted on 
 trucks, we can readily imagine that if there were a lever 
 of sufficient length extending upward in a vertical direc- 
 tion, say to the height of forty feet, it would be within the 
 capacity of the unaided power of a single strong man grasp- 
 ing the upper end of the lever to resist almost any force that 
 would tend to induce an oscillatio'n in the car-body. Of the 
 same kind in character is the force which the springs 
 exert upon the vertical frame-plates. We already under- 
 stand that each frame-plate constitutes a part of the car- 
 body extended, and partakes of all the movements side- 
 wise of such car-body. We also know from our common 
 experience that the cars of a train do not as a rule oscillate 
 in unison, but quite ordinarily through opposite arcs, de- 
 pending always upon the accidents of the situation. Now? 
 let us suppose that a car provided with a Sessions frame"
 
 23 
 
 plate exhibits a disposition to oscillate toward the right, 
 and at the same time, for other reasons, the adjacent car, 
 also provided with a frame-plate, has a tendency to vibrate 
 toward the left. So long as the frame-plates are in con- 
 tact as to their faces under opposing spring pressures, is 
 it not certain, as a mechanical proposition, that the op- 
 posite tendencies of the two cars will be wholly or par- 
 tially neutralized by the effect of such spring-backed sur- 
 faces rubbing against each other? It is easy to under- 
 stand that even a comparatively light pressure upon the 
 tops of the frame-plates, entirely within that degree of 
 pressure which the proof in this case shows is practically 
 employed in both the complainants' and the defendants' cars, 
 would have the effect at least to destroy or to check that 
 tremulous vibratory movement which does not require a 
 large arc of movement or any very great force to en- 
 gender. 
 
 In support of the defendants' line of reasoning in the 
 direction of endeavoring to establish that the whole pre- 
 vention of oscillation is due to the main platform springs, 
 and not to any spring pressure applied to the frame- 
 plates, resort is had to the theory that friction does not 
 depend on the area of the surfaces in contact, but wholly 
 on the character of the surfaces and the force with which 
 they are pressed together. Now, this law, while in a 
 sense correct, is nevertheless in its practical application a 
 deception. Some twenty years ago a series of experi- 
 ments were made, with a view of determining whether 
 friction depended upon area or upon the character of the 
 surface and the force by which the surfaces in contact 
 were pressed together. Accordingly a base metal sur- 
 face was prepared and made as smooth as mechanical 
 tools could make it. All roughness of the surface was
 
 2 4 
 
 removed by polishing such surface to the last degree of 
 practical possibility. Then two other metallic bodies of 
 the same weight, but having different areas of surface, 
 were smoothed and polished to the same perfection, and 
 from the result of the experiments the law stated was de- 
 duced; or, in other words, when the base plate was tilted 
 at an angle the two metallic bodies in contact therewith, 
 with their surfaces smoothed and polished, but of differ- 
 ent areas of surface, would rest stationary at the same 
 angle of repose. By this experiment it will be observed 
 that the great factor in producing friction was absolutely 
 removed, and all that was left was weight and area of 
 surface. It is within the knowledge of every one that 
 the friction between two surfaces in a given case of equal 
 pressures is affected wholly by the character of the sur- 
 faces. The protuberances upon the surface of one of the 
 bodies in contact may be supposed to fit into the depres- 
 sions in the fellow body with which it is in contact. Just 
 in proportion as these prominences and depressions are 
 numerous, so is increased the obstacles in the way of 
 moving the one surface over the other. Theoretically, 
 the point of a pin, when pressed against a surface with a 
 pressure of a thousand pounds in the line of its axis, 
 would induce just as much friction as if there'were a 
 block of a million pins aggregated together and bearing 
 by the same pressure upon a similar surface. Theoreti- 
 cally, a man in crossing an icy slope with a single hob- 
 nail projecting from the sole of his shoe would be as 
 safely sustained on his feet as if the whole sole of his foot 
 bristled with hob-nails. Practically, we know that the 
 contrary is the fact, and yet the scientific law as formu- 
 lated is correct, although when applied as illustrated it 
 becomes an absurdity. It is true, indeed, that if the op-
 
 25 
 
 posing pressures on two Sessions frame-plates equals the 
 algebraic sign of ,v, the same pressure, if applied to the 
 points of two needles in contact, would cause their points 
 to bear against each other with the same force. When, 
 however, we have to do with roughened surfaces, or sur- 
 faces which have a^multitude of small prominences enter- 
 ing into depressions in the fellow-bearing surface, the 
 whole conditions are changed, so far as ability is con- 
 cerned, of one surface to move over its fellow-sur- 
 face. A new factor comes into play, which is the 
 capacity of the surfaces in contact to resist strains in 
 the direction of moving one surface over the other 
 surface. To illustrate the subject, suppose that a pointed 
 rod half an inch in diameter bore against the Ses- 
 sions frame-plate and entered a depression therein, 
 and suppose that the pressure upon the rod is exactly 
 what the pressure may be supposed to be upon the 
 fellow frame-plate whose place it takes. Now, the pres- 
 sure in a direct line is the same when transmitted through 
 the rod as when transmitted through a frame-plate, but 
 if we undertake to move the pointed rod over the surface 
 of the frame-plate we are resisted at once by the oppo- 
 sition which the walls of the depression in the plate into 
 which the pointed end of the rod enters affords. Surely, 
 if we conceive of two Sessions frame-plates, one of which 
 is furnished with ten thousand conical depressions in its 
 surface, and the other frame-plate has ten thousand pointed 
 bosses, so that each pointed boss on the one plate will 
 have a depression in the fellow- plate to enter, the resist- 
 ance which such plates constituting a part of car-body 
 frames would furnish against the movements of the sur- 
 faces over each other would be ten thousand times great- 
 er than the resistance which would be furnished by a sin-
 
 26 
 
 gle conical point entering a single depression, and yet the 
 pressures upon the two surfaces in contact would be the 
 same, and the law as formulated would still be true, but 
 have no application in the case supposed. Two Sessions 
 frame-plates are analogous in their character to the illus- 
 tration above given. The surfaces are not smooth; their 
 extent of area furnishes opportunity for a great number of 
 elevations on the one to enter depressions on the other, 
 and thus oppose any movement of their surfaces over 
 each other, partly as the result of the spring pressure ap- 
 plied to hold such surfaces in contact, and partly as the re- 
 sult of the interlocking of their surfaces with each other, 
 due to the number of points on either which can enter de- 
 pressions in the otheV, and thus mechanically interpose an 
 obstacle which is not scientifically " friction," but a posi- 
 tive physical resistance. 
 
 It is a well-known fact that a wide belt will transmit 
 more power than a narrow one. Now, if the law that 
 friction depends upon pressure and character of surface, 
 and not upon area, is true in the sense in which the defend- 
 ants seek to apply it, it would follow that a belt one inch 
 in width would transmit as much power as a belt ten 
 inches in width, provided the pressure upon the driving 
 pulley were the same. Mr. Sessions has treated of this 
 matter in his affidavit, to which I respectfully refer the at- 
 tention of the court. It is a matter of common knowledge 
 that a belt will slip upon a machine on account of its ina- 
 bility to transmit the power. It will be capable of exert- 
 ing a greater driving force in case the belt be tightened, 
 but this has the effect to unduly wear the bearings of the 
 shaft. Consequently the remedy is, in such a case, to apply 
 a wider belt, without straining the pulley bearings. The 
 reason why the wide belt will exert a greater driving
 
 2 7 
 
 power is the same in principle as in the illustration previ- 
 ously given. Other factors and forces beside mere fric- 
 tion are brought into play. 
 
 THE DEFENDANT'S INFRINGEMENT. 
 
 Understanding that the characteristic feature of inven- 
 tion set forth in the Sessions patent is that the car-body 
 shall be provided with a frame-shaped plate arranged in 
 a vertical plane substantially parallel with a vertical trans- 
 verse plane passing through the car-body, and projected 
 by means of powerful backing springs for a distance be- 
 yond the extreme end of the car, so that, upon the 
 coupling of two cars the pressing-out springs of the frame- 
 plates shall become com pressed, and, exerting their pressure 
 upon the plates, cause frictional surfaces substantially of 
 the height of the car-body to continue constantly in con- 
 tact, whereby, in addition to other advantages, there will 
 be created a resistance to oppose the tendency of the cars 
 to sway laterally when in motion; keeping also in 
 mind that these frame-plates are combined with the car- 
 bodies by means of sliding connections, so that, while 
 they have a moment in the direction of the length of the 
 car, they are prevented from having an}' side wise move- 
 ment independent of the movement of the car-bodies, and 
 thus constituting a frame extension of the car superstruct- 
 ure, it is now proper to turn to an examination of the 
 vestibule additions which have been applied by the de- 
 fendants to their cars, in order to ascertain whether it is not 
 true that there has been a direct and complete appropria- 
 tion of the Sessions improvement. 
 
 It is apparent at a glance that the whole vestibule addi- 
 tion has been taken. It is difficult to distinguish one train
 
 28 
 
 from the other. The general appearance of the vestibule 
 additions, the arrangement of doors and entrance steps, 
 the domed lantern in the roof to light the entrance, have 
 all been copied. This is important, perhaps, only as show- 
 ing the motive and. purpose of the defendants. It is con- 
 sistent with their entire conduct. The patent in suit does 
 not relate to the vestibule as a whole, but to a component 
 of the vestibule, or an appliance which can with great ad- 
 vantage be used in combination with the vestibule, or can 
 be employed in the event that the platforms are not en- 
 closed. It is clear that a heavy frame-plate is used by the 
 defendants, and that this plate is combined with the car- 
 body so as to have a longitudinal movement, but to be 
 incapable of sidewise movement. It is connected at the 
 top with the car by means of strong rods or bars attached 
 to the frame-plate at one end, and combined with the car- 
 body by means of guides within which such rods can slide. 
 
 The frame-plate at the foot is combined directly with 
 the main platform buffer spring, substantially in the same 
 way as the arrangement shown in the Sessions patent. 
 The only formal difference that can be found in the two 
 organizations is the immaterial one that the defendants 
 have inserted a strong elliptic spring to press outward 
 the frame-plate at the top, instead of employing two 
 separate. coiled springs. The effect of this elliptic spring 
 is necessarily to force outward the frame-plate with all 
 the force which is due to the spring. At the same time, 
 notwithstanding that such spring is made fast to the 
 frame-plate and to the framing at points near the center 
 of the spring, the frame-plate itself is incapable of any 
 sidewise movement independently of the car-body, on ac- 
 count of the presence of the sliding rods attached to the 
 corners of the frame-plate, as well as the attachment at
 
 2 9 
 
 the foot of the buffer springs. It is immaterial whether 
 the elliptic spring of the defendants is as powerful as the 
 two coiled springs of the plaintiff, or not. It is apparent, 
 on the slightest examination, that the powerful buffer 
 springs at the foot of the frame-plate exert their influence, 
 whatever it may be, to force the frame-plate outward, 
 precisely the same as in the Pullman construction. It is 
 also apparent that the full power of the elliptic spring 
 operates, in addition, to force outward the top of the 
 frame-plate, and that such force is applied under the most 
 favorable conditions for opposing a tendency in the cars 
 to oscillate. 
 
 The testimony of Mr. Sessions on the question of the 
 strength of the spring in the practical structure which 
 the defendants have made and are operating, is clearly set 
 forth in his affidavit. He says that his own physical 
 strength, aided by that of two other strong men, was 
 unable to compress the friction plates in the defendants' cars, 
 notwithstanding that their united force, exerted by bracing 
 themselves, was applied at a point not farther than a foot 
 from the end of the top edge of the plate; and he declares 
 that the united efforts of the three failed to produce the 
 slightest impression, or induce the slightest movement in 
 three of the plates upon which they exerted their strength. 
 The spring which pressed out the fourth plate was some- 
 what weaker, but they were unable to move it for a dis- 
 tance exceeding the fourth of an inch. Mr. Sessions 
 declares that the pressure upon the lower portion of the 
 plate in the defendants' structure is not less than eighteen 
 thousand pounds, and that at the top of the plates is not 
 less than four hundred pounds. Mr. Sessions further says 
 that the face-plates in the defendants' cars bore evidence 
 of wear from frictional contact with each other, and that
 
 30 
 
 in fact they showed as much evidence of wear during the 
 short time that they have been in operation, as is exhibited 
 by the plates on the vestibuled train which have been in 
 use for several months. 
 
 A point is made in argument by Brother Payson that 
 the model of the defendants' cars which has been con- 
 structed to an exact scale illustrates that the frame-plates 
 are incapable of preventing oscillation. To this I reply 
 that the model is built on a scale of one-twelfth the size of 
 the full structure. The plates are only one-twelfth the 
 thickness of those in use. It does not follow, however, 
 that the model weighs only one-twelfth the weight of a 
 full-sized car. A child could overturn this model; twelve 
 children could not overturn a full-sized car. In the model 
 the effect of mass is eliminated. An elliptic spring one- 
 twelfth the size of the actual spring can be easily com- 
 pressed between the thumb and forefinger, but twelve 
 times that degree of pressure would not make the slight- 
 est impression upon the full sized-spring. This fact is so 
 elemental and obvious that it is only necessary to state it. 
 
 I cannot consider it necessary for me to dwell longer 
 upon the patent fact that the defendants have clearly made 
 use in their cars of the Sessions construction, and that the 
 only departure in arrangement is confined entirely to the 
 substitution of a heavy elliptic spring in place of two 
 individual coiled springs. It is manifest, however, that 
 the elliptic spring performs the same kind of office, and 
 for'the same end, which is performed by the, coiled springs 
 of the Sessions device. 
 
 Several of the cars which belong to the defendants' 
 equipment were constructed by the Pullman Company for 
 use on their line. They are of the best known form of
 
 construction at the time that they were built. It never 
 entered into the mind of any man that it was possible to 
 put a barber shop into one of these cars until after the 
 vestibule train had been constructed and this novelty 
 introduced, but the defendants hastened to apply to these 
 cars the vestibule addition and the Sessions appliance to 
 prevent oscillation, and straightway set up their barber 
 shop. Moreover, Mr. Pullman coined an adjective de- 
 scriptive of his train, and by that name it has been known 
 and advertised. The defendants, immediately upon 
 putting their train into service, advertised it as a vestibule 
 train both in the public prints and in the folders which 
 they distributed to attract attention to their new departure. 
 
 THE PRIOR PATENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SET UP. 
 
 I ask now your Honors' consideration of the several 
 prior subjects which have been presented by the defend- 
 ants as tending either to belittle the invention set forth in 
 the Sessions patent, or to have the effect of substantially 
 anticipating it. A brief consideration of each one of the 
 different devices described in prior patents will clearly 
 show that the subject-matter which distinguishes the Ses- 
 sions improvement is not to be found in any one, or in all 
 of them put together. I shall confine my attention to 
 these patents and prior subjects, which are referred to by 
 Mr. Payson in his argument, as possessing importance in 
 his estimation, and deem it unnecessary to consider the 
 many other patents which are set up in the answer upon 
 which no especial point is laid by the defendants them- 
 selves. 
 
 So far as all those prior devices are concerned which 
 consist in the employment of platform buffers of various
 
 32 
 
 kinds, or, in other words, buffers under opposing spring 
 pressures applied in planes substantially coinciding with 
 the main platforms of car-bodies, I have only to say that 
 they contain no suggestion of the Sessions improvement. 
 Especially is this true in the case of cars mounted on 
 trucks according to the American system. The effect of 
 such buffers is indeed to ameliorate the effects of a col- 
 lision, and undoubtedly to the extent to which in use their 
 faces bear against each other in frictional contact they 
 have a tendency to -diminish the oscillations of the plat- 
 forms. But it must always be remembered that the car 
 bodies in use on American railways are not rigidly attached 
 to the trucks, but are combined with those trucks by means 
 of pintles, in order to enable the trucks to sway freely 
 underneath the car bodies. Now, while it may be ad- 
 mitted that the effect of such buffers is in the direction of 
 opposition to the tendency to oscillation, it is at the same 
 time clear that the force in that direction is applied at the 
 most disadvantageous point. It is substantially in the 
 plane which coincides with the axis upon which the car 
 oscillates, instead of being applied at a point or points ele- 
 vated above such axis, whereby the powerful factor of 
 leverage comes into play to co-operate with any spring 
 pressure applied at such points. 
 
 THE SIMONS ENGLISH PATENT, JUNE 15, 1847. 
 
 In this patent the improvement is shown as applied to 
 an English railway train in which, as before explained, 
 the platforms are combined substantially rigidly with the 
 running-gear. The object of the improvement which has 
 any connection with the present question is as set 
 forth in the fourteenth division of the specification.
 
 33 
 
 This improvement is the application of what the pat- 
 entee calls " outer buffers," to distinguish them from 
 the main buffers placed in the line of the plat- 
 forms " so that in case of a violent shock or pres- 
 " sure of the carriages, etc., upon each other, or in case 
 " of a collision, such top buffers may come in contact with, 
 " and press upon, each other" The thing that was to be 
 prevented was. the tendency of these short English cars 
 to rear up on their hind wheels and tumble over upon 
 each other in case of a collision. It was not designed or 
 intended that these top buffers should be in contact at all 
 under ordinary conditions so as to exert spring pressure 
 upon each other to prevent oscillation. This is manifest 
 from the shape of the faces of the buffers, which are in 
 the form of sections of spheres, and, while they would be 
 operative, when brought together in case of a collision, to 
 prevent the cars from rising on their hind axles, such 
 form of buffer would be absolutely impracticable for use 
 as a means for preventing oscillation. Moreover, there 
 is another reason why there could not practically be ap- 
 plied to English railway carriages any system of upper 
 buffers in constant frictional contact. This is set out very 
 plainly in the affidavit of Mr. A. B. Pullman and others. 
 The superstructures of English carriages are about the 
 strength of the ordinary well-known Concord coaches. 
 They are not intended to bear pressure except under ex- 
 traordinary circumstances. Finally, there is no sugges- 
 tion whatsoever in the specification that the top buffers of 
 the Simons patent were to perform any other office or ef- 
 fect than to come in contact with, and press upon each 
 other whenever a collision or sudden arresting of the 
 movement of the train caused the lower platform buffers 
 to be so far compressed, as the result of such collision, as
 
 34 
 
 to bring into contact the faces of the upper buffers, and 
 thus present a practical obstacle to the rearing upward of 
 the cars of a train. 
 
 Reference is made in this patent to means for prevent- 
 ing the oscillations of the carriages. This shows plainly 
 that from a very early period, means and devices were 
 sought for to prevent such disagreeable effects. The 
 mode, however, of accomplishing it in this, patent is not 
 the Sessions mode of interposing a vertical buffer between 
 two railroad carriages, extending from the platform ver- 
 tically upward to a point near the tops of the carriages, 
 but it consists simply in substituting for a single pair of 
 buffers applied at the center of the platform two pairs of 
 buffers applied to the platform, but near its outer edges. 
 Undoubtedly, the employment of two buffers spread apart 
 so as to occupy a base line approximating closely to the 
 width of the platform, would have a tendency to prevent 
 oscillation in an English carriage beyond what would be 
 accomplished by a single pair of buffers placed in line 
 and applied at the middle longtitudinal line of the car- 
 riages, and if the carriage be only eighteen or twenty feet 
 in length, and be rigidly connected with the running gear, 
 and be of a height no greater than about seven feet, two 
 inches, undoubtedly this device would practically fulfill 
 reasonable requirements. (Affidavit of David J. Powers, 
 pp. 127-132.) 
 
 ENGLISH LETTERS PATENT TO W. AND G. RICHARD- 
 SON, OCTOBER 5, 1857. 
 
 This patent is for the same subject exactly as the prior 
 patent to Simons. (Affidavit of David J. Powers, pp, 
 '32, 133.)
 
 35 
 ENGLISH PATENT TO GEORGE D^ER, OCTOBER 6, 1863. 
 
 The invention set forth in this patent is substantially 
 the same as that set forth in the prior patents considered. 
 The difficulty to be remeded, is, the toppling over 
 of the carriages upon each other in the event of a collis- 
 ion. The remedy applied was the application of upper 
 buffers, which are not described to be in constant contact 
 to prevent oscillation, but are only to come into play in 
 the event of a collision or sudden stoppage of the train. 
 This is clear, from the fact that the patentee says that 
 the " play of the upper buffers shall be about one-half of 
 the lower set." This would naturally follow. The lower 
 set of buffers have their springs compressed as a result of 
 an obstacle in the way of the movement of the train, 
 whereupon the upper buffers are brought into contact, 
 and their springs have a less extent of play than the 
 lower set of buffers. Oscillation is not prevented in the 
 slightest degree as the result of the employment of the 
 upper buffers, and if it were intended that their faces 
 should be in contact, it would follow of necessity that the 
 play of the springs would be required to be as great as the 
 play of the lower set of springs. 
 
 This patentee understood that it was desirable to pre- 
 vide some means to prevent oscillation, but his plan was 
 not the employment of friction surfaces in constant con- 
 tact to accomplish that end, but he proposed to increase the 
 diameter of the wheels of the running gear to about five 
 feet and higher, to be equal to the base of breadth of the 
 car, so as " to resist the overhanging weight or tendency to 
 " turn over and to give greater steadiness to the motions of 
 "the carriage generally." The buffer in this case had its 
 head in the form of a section of a sphere, which is the
 
 3 
 
 common form of buffers employed on English railroads. 
 The object of this spherical form doubtless was to enable 
 the train to easily round curves without inducing that 
 rigidity which would result to a certain extent in the 
 event that the faces of the buffers were flat planes. 
 (Affidavit of David J. Powers, pp. 133-136.) 
 
 ENGLISH PATENT TO ROCK CHIDLEY, JANUARY n, 1865. 
 
 The whole device in this patent consists in the employ- 
 ment of two rods near each side of the car, which are 
 similar to rods for supporting curtains. It was intended 
 that the platforms should be enclosed by means of a cur- 
 tain, and the rods were to give support to the same. The 
 ends of each of these rods were provided with a light 
 spiral spring which took a bearing against the adjacent 
 car, and the purpose of this was to compensate for the 
 lengthening and shortening of the distances between cars 
 in rounding curves. The spring in fact served the pur- 
 pose substantially of lazy tongs, and is a device very anal- 
 ogous to the lazy-tongs gates or guards used on the 
 elevated railroads in the city of New York. 
 
 (Affidavit of David J, Powers, pp, 136, 
 I37-) 
 
 ENGLISH LETTERS PATENT TO MICHAEL, ANGELO GAR- 
 
 VEY. 
 
 This patent was not presented to our notice until the 
 argument. It is not made the subject of discussion by the 
 experts upon either side. It is perfectly easy, however, 
 to comprehend its true import, and I have had an illustra- 
 tive model made which will perfectly exhibit its ac- 
 tion. In one sense it is more important than any other
 
 37 
 
 patent which has been introduced by the defendants, not 
 because it serves in any degree to weaken or to impair 
 the Sessions combination, but because it shows plainly,, 
 that the fact that oscillation exists in railway trains has 
 been recognized and sought to be prevented for a long 1 
 period of time. In English railway carriages, as we al- 
 ready have seen, this disagreeable concomitant of railway 
 travel is by no means so serious as in the case of Ameri- 
 can railway trains, and for the reason, as already ex- 
 plained, that the carriages of English railways are in a 
 measure rigidly combined with the running gear, while 
 American carriages are usually three times and a half the 
 length of an English car, are three feet higher, and are 
 mounted upon trucks upon which they can sway. More- 
 over, the top hamper of an American car, especially 
 if used for sleeping-car purposes, is vastly greater than 
 anything that can be found in an English carriage, espe- 
 cially when the upper berths are occupied, and the in- 
 cidental weight elevated so high above the point of oscil- 
 lation. And yet, the disadvantages of oscillation were 
 recognized in English carriages, and means were devised 
 for diminishing it. 
 
 The plan proposed by Garvey was to employ what 
 may be very properly called a frame-plate extending be- 
 yond the ends of each of the cars. This plate was at- 
 tached in a peculiar way to sliding bars, but such plate 
 was not rigidly attached to such bars so as to constitute 
 an extension of the railway carriage. These plates were 
 faced with felt, and were nut intended to slide on each 
 other as the frictional surfaces in contact of the Sessions 
 plates are intended to move over each other, but it was de- 
 signed that they should be held in fast contact with each 
 other. Moreover, inasmuch as the sliding rods which
 
 38 
 
 combined them with the car-bodies were not rigidly at- 
 tached to such plates, but were combined with them by 
 means of volute springs, it is manifest that the plates 
 would not, as the Sessions plate must necessarily do, par- 
 take of the movements laterally of the railway carriages. 
 The purposes of the volute springs was to interpose a 
 spring resistance to the lateral movement of the car- 
 bodies and the rods (as distinguished from rods and 
 frame-plates) connected therewith. Consequently, when 
 a railway carriage swayed, the rods combined with such 
 carriages would partake of the same movement. The 
 plates, however, did not; they remained in contact with 
 each other, and the tendency to sidewise movement of 
 the carriages was resisted by the volute springs. This 
 device undoubtedly possessed efficiency. It is not practical 
 for adoption to the American carriage, on account of its 
 complexity and its unsuitableness in case there be required 
 a continuous passagefrom car to car. It bears no relation, 
 however, to the Session invention, except in the general 
 and immaterial matter that it proposes to interpose a re- 
 sistance to the tendency of cars to oscillate. It is not the 
 device at all of the Sessions patent. In the Sessions con- 
 struction, reliance is had upon an altogether different set 
 of forces and a different combination of operative devices. 
 The plates which are to be in contact are held, in the 
 Sessions device, in that relation under powerful opposing 
 pressures. The purpose is to develop frictional resist- 
 ance. Unlike the Garvey plates, they are made fast to 
 the sliding rods and main buffer devices which connect 
 
 O 
 
 them with the car and compel such frame-plates to be 
 substantially integral with the car-bodies; or, in other wods, 
 a frame-like extension of the car-bodies. When a car 
 provided with the Sessions appliance commences to sway,
 
 39 
 
 the friclional contact of the surface of its frame-plate 
 with the fellow frame-plate of the next adjacent car, pre- 
 sents a hindrance to such oscillation, and which is meas- 
 ured by the extent of the surfaces and the character of the 
 surfaces in contact, and the degree of spring pressure. 
 Again, there is another marked difference in the opera- 
 tion of these two devices which needs only to be stated to be 
 
 / 
 
 appreciated. In the Garvey structure the resisting power 
 is a constant; it is the measure simply of the power of the 
 volute springs. In the Sessions organization, however, 
 the force which is applied to press the frame-plates to- 
 gether, and thus increase the degree of frictional resist- 
 ance, is not an absolute constant. True, the direct press- 
 ure of the top and bottom springs is a constant quantity 
 which is never lessened, but when the train is suddenly 
 checked as the result of a collision, or from a sudden ap- 
 plication of the brakes, the cars of the train press or crowd 
 upon each other, and then the power, with the spring press- 
 ure which is applied to the frame-plates, is greatly in- 
 creased. Now, exactly the same thing is true when a 
 train is running over an ordinarily crooked roadbed. It 
 is just at that time that there is a tendency on the part of 
 the train to set up the greatest degree of oscillation. The 
 locomotive and the baggage-car enter upon the curve 
 sooner than the rest of the train. The necessary tendency 
 is to check the movement of the locomotive and baggage- 
 car, because the resistance to the locomotive is increased 
 when it enters upon the curve. The momentum of the 
 remaining cars in the train causes them to press forward 
 upon each other, and thus the factor of constant pressure 
 in the Sessions device is greatly increased on the frame- 
 plates as the result of these conditions. Now this is an 
 advantage which can eome only from the employment of
 
 4 o 
 
 that device or combination of means which is expressed 
 in the Sessions patent as the combination with the end of 
 a railway car of a frame-plate or its equivalent, backed by 
 springs, arranged with its face in a vertical plane, and 
 normally projecting beyond the end of the cars, whereby, 
 upon the coupling of two cars, not only will a spring 
 buffer be interposed between the superstructures of such 
 adjacent cars above their platform, but also frictional 
 surfaces under opposing spring pressures, to prevent the 
 racking of the car-frames and to oppose the tendency of 
 the cars to sway laterally when in motion. 
 
 A marked characteristic of the Garvey structure is ex- 
 pressed in the peculiar name which he gave to his device. 
 He called it a " spondyloyd." This means that it was 
 an articulated connection, and that was precisely its char- 
 acteristic. The articulation was effected by means of 
 volute springs, and the patentee runs the parallel between 
 the spinal cord in the human fra.ne encased within the 
 vertebrae of the spinal column and his spondyloyd train 
 enclosing passengers. The grand characteristic of the 
 Sessions appliance is that it does not belong to the order 
 of vertebrated animals, and in that respect is in marked 
 contrast with the Smith construction and others of that 
 type presently to be introduced. 
 
 I conclude this branch of the discussion, which em- 
 braces all of the prior English patents which are of the 
 least importance, with the repetition of the statement that 
 none of them contains the least hint or suggestion of the 
 Sessions organization. It is also, in this connection, worth 
 remembering that the Pullman Company are at present 
 engaged in the construction of a train of vestibuled cars 
 for use on the London, South Coast and Brighton Rail- 
 way in England. Up to this time it does not appear, at
 
 4 1 
 
 least, that English railway managers regard the vesti- 
 bule improvement either as of little consequence or as old 
 in the art. 
 
 THE CHARLES S. SMITH PATENT, OCTOBER 24, 1882. 
 
 This is an American patent which is owned by the 
 Pullman Company. It illustrates one of the several devices 
 which had been used or experimented with at different 
 rimes for the purpose of enclosing the ends of railway 
 carriages so as to make a continuous passage-way be- 
 tween adjacent cars and to render the passage from car 
 to car more easy and comfortable. It is essentially a 
 " spondyloyd" attachment. It consists of a number of 
 bows, like the bows of a carriage, which serve to give 
 support to some flexible material, like canvas, so as to 
 form a hood or enclosure of the platform. These ribs are 
 stated to be "light ribs or frame-pieces," to which the 
 flexible material is secured. The ends of two bows in 
 contact are preferably covered with some backing material 
 so as to make a tight joint and prevent the access of 
 cinders, and it is also suggested in the specification that 
 springs may be arranged in the sides of the hoods so that 
 their faces may be forced and held against each other, but 
 this is stated to be usually not necessary. There is not 
 the slightest suggestion in the specification that this ap- 
 pliance would have any tendency whatsoever to interpose 
 any resistance to the tendency of cars to oscillate. The 
 absence of any such statement is due to the fact that it 
 wrs designed and intended that this connecting hood or 
 canopy should be an articulated structure, and should be 
 free to have a lateral movement in itself independently 
 of the movement of the car bodies. In order to con-
 
 4 2 
 
 vert it into a Sessions structure, it is necessary 
 that the front bows, which are intended to abut 
 against each other, should be connected at the top and 
 bottom with the car-bodies by a rigid connection, which 
 would compel such bows or frames to partake of 
 the movements of the car-body. Then, if the surfaces 
 in contact and the springs which press them outward 
 were capable of developing frictional resistance, there 
 would be embodied the Sessions improvement. It is 
 plain, however, from a reading of the Smith specification 
 and an inspection of the drawings, that no such contriv- 
 ance entered into the mind of the patentee. The whole 
 end which he sought to accomplish was to apply a can- 
 vas or flexible jointed connection between the ends of 
 railway cars which would enable such cars to be fur- 
 nished with an inclosed passageway between their ends, 
 but which would interpose the least possible resistance to 
 the free movement of the cars both in rounding curves 
 and in oscillating. There is a wide difference, as the 
 court will recognize, between the attachment of frame 
 plates serving to make a connection between the adjacent 
 ends of cars which are attached to flexible material, 
 so as to be in every sense articulated, and frame plates 
 which are attached to car-bodies so as to form extensions 
 of such bodies. In the one case, frictional contact be- 
 tween such frame-plates opposes a tendency to oscillation 
 on the part of the cars; in the other case, the frame- 
 plates present not the least obstacle to an oscillatory tend- 
 ency on the part of the car-bodies. 
 
 THE DEFENDANT'S MODEL OF THE SMITH PATENT. 
 
 I cannot too emphatically condemn the model which has 
 been presented by the defendants of the Smith patent.
 
 43 
 
 The thing that they show is substantially a model of the 
 Sessions improvement. It is in no sense a true model 
 of the Smith device, and the court will not be deceived 
 by it. Instead of being a spondyloyd, or articulated ap- 
 pliance, it is represented in the model as combined with 
 the car-body by means of sliding rods forced outward by 
 springs. It is the very opposite of the Smith structure. 
 The misrepresentation is too gross and flagrant to cause 
 any apprehension as to its misleading the court. 
 
 THE HOOD-FRAMES OF THE MICHIGAN CENTRAL RAIL- 
 ROAD. 
 
 This device has not been employed for many years. It 
 was intended to furnish a light frame to support a hood 
 or canopy to prevent cinders from the locomotive falling 
 upon the platform. The complainants have in their pos- 
 session, and have made an exhibit in this case, one of these 
 old canopy structures, and which is open to the inspec- 
 tion of the court. The character of the device is shown 
 in the testimony of A. Longstreet, page 154; W. H. Fry, 
 page 158, and H. H. Sessions, page 163. The device 
 consisted of a light board about one inch in thickness and 
 three or four inches in width. It was uniformly curved 
 to correspond generally with the curvature of the roof of 
 the car. It was supported by four rods at right angles, 
 with its face near the roof of the car, and these rods were 
 provided with light springs of about No. n wire, a sam- 
 ple of which we have produced, and which would operate 
 to press these frames outward so that two adjacent frames 
 would meet at the transverse middle line of the space be- 
 tween two cars. This frame supported a canvas canopy, 
 and the only purpose and object of the framework was to
 
 44 
 
 extend or to stretch such canopy. The faces of these boards 
 were covered with thin sheet iron. This device, as I have 
 already said, has been abandoned for many years. No 
 one has the hardihood to testify that it was ever designed 
 or intended to exert any frictional resistance to effect the 
 steadiness of a train. It is manifest that no such idea was 
 present in the mind of any constructor, for the reason that 
 no provision whatsoever is made for taking up the strain 
 which would result in case the springs were of sufficient 
 strength and the face boards of proper material to act as 
 spring buffers. The roofs of the cars would have been 
 pried oft' in the event that the device, as we find it, had 
 ever been constructed with a capacity to act as spring 
 buffers under constantly opposing pressures sufficient to 
 diminish oscillatory movements. One can idealize, of 
 course, this structure by pointing out that it was only 
 necessary to conceive the idea of using a top buffer, and 
 then convert this canopy frame into such a device by en- 
 dowing it with new properties as the result of an entire 
 reorganization of its members. It is an instance, doubt- 
 less, of two frames having face pieces which are held ex- 
 tended by means of springs so as to meet and give sup- 
 port to a canopy- The elements which enter into such 
 organization may indeed be said to be the same elements 
 which would enter into an elevated buffer;, that is to say, 
 there are two face boards, rods connecting such boards 
 with the car, and springs to press them outwards; but the 
 device is not a buffer, nor has it the capacities to develop 
 frictional resistance to oscillation. When it is converted 
 into such a device it is not the former device, nor does it 
 differ from the former device simply in degree it is a 
 difference in kind. In useful inventions the difference be- 
 tween the new thing and those things which preceded is-
 
 45 
 
 frequently a difference in mere form, proportions and ar- 
 rangement. The Supreme court have recognized this in 
 the case of Loom Co, v. Higgins, 105 U. S., 591, in- 
 which they reply to a former structure in a loom which 
 was claimed to deprive the thing patented of any patent- 
 able quality, by the language: 
 
 "This argument would be sound if the combina- 
 tion claimed by Webster was an obvious one for at- 
 taining the advantages proposed one which would 
 occur to any mechanic skilled in the art. But it is 
 plain from the evidence, and from the very fact that 
 it was not sooner adopted and used, that it did not, 
 for years, occur in this light to even the most skill- 
 ful persons. It may have been under their very 
 eyes, they may almost be said to have stumbled over 
 it; but they certainly failed to see it, to estimate its 
 value, and to bring it into notice. Who was the first 
 to see it, to understand its value, to give it shape and 
 form, to bring it into notice and urge its adoption, is 
 a question to which we shall shortly give our atten- 
 tion." 
 
 The same line of reasoning runs through the opinion 
 of the Supreme court in Consolidated Valve Company v. 
 Crosby Valve Company, 113 U. S., 157. In this case there 
 was put in evidence various English patents of long prior 
 date which contained the same elements as the plaintiff's 
 device, and in the same combination. The difference be- 
 tween the thing patented and these prior structures re- 
 sided in the presence of a retarding structure for the 
 escape of steam from a safety valve, so that the passage 
 for the entrance of steam into a supplementary, or hud- 
 dling chamber, was always larger than the area of exit. 
 The result, in the opinion of the court, was that the old 
 organization for safety purposes had been reorganized by 
 the patentee so as to accomplish in that regard all that
 
 4 6 
 
 the previous structures did, and, in addition, accomplish 
 an improved economy of operation. In speaking of these 
 patents the court remarks (p. 170): 
 
 " In regard to all of the above patents, adduced 
 against Richardson's patent of 1866, it may be gen- 
 erally said, that they never were, in their day, and 
 before the date of that patent, or of Richardson's in- 
 vention, known or recognized as producing any such 
 result as his apparatus of that patent produces, as 
 above defined. Likenesses in them, in physical 
 structure, to the apparatus of Richardson, in import- 
 ant particulars, may be pointed out, but it is only as 
 the anatomy of a corpse resembles that of the living 
 being. The prior structures never effected the kind 
 of result attained by Richardson's apparatus, because 
 they lacked the thing which gave success." 
 
 I have thus reviewed every one of the prior devices 
 upon which any reliance has been placed by the defend- 
 ants to defeat the present motion. When they are viewed 
 individually and collectively, can an impartial rnind con- 
 sider that they impair in the slightest degree the validity 
 of that combination which is the subject of the Sessions 
 patent which the public have so universally recognized 
 and which the defendants were so quick to seize? 
 
 The argument on the part of the defendants, that the 
 public would be interfered with, and they put to great ex- 
 pense, in the event that they are enjoined from using the 
 Sessions device, can be answered in a few words. They 
 are at liberty to use a spondyloyd connection between the 
 euds of their cars, and they will then have substantially 
 the articulated organization of the Russian royal train. 
 Or, if they desire to retain the ponderous frame-plates 
 which are so important in the Sessions frictional contact 
 system, let them move them backward so as to be within 
 the planes of the ends of the cars, and then they cannot
 
 47 
 
 have their surfaces bear against each other under oppos- 
 ing spring pressures, to diminish the effects of oscillation. 
 
 There is only one further consideration, and I conclude. 
 I did not advert to it in the oral argument in a crowded 
 court-room, for the reason that it would savor too much 
 of that appeal to the multitude in favor of a client, which 
 would be more fitting for a public gathering that for the 
 forum of a court of justice. I do not hesitate, however^ 
 to state myself in type before your Honors. 
 
 An attempt has been made in the defendants' affidavits 
 to belittle and cast a sneer at Mr. Pullman. He is repre- 
 sented in the light of one who is claiming for himself im- 
 provements which do not belong to him, and which pos- 
 sess in themselves no mechanical value, but have been 
 rendered attractive by the garb in which they have been* 
 put. The whole line of the discussion on the part of the 
 defendants has been in the direction of belittling, as far as 
 possible, the present invention, to the end, I suppose, that 
 your Honors may be induced not to interfere at this stage 
 of the controversy, but allow the defendants to reap the 
 benefits of their piracy until a final hearing upon full 
 proofs can be reached. I have said all that I deem to be 
 necessary upon the technical point thus raised. I now 
 wish only to repel the unworthy aspersion which the 
 tone of the defendants' affidavit seeks to cast against Mr. 
 Pullman as the representative and head of the complain- 
 ant company. 
 
 All the world knows that Mr. Pullman is the creator of 
 the sleeping-car in its highest form of development. All 
 prior structures have passed away and been forgotten. 
 The Pullman folding upper berth has made these cars not
 
 4 8 
 
 only comfortable for passengers, but economical in use, by 
 providing accommodations for a.s many persons with beds 
 at night as could be reasonably made comfortable with 
 sittings by day. This improvement was appropriated by 
 the predecessors of the defendant company, and they paid 
 heavy damages therefor. It is not, however, upon the 
 benefits which Mr. Pullman has rendered to the whole 
 civilized world in sleeping-car accommodations that his 
 just fame will rest. His chief glory is the institution of 
 the model city which bears his name, and which is a liv- 
 ing exponent of the practical solution of one of the great 
 problems of civilization. He has taught the world a les- 
 son in social science, the influence of which will be endur- 
 ing, and will in time leaven the whole empire of the State 
 of Illinois. He has taught the world that there is no ne- 
 cessary antagonism between labor and capital, at the same 
 time that he is elevating, by a clear law of evolution, the 
 capacity of the servant into the intelligence of the master. 
 Above all, he has proved that by the right application of 
 the essential spirit of the scriptures, a new reading can be 
 given to the text, that a man cannot serve both God and 
 mammon. By the stimulation of social order and the 
 practice of virtue, with the encouragement of industry, he 
 has aided in the largest way the maintenance of that sys- 
 tem of law of his country, whose aid, as a suitor against a 
 wrong done to his interests, he now invokes. By his 
 work, unparalleled in the history of a private citizen, he 
 has performed the labors which in the world's history have 
 hitherto been accomplished by the imperial power of em- 
 perors and kings. Such men have a right, in the pres- 
 ence of those who have taken another's property, and then 
 offered the insult of a nominal consideration to escape 
 prosecution, to assert themselves with force and dignity.
 
 49 
 
 The defendants may paint their names upon their vesti- 
 buled train; they cannot change the truth that it origi- 
 nated with Mr. Pullman and was the outgrowth of his 
 large conceptions. If they desire to still further imitate 
 his works, let them, with their means and resources, con- 
 vert a barren waste on the prairie into an orderly city for 
 twenty thousand happy human beings, surrounded by 
 every blessing of modern civilization and every appliance 
 for the development of the physical, the moral, and the 
 intellectual faculties; and then the foremost among them 
 will be entitled at death to have erected in the market- 
 place of that city, not a statue in bronze or marble, but a 
 simple plate inscribed with a single name, with no date of 
 death for such men never die but with a line fitly bor- 
 rowed from the inscription under the tablet of the great 
 architect of the Cathedral of St. Paul " St desiris monu- 
 mentum circumspice"
 
 PSb"