testified that he actually paid $25 for it, and that there was testimony that other notes for thousands of dollars were given to persons who paid $25 or $50 for them.

The question arising from the proposed legislation is whether Congress, in an endeavor to give relief to the holders of notes who invested their money in patent litigation apparently without acquiring or demanding any actual interest in the patents, should establish a patent monopoly in individuals for inventions which have long since passed into free use by the public, which would enable the beneficiaries of the legislation to require of industry that it meet their royalty demands, or be forced to discontinue to make and provide for the use of the public articles embodying the inventions. This is a question which Congress alone can decide. However, with such a precedent, would not any individual who had made an unwise business investment feel justified in seeking and expecting the Congress to make reparation to him? The disastrous result of such precedent is so obvious that it need not be stated.

While the situation in which the thousands of Robinson's noteholders were placed is a deplorable one, and I heartily sympathize with them in their misfortune, it is nevertheless one which grew out. of their own voluntary acts, and I know of no way to prevent people from investing their money as they please. The unfortunate result, however, would not, in my mind, justify the action sought by the proposed legislation.

LITIGATION TERMINATED ON TECHNICALITIES

It seems that, pursuant to Robinson's plan, a series of suits were instituted. The brief states that all of these "were unsuccessful in the district court and all of which upon hearing on appeal in the United States circuit court of appeals were dismissed, without prejudice, on technicalities."

In this connection it is interesting to note just one or two remarks by the courts before whom these cases were heard:

In Robinson v. Chicago Railways Co, (C. C. A., 7th Cir., May 6, 1909, 174 Fed. 40) the court said:

"The complainant, who is the patentee, has undertaken to conduct his own case, and has been drawn into a technical contest which has resulted in disaster to him, and has produced a record so complicated that it is not easily disentangled."

In Kulesza et al. v. Blair et al., supra, the court said (p. 507):

"The case at bar is one of a long series of cases in the Federal and State courts involving the patents of Robinson, including one criminal case in which the inventor was convicted of maintaining a confidence game by the use of notes such as are here involved (People v. Robinson, 299 Ill. 617, 132 N. E. 803). Appellants complain that the case as to infringement has never been heard on the merits, but has always been disposed of on technicalities. * It would seem that every opportunity was given to him [Robinson] to perfect his rights of action, but the courts did insist that their rules of procedure should be respected and followed. Ignorance of those rules can not excuse their flagrant violation."

* * *

*

*

The dismissals on technicalities would therefore seem to be attributable to no one other than Robinson and those claiming through him who apparently left the method of conducting the litigation solely to him and contributed their money without exacting from him any tangible security.

The brief states that "Robinson (nor any person related to or associated with him) never received as much as a single dollar from the infringers of his patents." The records of the litigation would seem to indicate that full opportunity was given to have the question of infringement decided on its merits but Robinson apparently failed to pursue the proper method to produce such result. In the case of Robinson v. American Car & Foundry Co. (C. C. A. 7th Cir. Nov. 15, 1907, 159 Fed. 131) involving patent No. 594,286, the court said (p. 132):

"If the plaintiff in error suffers loss of any benefit of his patent, he has surely had sufficient days in court and patient hearings upon the merits for determination of any rights which were involved in the several actions."

POWER OF CONGRESS TO REVIVE AND EXTEND EXPIRED PATENTS

The brief cites at some length authorities to support the contention that Congress may extend or revive expired patents. There would seem to be no doubt that Congress has the power to grant the relief sought. This is freely admitted. It nevertheless is significant that during the past 50 years Congress

has not exercised this power with respect to mechanical patents, notwithstanding it has been importuned by numerous bills to do so. The only exceptions to this uniform practice which has been followed for more than half a century are the six patents which were extended under the provisions of a temporary special act for the benefit of men who served in the military or naval forces of the country during the World War.

The arguments submitted by Mr. Sturtz, in my opinion, constitute no justification for the revival and extension of the patents involved.

Cordially yours,

(Mr. Sturtz' letter and brief returned.)

CONWAY P. COE, Commissioner.

Mr. EDELSTEIN. I also wish to offer for the record the petition signed by Mr. Hanisch and the others which contains 750 signatures of persons purporting to have an interest in this matter. (The petition referred to is as follows:)

THE REASONS WHY THESE PATENTS SHOULD BE EXTENDED

This is a case where a man evolved by his own genius a very effective and highly valuable method of hardening the wearing surfaces of metal products, that he immediately thereafter applied for and was awarded United States letters patent on his different inventions. In other words this Government entered into a contract with him. He paid the price the Government expected from him was thereby presumed (according to his constitutional guaranty) to have been sold an absolute monopoly on each of his patented ideas for the period of 17 years. He tried to market his patented processes, and his prospective buyers got him to make practical demonstrations in their own foundries, which he did in good faith, thinking they were acting likewise, and after they were shown how it was done proceeded forthwith to use the processes without coming to any agreement with him and defying him to stop them.

He then went into the courts. The only legal counsel available to him were third-rate lawyers-not because he didn't have the money to employ better counsel-but because better and more able counsel refused to be retained and declined Robinson's cases. The defendants made farces out of Robinson's suits in all of the courts, because of the utter lack of knowledge of his own lawyers. After Robinson's death, his widow, the administratrix of his estate carried on the fight.

After years of litigation, Mrs. Robinson, the widow, also had failed in her efforts to salvage something from her husband's patents.

Then the people who had supported Robinson in his suits in courts, broke away and formed an organization of their own, called the Robinson Club with a membership of 2,000 noteholders; this organization went into several suits of action on infringements, but they also failed, and the last suit of theirs, United States Circuit Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit, at Chicago, Ill., in its opinion No. 7039 delivered February 29, 1940, the court held that plaintiffs lacked title to maintain a suit for infringement.

On one hand, we see a large group of people (approximately 2,000) who assisted Robinson by their loans to him of hundreds of thousands of dollars, because of the well-known commercial value of these patents and who placed their confidence in their Government, in its guaranty of patent protection, and in its courts of justice, and their conviction that justice would prevail.

On the other hand, we see a group of defiant and wealthy corporations, whose overpowering greed rode them roughshod over the individual's rights, laughing at the law, and who have waxed fat to the tune of millions of dollars on their thefts.

The first group pleads with you, gentlemen-the Congress of the United States the people's court of last resort-for simple justice. The time has run against the patents, the suits are all out of court, so the Congress is the only remedy left.

The other group stands smugly content in its defiance of the law and that you will not dare to call them to account for their crime.

The question may well be asked, Why in fairness to all concerned should these patents be extended? The history of these patents, the circumstances under which these petitioners and other noteholders invested their money, and the fruitless years of litigation which have followed all answer that equity and justice insist upon such a course.

The petitioners as we have stated are poor hard-working people with little knowledge of but the deepest respect for the Federal Government and particularly their courts. These petitioners and other noteholders invested their money in an effort to compel trespassers to pay for the property they had so wantonly converted. Robinson, the patentee, was compensated; not by the infringers upon his rights, but by the petitioners herein and other noteholders, to the extent of several hundred thousands of dollars. The people who invested that money believed and had a right to believe that the Federal courts would compel respect for their rights. What was the result? In spite of thousands of dollars spent by the petitioners and the patentee in prosecuting patent suits, not once were they given the opportunity to present their case on the merits. Vested interests and corporations with unlimited funds for the employment of the best attorneys succeeded by one technicality after another in preventing a hearing on the merits.

The poor people who invested their hard-earned dollars because of their faith in the Federal courts all began to waiver in their faith. We make no charge of bad faith in the courts. The failure to obtain a hearing on the merits of these cases has undoubtedly been by due process. But the fact remains that substantial rights have been ruthlessly invaded and the owners of those rights have not been compensated therefor in any degree. Can they understand the law's technicalities? Are they to be without remedy and deprived of their property because of the vagaries of the law? Thes people should have their faith in the Federal Government rewarded, not by any gift or bounty, but merely by an opportunity to reclaim that which is rightfully theirs. The only manner in which this can be accomplished is by extension of these patents. If the inventions are valueless, let the infringers thereof discontinue their use. If they are of such value that the infringers wish to continue in their use in disregard of these people's rights, then let the patents be extended so a proper and legally sufficient suit may be filed and value of the inventions determined by the courts after a full hearing on the merits.

As pointed out above the Congress has many times in the past extended the term of Letters Patent. In no one of these cases have we investigated have the reasons for such extension been so compelling as in the present case.

The inventions of these patents have certainly advanced the engineering knowledge of this country. Their value has been inestimable.

It has been said that to revive these patents would be to establish a bad precedent by which the doors would be opened to numberless other owners of expired patents. If so, what kind of a precedent has been established by the failure of the court machinery to protect this man's (Robinson) rights as vouchsafed him by the Constitution and guaranteed him by the Patent Office by its issuance to him of his several patents?

It may be argued that the proposal to revive or extend these patents involves the question of public policy. Every case should stand on its merits. This case does. Its correction however, should not be permitted to serve those without merit. We dare say this case has no parallel. It surely cannot be said to be any part of public policy for the Government to close one eye, and have the poor inventor so ruthlessly appropriated by greedy infringers, without the faintest suggestion of compensation thereof. Such infringement has been with absolute knowledge of the patents existence and of the insistence of the patent owners that their rights were being invaded. To extend these patents will not hurt anyone who should not be hurt; to fail to extend the patents will be to aid the wrongdoers and to suffer innocent people to be without redress for their injuries, we the petitioners and other noteholders are inclined to the belief that it is very much a part of public policy to correct such a flagrant violation and abuse of man's constitutionally guaranteed property rights.

We respectfully submit that justice, fairness, and good conscience demand that Congress, as the representatives of the people, should carry out the mandate of the people expressed in article 1, section 8, of the Constitution, and should extend these patents so that the petitioners and other noteholders may at least have an opportunity to obtain their just reward.

It is also recognized that a revival or extension of these patents may, to a certain extent, place a burden of additional work upon the Patent Office. However, we all know that it never was the intention of the men who wrote the Constitution that any Congress should neglect to enact legislation simply because of the additional administrative work such legislation might involve.

If errors or negligence of governmental agencies in the past make it necessary to increase the personnel of the executive and/or judicial branches of the Government while, from the standpoint of economy, it might not make a nice

picture to contemplate-yet public policy demands that just such things be done from time to time as occasion requires. If the Congress took into consideration the vast amount of work the New Deal legislation would impose upon the then existing facilities of the various agencies of the Government affected by it, such legislation might not have been passed. But for the general welfare such legislation was imperative, and despite the inconvenience and added expense it was known would result from it the Congress proceeded without delay to put that much-needed legislation into effect. That, of course, resulted in enlarging quarters, increasing the working staff, and raising the overhead; and as a cure was probably a bitter pill to some, but no doubt was much less objectionable than the disease it was designed to cure.

Whenever the judicial branch of the Government falls down, we believe, it then becomes the duty of the Congress, when the matter is brought to its attention, to take such action as will correct the wrong. Should the Congress do so in this case it would not be the first time it has corrected a wrong. It is natural for the Congress to do such things. Legislative remedies are the peculiar function of the Congress. No other branch of the Government functions in that manner. No other branch of the Government has the authority to correct such a wrong. The only remedy lies specifically within the realm of congressional action and nowhere else.

If the things objectionable that have been said are to be given any serious consideration, we are confident that the matter is proceeding on the wrong premise. Stripped of superfluities this matter resolves itself down to but one question, which is, Is the Government willing to correct its errors by righting a wrong of many years' standing?

It is therefore not a question of "other expired patents" or "causing more departmental work," or of public policy, but rather a question of as to whether this Government is going to perform its end of the contract it entered into when it issued Robinson his patents and thereafter failed him in its courts.

The people whose rights have been invaded are, as stated above, some two thousand citizens. To extend these patents in the names of all those people would be cumbersome and unnecessary. Attached hereto is a petition signed by some of these people asking that they be extended in the names of a committee of eight members, or any indvidual or individuals Congress may see fit and proper, the above committee in whose integrity they have perfect confidence and whom they have named to represent them and any other unknown of noteholders in this matter.

We submit that for the purposes of convenience these patents should be extended in the names of the members of this committee (unless otherwise changed) and their successors, in trust nevertheless for the owners of these inventions, the owners of the Robinson notes. In the event that the patents are extended, the members of the committee (unless otherwise changed) have entered into an agreement binding themselves in a solemn compact to utilize the patents for the sole benefit of these petitioners. A copy of that agreement is also attached hereto.

Respectfully submitted.

JOHN T. HANISCH, et al.

A BILL To revive certain patents

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following letters patent of the United States of Elbert R. Robinson, deceased, formerly a citizen of the United States and a resident of Chicago, Ill., he and the same are hereby revived and extended in the name of John T. Hanisch, John J. Komaracki, Emil Bado, Nelle Szufnarowski, Anthony J. Grym, John Porebski, Onufry Janusz, and Stanley Schlieben, each individually and as a fully appointed member of a committee representing some seven hundred and sixty (760) other holders of E. R. Robinson notes for the use and benefit of said noteholders in proportion to the amount of notes which they hold and for the use and benefit of any other noteholders as their interest may appear, for further periods of seventeen years, each from their respective dates of their expiration, to wit:

Patent Numbered 866,306 (switch); issued September 17, 1907; expired September 17, 1924;

Patent Numbered 886,541 (rail); issued May 5, 1908; expired May 5, 1925; Patent Numbered 887,848 (axle); issued May 19, 1908; expired May 19, 1925; and

Patent Numbered 1,109,018 (motor vehicle); issued September 1, 1914; expired September 1, 1931.

THE PATENTS

United States patent No. 866,306 was filed February 18, 1907, and issued on September 17, 1907. The inventor is Elbert R. Robinson. The patent relates to a switch for railroads. The invention lies in constructing a pivoted switch tongue which has the wearing end hardened or tempered and also in the provision of a hardened insert for the rail positioned adjacent the switch point. A typical claim is the following:

“A switch for railroads comprising a switch tongue having a portion thereof tempered, and a removable chilled piece or section arranged in the rail adjacent the said switch tongue, substantially as described."

United States patent No. 886,541 was filed July 24, 1906, and issued on May 5, 1908. The inventor is Elbert R. Robinson. The patent relates to a method of casting rails, switches, crossings, or frogs whereby the face or tread of the same is provided with a chill and the web or flange are allowed to remain soft. It also provides for casting crossings or similar castings and chilling the corners which are subjected to shock by reason of the wheels of the rolling stock striking the crossing at the intersection of the tracks. This chilling effect is secured by placing chills in the mold, where a hardened surface is desired on the casting so that when the metal is poured in the mold, the casting is cooled quickly at the points where the chills are located. The following is a typical claim of the patent:

"A railroad crossing having its intersecting rails cast integral, the treads or faces of the rails being chilled while in the mold and the balance of the rail soft, substantially as described."

United States patent No. 887,848 was filed on February 6, 1907, and issued on May 19, 1908. The inventor is Elbert R. Robinson. This patent relates to axles and the method of casting the same so that the outer surface of the axle is chilled and hardened and the middle portion of the axle is made soft by annealing to such a degree that it becomes tough and cannot be easily broken. The invention is also carried out by placing chills in the mold so that as the metal is poured the outer surface is cooled more quickly than the inner portions and thus become hardened. The claim of the patent reads as follows:

"An axle made of cast metal having the bearing portions thereof chilled and the intermediate portion annealed to prevent crystallization and consequent breakage substantially as described."

United States patent No. 1,109.018 was filed on May 24, 1912 and issued on September 1, 1914. The inventor is Elbert R. Robinson. This patent relates to a vehicle spring construction and particularly to the employment of elliptic spring members for a motor vehicle generally similar to the spring construction of baby carriages. The following is a typical claim of this patent:

"A vehicle including wheels, axles thereof, a chassis and body springs, a bed frame connecting said axles together, transverse substantially V-shaped rods, the rear body springs compressing quarter elliptic member connected to said chassis, and semi-elliptic members having their forward ends connected to a transverse element or member, said bed-frame having opposite downwardly curved arcuate portions, pneumatic cushioning elements arranged within the resulting depressions of said arcuate portions of the bed-frame, said substantially V-shaped rods being arranged under and secured to the semi-elliptic portions of said body-springs, said pneumatic cushioning elements being arranged upon the ends of said substantially V-shaped rods."

THE TITLE TO THE ROBINSON PATENTS

Elbert R. Robinson, the inventor of the above patents which have all expired is now deceased. He died on December 25, 1924, leaving as his only heir his wife, Addie L. Robinson. After his death and upon her petition, she was appointed administratix of his estate in the Probate Court of Cook County, Ill., on February 21, 1925. A schedule of property filed by her in the