recommended to Crenshaw that a petition be made to the Governor of Illinois for Robinson's full pardon on the ground he had been illegally convicted and citing the aforementioned provisions of the act to substantiate a claim to Robinson's right to his unconditional freedom.

The petition to the Governor, as recommended, was made in August 1924 and, upon a hearing by the Governor, Robinson was granted a full pardon that same month. Robinson becoming apprised of the theft of the contents of his safe and realizing what they meant to him, became deranged while still in the penitentiary.

His friend Crenshaw made every possible effort to retrieve those papers but met with utter failure, even the bankruptcy courts professing ignorance of the occurrence and refusing any assistance in the premises. Robinon was released from the penitentiary in August 1924, a sick man, and on Christmas Day, December 25, 1924, he died.

As an example of the character of such legal talent as he was able to procure (the reasons which have been heretofore explained) about 1913 two obscure lawyers agreed to represent Robinson, promising him an immediately successful prosecution of his suit, filed their appearance and thereafter their handling of the Robinson suits, through their sheer lack of knowledge of the Federal court procedure, caused those actions to terminate disastrously for Robinson. When Robinson dismissed them from his services they wheedled a few of Robinson's notes out of him on the pretext that he owed them for legal services rendered. The total face value of the notes they got in settlement of the balance due was $113,000. Shortly thereafter they went into the local courts and, unknown to Robinson, procured a creditors' judgment for the $13,000 face value of the notes. That judgment was bartered about Chicago, for several years, and passed through the hands of several purchasers. The last purchaser being a Louis Kulesza,

who is the present owner of it.

The greater part of Robinson's supporters (those who purchased his notes) were southern and eastern European people, the balance being made up of a few native white and colored Americans. The method employed by Robinson in raising funds with which to find his cases was the holding of Sunday meetings at his office in the vicinity of Thirty-first and State Streets in Chicago, Ill. At these meetings he would report to his followers the progress of his infringement suits as well as additional names of concerns throughout the country who, from time to time, joined the infringers parade led by the Chicago City Railway Co. and the American Car & Foundry Co. Upon concluding his talk, which was understood by a few of his supporters, the bellwethers for each of the groups (Polish, Lithuanian, Hungarian, etc.) would each respectively arise and attempt to impart the information in their respective native tongues which Robinson had just given them in English. None of the bellwethers ever made any memoranda but attempted to translate in narrative form. What portion of the facts were translated correctly has never been known. The bellwethers for the foreign groups devoted their entire time to the Robinson business and were recompensed for their efforts by Robinson's payment to them of either a weekly salary, a salary and commission, or solely a commission. These bellwethers were also foreign, but had glib tongues and had mastered enough English to carry out a fairly understandable conversation in English. Previous to their employment by Robinson, they were a laboring class of people of one sort or another, but immediately upon entering Robinson's employ, they became affluent and leaders among their respective race groups. Some of them went so far as to issue notes with a forged signature of Robinson on them, selling those notes to their followers as genuine and keeping the entire proceeds of the sales for themselves. Having died intestate, his widow (and only heir) made application in January 1925, for letters testamentary and in February 1925, was made administratrix of his estate. Not being a business woman, Mrs. Robinson found herself under a greater disadvantage than her deceased husband. No one was willing to carry out the fight. She finally succeeded in enlisting the assistance of her deceased husband's friend, B. A. Crenshaw, with whom she entered into a contract for the purpose of procuring justice through the Federal courts. He worked under that contract for a period of 71⁄2 years, when he, too, passed away. During that period Crenshaw expended a considerable sum of cash money to keep the Robinson suits alive, only to see them made farces of the Federal courts.

At the time of Robinson's death he had sold his notes to some 7,000 individual purchasers. Of this number, there are about 1,800 noteholders who are "members" of about four different "clubs" at the present time.

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

This agreement, made and entered this 5th day of April, A. D. 1940, by and between John T. Hanisch, John J. Komaracki, Emil Bado, Nelle Szufnarowski, Anthony J. Grym, John Porebski, Onufry Janusz, and Stanley Schlieben of Chicago, Cook County, Ill., witnesseth that:

Whereas a bill to revive certain patents is to be acted on during the pending session of the Seventy-Sixth Congress of the United States; and

Whereas said bill provides that certain letters patent of the United States of Elbert R. Robinson, deceased, are to be revived and extended in the names of John T. Hanisch, John J. Komaracki, Emil Bado, Nelle Szufnanowski, Anthony J. Grym, John Porebski, Onufry Janusz, and Stanley Schlieben, or in the name or names of any individual or individuals, as Congress may see fit and proper, and as a fully appointed member, each of the above committee, as individuals representing some seven hundred and sixty (760) other noteholders 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, which said patents are as follows: Patent No. 594,286 (wheel), issued November 23, 1897: expired November 23, 1914;

Patent No. 866,306 (switch), issued September 17, 1907; expired September 17, 1924;

Patent No. 886,541 (rail), issued May 5, 1908; expired May 5, 1925; Patent No. 887,848 (axle), issued May 19, 1908; expired May 19, 1925; and Patent No. 1,109,018 (motor vehicle) issued September 1, 1914; expired September 1, 1931; and

Whereas the purpose and intent of reviving and extending the above-mentioned patents in the names of the parties hereto is for the sole purpose of distributing any benefit or benefits which may arise from said patents, or any of them among some seven hundred and sixty (760) noteholders in proportion to the amount of notes which they hold, and is for no other purpose, and not for the purpose of individually benefiting any of the parties hereto except in their individual capacity as noteholders;

Now, therefore, in consideration of the payment by each party hereto to the other of the sum of one ($1) dollar and for other good and valuable considerations receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, it is understood and agreed as follows:

1. Every one of the parties hereto agrees with all of the other parties hereto that at no time during the life of any patent or patents which may be revived and extended by the bill which this agreement refers to, will any one of the parties hereto, except in concert and cooperation with all of the others, sell or otherwise dispose of any interest in the patent rights hereinbefore referred to, or grant any licenses to anyone to make use or sell the improvements to which said patents relate.

2. It is further understood and agreed that any business in the manufacture or sale of the devices, or the methods to which the subject matter of said patents relates, shall be the joint enterprise of all the parties hereto, the profits thereof to be shared as hereinbefore set forth, unless the Congress of the United States deems the change of policy necessary, and if no change shall be made, then no one of the parties hereto shall engage in any business independent of all of the other parties hereto, except with the express approval of all said parties and members of the organization as a whole body.

3. If any one of the parties hereto shall die during the life of this agreement, the survivors shall, as long as they shall live, be solely empowered to sell the patent rights to which this agreement relates and to grant licenses to others to make, use, and sell said improvements, with the understanding (unless the Congress of the United States specifies change of policy necessary) however, that all the moneys realized from licenses granted shall be distributed among the seven hundred and sixty (760) noteholders more or less, in proportion to the amount of notes which they hold, and the parties hereto or their heirs, executors or administrators shall share in the proceeds above mentioned as noteholders in proportion to the amount of notes which they hold.

4. Unless sooner terminated by mutual consent or by the assignment of the rights in said patents mentioned at a future date, to a trustee or to a corporation organized for the same purpose for which said patents are to be extended,

this agreement shall continue and be in force until the expiration of the last to expire of any patents which may be granted under said bill heretofore mentioned. In witness whereof the parties hereto have executed this agreement, at a meeting of the noteholders, for whose benefit the same has been made, which meeting was held at the Veterans' Hall, 1239 N. Wood Street, Chicago, Illinois, as of the date and year first above written.

STATE OF ILLINOIS,

County of Cook, 88:

JOHN T. HANISCH, et al.

On this 5th day of April, A. D., 1940, before me personally came John T. Hanisch, John J. Komaracki, Emil Bado, Nelle Szufnarowski, Anthony J. Grym, John Porebski, Onufry Janusz, and Stanley Schlieben, to me personally known, and known to me to be the individuals described in, and who executed the foregoing agreement, and who and each of them acknowledge same of their free will and for the purposes therein set forth.

[SEAL]

FRANK J. KRUPPA,

Notary Public in and for the County of Cook and State of Illinois. My commission expires February 2, 1942.

PETITION

The undersigned, constituting 760 individuals, more or less, respectfully represent that they are members of the E. R. Robinson Noteholders Committee, located at 1239–1245 North Wood Street, and 1358 North Wolcott Avenue, Chicago, Ill.; that they and each of them are holders of notes issued by Elbert R. Robinson in his lifetime; that they and each of them have paid for said notes they hold; that repeatedly in the lifetime of Elbert R. Robinson they have contributed large sums of money to him to prosecute patent infringement suits based on his said patents; that these are the following:

Patent No. 594,286 (wheel), issued November 23, 1897, expired November 23, 1014; patent No. 866,306 (switch), issued September 17, 1907, expired September 17, 1924; patent No. 886,541 (rail), issued May 5, 1908, expired May 5, 1925; patent No. 887,848 (axle), issued May 19, 1908, expired May 19, 1925; and patent No. 1,109,018 (motor vehicle), issued September 1, 1914, expired September 1, 1931.

That these patents have all expired, and a bill is being requested to be introduced in the Congress of the United States to extend these patents for a period of 17 years from their successive dates of expiration.

That they are represented by a committee consisting of John T. Hanisch, John J. Komaracki, Emil Bado, Nelle Szufnarowski, Anthony J. Grym, John Porebski, Onufry Janusz, and Stanley Schlieben, and in order to preserve and protect their rights in said patents, or any of them which may be extended, they respectfully petition the Congress of the United States that these patents may be revived and extended in the names of the above committee for the benefit of all noteholders of Elbert R. Robinson, or in the name or names of any individual or individuals as Congress sees fit and proper.

In witness whereof they have hereunto set their names this 5th day of April, A. D. 1940.

[SEAL]

My commission expires February 2, 1942.

JOHN T. HANISCH et al.
FRANK J. KRUPPA,
Notary Public.

Mr EDELSTEIN. I also offer for the record a telegram received from John T. Hanisch, dated May 16, 1940. (The telegram referred to is as follows:)

CHARLES KRAMER,

Chairman, Committee on Patents,

CHICAGO, ILL., May 16, 1940.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.:

Re telegram of May 16, the latest filing with petition attached is bill H. R. 9341, sponsored by A. F. Maciejewski. H. R. 9341 should reach a hearing before

bill H. R. 7685 mentioned. You will note the petition gives you a brief, and I personally believe that consideration should be given H. R. 9341. Unless unduly advised, your kind cooperation and immediate reply will be appreciated. Answer care Postal Telegraph, 119 West Washington Street.

JOHN T. HANISCH.

Mr. EDELSTEIN. I also offer for the record a telegram from James A. Crotty, administrator of the estate of Elbert R. Robinson, deceased. (The telegram referred to is as follows:)

Hon. CHARLES KRAMER,

CHICAGO, ILL., May 17, 1940.

Chairman of House Patents Committee, Washington, D. C.:

I acknowledge receipt of your telegram of May 16, notifying me of your subcommittee hearing on bill 7685 on Robinson patents scheduled for tomorrow morning, May 17. I hereby register my protest against any action on any such proposed legislation unless and until I have been duly apprised of the text of any such bill and have been given an ample and fair opportunity sufficiently in advance to enable me to prepare for and be present at any hearing for such purpose. JAMES A. CROTTY,

Administrator of the Estate of Elbert R. Robinson, Deceased. Mr. EDELSTEIN. I also offer for the record a telegram received from Addie L. Robinson, widow and sole heir of Elbert R. Robinson, deceased.

(The telegram referred to is as follows:)

Hon. CHARLES KRAMER,

CHICAGO, ILL., May 16, 1940.

Chairman of House Patents Committee, Washington, D. C.

HONORABLE SIR: Please extend me the favor of registering my protest against the taking of any action on any legislation proposed for the revival, extension, or renewal of the patents of my deceased husband, Elbert R. Robinson, unless and until Mr. James A. Crotty, of this city, has been given due and timely notice and an opportunity to properly present my side of the case and be heard. I had no previous intimation of the proposed action of the committee until Mr. Crotty's receipt of your telegram late this evening. In the future I will thank you to keep Mr. Crotty informed sufficiently in advance of any such proceedings to give him an opportunity to present my side of the case.

ADDIE L. ROBINSON,

Widow and Sole Heir of Elbert R. Robinson, Deceased.

Mr. EDELSTEIN. Have you anything else, Congressman?

Mr. REED. Referring to the original assignment of the patents in this case, particularly the case dated January 30, 1938, I do not happen to have a copy of that, and Dr. Radau does not have one with him. I wonder if I could leave the original with you and have it copied and returned to me?

Mr. EDELSTEIN. Put it in the record. Has the assignment been filed in the Patent Office?

Mr. REED. Yes, sir.

Mr. EDELSTEIN. Then we can get a copy of it.

Dr. RADAU. It is dated October 14, 1937, and it is recorded November 3, 1936, Liber R 172, page 498. That refers to patent No. 886,541. That is the assignment from the heirs of Hoffman and the widow Mary Hoffman to Steve Kalisz and Stella Lakomski.

Mr. EDELSTEIN. If the committee deems it advisable to get a photostatic copy from the Patent Office, we will incorporate it in the record. Have you anything more, Mr. Congressman?

Mr. MACIEJEWSKI. No.

Mr. EDELSTEIN. I understand Mr. Bailey has a statement to make.

STATEMENT OF JENNINGS BAILEY, JR., CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION, SECTION OF PATENT TRADE-MARK AND COPYRIGHT LAW, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. BAILEY. Yes, sir; I represent the American Bar Association, and I would like just a few moments of your time. The American Bar Association has, on a number of occasions, acted against the extension of mechanical patents. The position of the association is based purely on public policy. The extension of any patent by act of Congress, in effect, would put us back to the old days of the Stuarts in England and the days when the king gave monopolies to his friends as he pleased and saw fit. That was the basis of the original statute of monopolies which introduced the patent system into England to give a patent for a fixed limited term to the inventor, and thereafter to leave it open to the public. Now, here we have bills to extend patents which have been expired anywhere from 9 years to 26 years. The inventions of those patents have been in the public domain for that period of time.

It is quite a common practice when a company wants to go into manufacturing to use the patent system for the purpose for which it was really intended. The purpose of the patent system is not primarily to give monopolies. It is to promote the progress of the arts by giving the people something after the monopoly of the patentee has expired and the monopoly which is granted to the patentee is merely an inducement to draw him into giving this invention to the public.

Now, it is a common practice when a manufacturer wants to make something to look around and to try to find an expired patent, and he pays his money for all the devices shown in that expired patent because he knows he is going to be safe in doing so. He knows that there is an invention that has had its monopoly period run on it, and he is free to proceed.

Now, the extension, and particularly, the renewal, as these bills propose, of any patent is dangerous to completely innocent manufacturers who may have started in on the basis of the expiration of the patent.

I know nothing of the facts in this case. I have no interest in it whatsoever one way or the other, but it has just that great danger. Suppose some company has produced, we will say, rails manufactured or covered by one of these patents and Congress extends the patent, possibly the Washington Rapid Transit Co. could be estopped from operating their system by the use of these patents by injunctions. So, it is utterly against public policy to extend any mechanical patent, and partciularly an expired patent.

I say the American Bar Association has taken the general position that it is against public policy to do so. I am authorized by the President of the American Patent Law Association, Mr. William B. Kerkham, to read this resolution of the Board of Managers, which was adopted in 1936:

Resolved, That this association is opposed to the renewal of patents for technical or mechanical inventions as distinguished from design patents.

I do not think it is necessary to explain the reason for that distinction except that there are some design patents, such as the design of