Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

To refund.

The result in detail is as follows, viz. :
Prof. Morse,

$9,250 00 A. Vail,

1,387 50 G. Vail,

1,387 50 A. Kendall, 10,175 00

To receive. $16,608 80

2,491 32 2,491 32 18,269 68

Gain. $7,358 80 1,103 82 1,103 82 8,094 68

much upon

$22,220 00

$39,861 12 $17,661 12 These results will, doubtless, be somewhat varied in the final settlement; but it is quite as likely that the amount accruing to us will be increased, as that it will be diminished.

I had proposed, for the sake of peace, to give up all claim to stock on the second wire, and all additional wires; but my proposition was not acceptable. If the malicious men who got up the difficulty are satisfied with the result, I assure them that I am.

There was the less reason for charging me with fraud in this matter, inasmuch as my accusers knew I was not the author of the arrangement of which they complained; but I look upon it as a compliment, that I was singled out as the object of attack. When a rogue is called a rogue, it creates no sensation; but when an honest man is charged with default, whether rightfully or wrongfully, all hell yells with delight.

With great respect,
Your obedient servant,

Amos KENDALL.
ATLANTIC OCEAN TELEGRAPH.We desire to

say

this subject, but have not room in the present number. We publish an article on the Ocean-Sounding, as preparatory to a discussion of the question in future. There are several efforts being made for the construction of an electric telegraph cable across the ocean. We believe it can be done. There can be no doubt about it. This boldness we expect to be ridiculed. So were the founders of the telegraph. To our astonishment we find the editor of the Telegraph Review, Mr. Reid, indulging in a sneer at the enterprise. This was unexpected, although his good-will towards us has been, for a long time, deemed exceedingly questionable. We seek no controversy, nor will we permit ourselves to be drawn into one. We notice the article 'in the Review, because it is evidently intended to hinder the accomplishment of an enterprise that is destined, ere the revolution of many years, to astound the world by its most triumphant success. Here is the article, viz. :

“We now learn that Mr. Shaffner is in concert with a former employee of an English Submarine Company, in endeavoring to form a Company to put a cable across the Atlantic. This will be a difficult work. Telegraph enterprise in this country has not been made so uniformly remunerative to stockholders, as to induce a connection with a colossal enterprise like this. The single fact of the immense weight of the cable is enough to terrify an ordinary mind from contemplating it. The cable at Paducah weighs at the average of three tons per mile. The shortest stretch across the Atlantic is one thousand five hundred miles. Think of a coil, within the ribs of a vessel, weighing forty-five hundred tons ! But great men are born for great necessities."

We understand this article to give the following reasons why a submarine line from America to Europe is impracticable, viz. :

1st. That it will be a difficult work.

2d. That telegraph stock in America has not proved very profitable, and that capitalists will be deterred from investing in a gigantic enterprise like this.

3d. The weight of the cable will be at least forty-five hundred tons. 4th. That no vessel is of sufficient tonnage to carry such a monster cable.

Relative to the first objection, we admit that the proper construction of an electric cable across the Atlantic Ocean will be difficult in the extreme. The crossing of the flooding waters of the inland has been difficult for years past. The same energy that has stretched a web of wire over forty thousand miles in the Western hemisphere, overland, and through its mighty streams, can master the difficulties in crossing the ocean. Tides may ebb and flow-the billows may surge with mighty power—the icebergs may tower their whitemantled form high in the skies, and sink deep in the briny sea—the heavens may let loose the loud-rolling thunder, and the earth heave up its fiery lava; but, just as sure as these elements of nature exist, and worlds revolve, America and Europe will be connected by an electric cord.

To the second objection we have to say, that there is a cause for the unprofitableness of many telegraph lines. Rapidity in building, and recklessness of management, have been the progenitors of ill success. When the lines now constructed work with fidelity, the patronage will be sufficient to enable every line in the country to pay handsome dividends. In the construction and management of lines, apply the remedy, and the disease will be cured. Build or repair the lines strong, and insulate them well, and they will all prove profitable. Shun extraragance as you would a viper!

The third objection is singular, and we scarcely know how to answer it. We admit it will weigh very heavy; but we consider the great weight secures with it great strength; therefore this objection occurs to us to be really an argument in favor of success.

The fourth and last objection is marvellous. If there was only one solitary vessel ploughing the mighty deep, then there would be something to reflect upon. After reading the objection, we proceeded forth with to the harbor of New-York, to see if all the vessels of the world had vanished from the face of the earth. At one view we saw a forest of more than a thousand masts towering from vessels. We then felt relieved, and that all was safe. At the Merchants’ Exchange, the marine registers evidenced the existence of thousands at sea, and our joy seemed to be full, that the laying of a cable need not be confined to only one poor vessel.

In the final cabling of the ocean we hope for success. We do not entertain faith in the various schemes blazoned forth in the press, but our arrangements contemplate solidity and reality.

In years gone by, Mr. Reid, with others, partook in the struggles of the telegraph. The electric telegraph was the “wonder of this wonder-teeming age,” and but few entertained faith in its ultimate utility. Every person engaged in the business was ridiculed. The ignorance of that age has passed away. He who was an object of burlesque then, ought not to foster it now. The progressive march of the science ought to receive a cheering smile, and not a scorn. We hope the Review will give the subject a more candid consideration.

EXTENSION of Morse's Patent.—The subject of the extension of the patents granted to Prof. Morse, by the United States, seems to be gravely considered by a portion of the American press. Of course, no one doubts its importance to the inventor and the people. The following notice, relative to the question, we copy from the Scientific American, viz. :

“EXTENSION OF PATENTS AND Patent Law Suits.—A statement has lately appeared in one of our daily papers, to the effect that a number of interested capitalists, with their seat of operations in the city of Washington, have formed an association, with a capital of $500,000, for the purpose of procuring the further extension of the Woodworth Planing Machine patent, also the Hayward Patent for manufacturing india rubber, and the Telegraph Patent, granted to Prof. Morse, April 11th, 1846. The intention is to accomplish this result by a special act of Congress, during its next session. There must be some error in including the patent of Prof. Morse, inasmuch as it has yet seven years to run, and the extension, if any, should be granted under our general laws. It is possible, however, that the owners of the patent, anticipating its rejection by the Commissioner of Patents, are thus providing in due season to supersede the general law by obtaining a special act. To be fully convinced of this, however, we shall need more light upon the subject, but, from information received from other sources, we are led to believe that large sums of money are being collected to obtain the extension of the two first patents. We are opposed to the further extension of these patents for the following reasons:-1st. Because the applicants for the extension have already amassed enormous amounts of money from these inventions.

2d. We are opposed to the extension of these patents, because they have been so managed by the owners as to injure deeply the interests of inventors, and to cause the public to become dissatisfied with our whole patent system, which is one of the most noble institutions in our country. We have always advocated the interests of inventors, and have defended their just rights; but in opposing the extension of these patents we plant ourselves upon the foundation of the rights of the people, who, as well as inventors, are deeply interested."

The editor of the above paper expresses doubt as to an association of Prof. Morse in this Company, with a capital of $500,000, but proceeds to place him with inventors, whose patents he thinks ought not to be renewed. We deeply regret this species of procedure, upon the part of the editor, to arouse “public sentiment to bear forcibly upon Congress," against the merit of the Morse patent. He ought not to associate parties in an arrangement affecting so seriously the rights of persons, unless the evidence of the fact is complete. We can assure him, that so far as Prof. Morse, or any of his friends, are concerned, there is no truth in the report he has seen fit to indicate in the article quoted above. Nor has there been any grounds for the origination of so base an imputation, other than a wilful misrepresentation by some one, who has probably been foiled in his propensity to plunder from Morse those rights seemingly guaranteed to him by the letters patent.

It occurs to us, and we express our opinon with due respect, that a high and elevated work, like the paper from which we have quoted, ought to be more careful and discriminating in assailing the reputation and property of citizens. The editor claims to be “the friend of inventors;" but we think his past career has manifested a very different disposition towards Morse. We have been often pained to see his paper joining with a part of the press in assailing the patents for the American Electro-Magnetic Telegraph.

The first objection to the extension of these patents seems to be correct, if true ; but if not true, then a renewal ought to be granted by the Commissioner. Such is the case of Prof. Morse. He has not “amassed enormous amounts of money.” If he has not, the Scientific American ought to advocate the renewal of his patent.

The second objection is so sweeping, that we know not how to answer, so far as it may refer to the Morse patentees. We suppose, however, the objection must refer to the other patents, as there has not been any very great mismanagement of the Morse patents, unless an effort upon their part to prevent themselves from being robbed and plundered by reckless and unscrupulous speculators, be mismanagement.

The patent of Prof. Morse, granted in June, 1840, expires June, 1854. That he will apply for a renewal is beyond doubt; but as to his being connected with any combinations, either direct or indirect, to procure a renewal by any corrupt mode, particularly such a base one as indicated above, is wholly untrue. The renewal can safely rest upon its merits. The laws now existing are ample for the case, and no special acts will be needed. So just are his claims, that the Hon. Amos Kendall, his agent, has positively refused to receive any aid even from those who are engaged in the telegraph business. Again we say, we are confident in the belief that no effort has been, or will be made in any manner whatever, upon the part of Prof. Morse and his associates, in procuring any act through Congress relative to his patent, or any law tending to promote a renewal.

We hope the courteous editor of that valuable work on science will correct the misrepresentation made, and in future, not assail the renewal of a patent, unless he knows his first objection is unquestionably verified. Pal. mam qui meruit ferat.

Notice.—The Companion and the Tariff Scale will be published and issued from New-York City by Messrs. Pudney & Russell, No. 79 John-street. Subscriptions can be forwarded to them, or to the Editor, at Washington City.

Articles designed for publication in the first thirty-two pages of the Companion should be in the hands of the Editor by the 1st of the month preceding that of publication. News designed for the editorial department should be forwarded to the Editor on or before the 10th of the preceding month.

Corrections to be made in the Tariff Scale should be given to the Editor on or before the middle of the month preceding its issue.

[blocks in formation]

Art. 1.-THE AMERICAN ELECTRO-MAGNETIC TELEGRAPH.

By Hon. Amos KENDALL.

Argument submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States. Continued.

OERSTED—SCHWEIGER - ARAGO-STURGEON-HENRY-MORSE.

DISCOVERIES

RESPECTIVELY.

MORSE THE INVENTOR OF THE RECORDING TELEGRAPH.

We propose now to take up the case somewhat in detail, and show the Court by the evidence what it was that Morse invented. First, however, it is necessary to correct some errors of fact contained in the printed argument of the opposite Connsel.

At page 7, Mr. Chase, after giving an account of the invention of the Electro Magnet by Sturgeon in 1825, says, “It was now certain that mechanical results could be produced at any distance from the operating station to which the Electric Current could be transmitted." No such fact is established by the evidence, nor was there any such certainty.

Again at page 28, after giving an account of Prof. Henry's experiments made known in 1831, Mr. Chase says “the fact that by the use of Electro Magnetism thus developed, any mechanical effects, capable of being produced by any ordinary motive power of like energy could be wrought at any distance from the operating Station to which the Electric Current could be transmitted, was also established.” Again says he, “It was also established that the electric current generated by a proper battery, could be sent through a Circuit of indefinite extent without any sensible diminution of its power to excite an Electro Magnet, or to deflect a needle placed at the remotest point from the operating Station.” There is no evidence tending to establish either of these

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »