giving an account of the results of his experiments upon the single circuit, made public in 1831, goes on to say: (page 421) "In 1832, I was called to the chair of Natural Philosophy in the College of New Jersey, at Princeton; and in my first course of lectures in that Institution in 1833, and in every subsequent year during my connection with that Institution, I mentioned the project of an Electro-Magnetic Telegraph, and explained how the Electro Magnet might be used to produce mechanical effects at a distance."

Now, were all these lectures substantially but repetitions of his article of 1831, or did they embrace the additional idea of combined circuits, as means of effecting these mechanical results? If the latter had been the case, Henry could not so far have forgotten it, as to have any doubt whether he had explained the combined circuits to his class before he went to Europe in 1837. It is in the nature of things impossible, that if, during four years' lectures, he had described this combination of means for accomplishing an end, he should have forgotten those means while he distinctly remembers the end. While he "cannot speak positively" as to ever having explained the combined circuit to his class before he went to Europe in 1837, he says "I am, however, certain of having mentioned in my lectures every year previously at Princeton, the project of ringing bells at a distance by the use of the Electro Magnet, and of having frequently illustrated the principle to my class by causing in some cases a thousand pounds to fall on the floor by merely lifting a piece of wire from two cups of mercury closing the circuit." Now, this is the precise mode for closing and breaking the single circuit then used in experiments, and was not Henry's mode of bringing into action a secondary circuit. "This" he says "consisted," (not in a forked wire dipped in two cups of mercury but) in opening the circuit "by attracting upward a small piece of movable wire with a small intensity magnet, connected with a long wire circuit." When, therefore, Prof. Henry says he is certain of having mentioned every year previously at Princeton, the project of ringing bells, &c., and illustrated the principle to his class "by merely lifting a piece of wire from two cups of mercury closing the circuit," it is as much as to say "the piece of movable wire" was not used in the process.

The solution of this matter is perfectly easy. The short single circuit used by Henry with his improvements in the Electro Magnet, was competent to all the results he actually exhibited, and he used no other. He does not pretend that he did. His impression is, not that he used, but that he merely explained the combined circuit to his class. As to results not produced by him, such as ringing bells at a distance of one hundred

miles, &c., he only inferred it might be done, basing that inference upon his improvements in the Electro Magnet and his sup posed discovery that the magnetic action from a particular kind of battery "is at least not sensibly diminished by passing through a long wire."

He could draw no other inference from this supposed fact, and if it had turned out to be a fact, he could have rung bells by a single circuit not only at a distance of one hundred miles, but of ten thousand miles, and combined circuits would never have been thought of for any practical use.

Prof. Henry does not state when he first conceived the idea of combined circuits, or say positively whether he had it at all before he saw it in operation in England, in 1837. If he explained it to his class, he certainly had it, but he is not positive as to that. If he did not explain it to his class, then it is presumable he did not have it; or considered it of no importance, for he doubtless explained to his class all he knew or thought, which he considered of any importance on the subject. All that Henry proves, therefore, is, that he had the idea in April 1837, saw then an actual combination by Wheatstone in London, and suggested a different mode for breaking and closing the secondary circuit. But prior to that time, Morse had not only conceived but completed the combination. It is admitted that Prof. Morse neither invented nor improved the battery. Neither did Prof. Henry.

All he did in that respect was to test the capacity of known batteries in connection with his improved Electro Magnet. Nor is it any real disparagement to him, that being misled by a single experiment, he should reason that it might be "a fact that the galvanic fluid, in order to produce the greatest magnetic effect, should move with a small velocity," a supposition long since proved to be the reverse of the fact, as Prof. Henry's Deposition virtually establishes. Since 1831, Danielle's battery, and Grove's battery have been invented, and the latter has nearly superseded all others in the Telegraph Lines. It is composed of cups instead of pairs, and these cups generally without difference in size, are used both in the main and local circuits, so that practically in the Telegraph, the difference between what Prof. Henry calls a "battery of intensity" and a "battery of quantity" is merely the difference between a big battery and a little battery, "an intensity magnet" being made magnetic by a big battery, and a "quantity magnet" by a little battery; and a big battery very naturally sends out a swifter current than a little one of the same kind. But the distinctive names found in Prof. Henry's Deposition, do not appear in his article of 1831, and we regret that Science has not clearer ideas on this subject, or more intelligible terms to express them.

We feel as if we have gone into this subject with unnecessary

prolixity; for what, after all, does Henry's testimony amount to in its broadest construction, but that, in common with Oersted, Schweiger, Arago, Sturgeon and others, he has furnished some of the materials used in the Telegraph, without pretending that he produced a Telegraph, or attempted to do so?

He says himself "I left to others what I considered in a scientific view, of subordinate importance-the application of my discoveries to useful purposes in the arts," Record, page 424. He further says "I have always considered his [Morse's] merit to consist in combining and applying the discoveries of others in the invention of a particular instrument and process for telegraphic purposes." And if this "particular instrument and process" were the very first that gave to the world a Recording Telegraph, do they not in law entitle Prof. Morse to as full protection as if he had discovered every principle, devised every combination, and invented every particle of machinery which he employs? Patent law does not accord with the idea, that the production of useful results, is of "subordinate importance." It looks upon mere scientific discoveries as utterly useless until applied to useful purposes in the arts." Let Henry have "the consciousness of advancing science, the pleasure of discovering new truths, and the scientific reputation to which these labors would entitle him," which he says is "the only reward he ever expected," but do not deny to Morse the reward which his country has promised him for the more useful if not more glorious labors, of taking in hand Henry's barren truths, dressing them up in the garb of utility, and sending them forth to serve and bless his fellow men.

Art. II.-MORSE'S ELECTRO TELEGRAPH.

BY GEORGE GIFFORD, ESQ.

Argument Submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States.

THE INVENTED MACHINERY-PROCESS-ART AND ACHIEVEMENT.

It has fallen upon

MAY IT PLEASE THE HONORABLE COURT: me to close the argument on the part of the appellees in this important cause, and in entering upon that duty I find myself laboring under the same embarrassment of want of sufficient time, which has been experienced by all the counsel who have preceded me. And although we thank the court for the allowance of more time for the argument than is fixed by their standing rules, yet we did believe and still believe, and after this initiatory examination of the subject, we think the court must concur with us in the belief, that still more time might have been properly and usefully appropriated to the investigation of

the vast amount of most difficult matter in this case. We are not unmindful of the other important duties of this court, nor of how great is the value of its time to the country; but we cannot avoid remembering also, how small is the value of a few days of the time of this or any other court, compared with the vast amount of time which Morse's Telegraph is daily saving to the country and world. The invention with which we have to deal in this case, is unlike those which have usually been subjects of judicial investigation by the learned members of this court; it is so, both in the agent employed and the result attained.

It employs a subtle, imponderable, invisible agent, and this, not for the manufacture of tangible things, but for the transmission of information.

It is not like the changed and varied combinations of levers, wheels, cams, cylinders, eccentrics, pinions, ratchets, and other visible parts of apparatus and mechanical fixtures, constituting improvements and inventions in the machines and devices employed in the preparation or manufacture and improvement of food, raiment, implements of husbandry, and a variety of other tangible things, by acting upon and changing the form or quality of tangible substances, wherein an occular inspection of illustrative models of wood or metal exhibits the whole essence of the invention. On the contrary, this invention is chiefly constructed of combinations, relations, and conditions far more subtle and refined, and much more difficult to be understood.

The apparatus and machinery of Morse's Telegraph, subjected here, by the aid of models, to the inspection of the court, ingenious, novel and important as it is, nevertheless presents but an humble appearance to the mind that understands and appreciates the soul of this Telegraph, imparting the mighty energy which its works alone reveal.

Nor is this power and ability a result of chance, but on the contrary it is the legitimate and designed function of a series of combined conditions and intermediate results, sustaining exact and fixed relations to each other, and though intangible, yet wrought, jointed and adjusted with more accuracy, nicety and skill than the smith displays in fitting and connecting the physical parts of his time-piece, and all indispensible to the practical control of this electric messenger, and exhibiting to an investigating mind the most refined, delicate, and effective touches of the conquering genius of the inventor.

The power of the invisible constitution of this invention is known best by its works. The unseen atmosphere in a quiesent state gives little indication of power, but when raging in the burricane, the effects of this invisible agent evince its power. The body of a man gives no indication of the latent power of

reposing passion, and yet passion is the moving power of the race of men, and is known only by its works. The apparatus of Morse's Telegraph is, comparatively, simple and unostentatious; but the conditions and relations which make it a telegraph and the wonder of mankind, are intangible and invisible, and for that reason by a cursory observer, are liable to be stumbled over unappreciated. But when a feeble man, standing near a telegraph in this capitol, and by gentle touches of the finger, and within fifteen minutes, can hold converse with the remote parts of the four quarters of the Rupublic-with Maine, Louisiana, Wisconsin, and the Lakes, then it is that its inherent energies and power are exhibited in its triumphant result of intercepting time and obliterating space; and then it is that we are forced to concede that the visible apparatus is but an inadequate exponent to the Telegraph, and then we realize the necessity of a further investigation in quest of those parts and features of the invention by which, together with the machinery, it performs its gigantic feats. In this I hope to be of some service to the court. This may be thought by some to be too metaphysical, such notions, however, are not realities, but mere apologies to excuse from the labor of investigation. As has already been stated by my colleague, limitation of time has rendered it necessary to omit comment on any minor points in this case, and for the counsel of the appellees to make a division among them of the main points submitted upon their brief, and for each to confine himself exclusively to the points within his division.

The points, on the printed brief of the appellees, cover all material matters put in issue by the pleadings in the court below, and, therefore, as we suppose, cover all that can properly be controverted here. But the extraordinary course of our learned opponent who opened the argument in behalf of the appellants, in urging his supposed right to originate here, for the first time, other issues-issues not made by the pleadings, nor heard of in the court below, and unknown to the record, and never made at all until recorded in the printed brief of the learned counsel, has given rise to certain other points appertaining to the merits of the case, the importance of presenting or omitting which will depend upon the decision of the court, on the preceding question of practice, that is, whether the appellants have a right to a tranformation of this court into one of original jurisdiction in this case, and to so frame new issues to be here tried for the first time. This question of practice fell within the division of my learned colleague, who we think, without much effort, has successfully maintained the negative of such a proposition.

And although the appellees would have had nothing to fear