the product being placed on the free list, will have a very serious effect on the manufacture. The refining of sugar, however, will in all probability be greatly stimulated.

The world's annual production of cane sugar approximates 8,400,000 tons of 2,240 lbs. Of this, British India and Java produce about 3,300,000 tons, practically all of which is consumed locally. The commercial crop, therefore, approaches 5,100,000 tons. The production of the Continental United States, Hawaii, and Porto Rico amounts to about 1,100,000 tons. Our principal competitor is Cuba, for which the annual production approximates 1,800,000 tons. The production of the Continental United States has increased from 118,000 tons in 1860 to 316,000 in 1912. In that year there were 210 sugar factories in Louisiana, of which 23 produced syrup only. As a rule, the owners of the factory are also owners of large plantations surrounding it. Before the Civil War practically every planter had his own sugar mill, the number of these mills in 1849 in Louisiana alone being 1,490. The changes in labor conditions, cost of machinery necessary to fit up a modern plant, the necessity of improving the methods of transporting the cane to the mills, and the economies possible in large mills have resulted in a concentration of the industry into fewer and larger establishments. Most of the establishments are well organized in conformity with modern methods. In the aggregate, they represent an enormous investment, and a large rural population depends upon them.

The beet sugar industry is practically confined to the central and western states. The world's annual production of beet sugar amounts to 6,300,000 tons of 2,240 lbs. Of this total, 5,860,000 tons are produced in Europe and 450,000 tons in the United States. It is one of the best organized industries of the country, but the witnesses before the Committee on Ways and Means were practically unanimous in the opinion that any material reduction in the duties would be disastrous not only to the beet but to the cane sugar manufacture.

Lumber.-Lumber is another important product of manufacture placed

on the free list. Since 1899 the annual cut of lumber has varied from 33,200,000,000 to 44,500,000,000 ft. The production for 1912 amounted to 39,158,414,000 ft. In 1850 the northeastern states produced more than half the lumber manufactured. The center of the industry shifted to the Lake states and now the largest quantities are obtained from the Pacific Coast and southern states. Washington produced the largest amount, 4,099,775,000 ft in 1912, followed by Louisiana with 3,876,211,000 ft., Mississippi with 2,381,898,000 ft., and North Carolina with 2,193,308,000 ft. By far the largest part of the lumber is used in building operations, but large quantities are consumed in

manufactures. The statistics in the following table show the importance of the manufactures using lumber and other forest products as material:

Wood, Pulp and Paper. The new tariff law places all wood pulp on the free list, and makes a considerable reduction in the duty on paper. While the number of pulp and paper mills in the United States has remained practically stationary during the past decade, the magnitude of their operations has more than doubled. The manufacture of pulp now consumes annually more than 4,000,000 cords of wood. The reduction in the revenue will affect

not only the pulp, paper, and printing industries, but numerous other branches of manufactures using paper as a material, or producing materials used in the printing trades.

Printing and Publishing.—The printing and publishing of newspapers, periodicals, and books is, of course, absolutely dependent upon the supply of paper. For a long time a number of publications have been persistent in the agitation for a reduction in the duty on pulp and paper. The printing industry is a dominating factor in many activities. It is thoroughly distributed throughout the states, every city of importance, and the majority of the counties, having a newspaper.

The gross annual receipts from the advertising carried on in newspapers and periodicals now exceeds $200,000,000, while the revenue from subscriptions and sales amounts to $135,000,000. During the past decade these receipts have doubled, while the aggregate number of copies of newspapers and periodicals printed increased from 9,890,000 to 11,600,000,000. More than 161,000,000 books and pamphlets were printed in 1909. If the reduction in duty results in cheaper paper, it is probable the industry will show even greater development during the next ten years.

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS
CHARLES E. MUNROE

903, of which 1,059,282 have been granted by the United States.

Patents Granted.-From the last issued report of the U. S. Commissioner of Patents it appears that the An analysis of the data for patents total number of applications for U. S. issued by the United States in 1912, patents for inventions during the year according to the residence of the inending Dec. 31, 1912, was 68,968, for ventor, shows the largest number, designs 1,850, and for reissues 158, 5,103, to be issued to citizens of New a total of 70,976. The number of York, with Pennsylvania, Illinois, patents of both kinds issued was Ohio, Massachusetts, New Jersey, 37.573 and reissued 158. Of these, California, Missouri and Michigan fol4,489 were issued to citizens of foreign lowing in the order named with over countries. During the year 20,883 1,000 each. When measured by the patents expired and 7,494 applications ratio of population to patents granted, were forfeited for non-payment of final Connecticut stands first, with one patfees. The total number of patents ent to every 1,150 of population, and issued by the United States and for- then, in order, the District of Columeign countries from the earliest period bia, California, New Jersey, Massato Dec. 31, 1912 (the foreign figures chusetts, Illinois, Colorado, New York, for 1912 being estimated), is 2,350,- | Rhode Island and Ohio. The paucity

and procedure of the 43 examining divisions in the allowance and rejection of applications for patents.

4. That one appeal within the United States Patent Office be eliminated; that the number of members of the Board of be increased from three to five; that all appeals within the office be taken to that board; that its decision be the decision of the Patent Office; that the appeal therefrom be to the Court of Ap

Examiners in Chief of the Patent Office

peals of the District of Columbia, as

now allowed from the decisions of the

Commissioner of Patents.

5. That the fee for filing and application for a patent be increased from $15 to $20; that appeal fees be readjusted to the condition arising from the elimination of one appeal; that a fee of 25 cents be charged for each additional patent, etc., included in one instrument presented for record; that all

:

fees be paid directly to the Patent Of fice that refundment of fees paid by mistake be made by the financial clerk and not by warrant from the Treasury.

6. That the life of a patent be so limited as to expire 19 years from the date of filing the application therefor, excluding the time (not exceeding two years) during which an application may be involved in interference.

7. That the work of reclassifying patents and digesting of printed publications, and providing facilities for simplifying and making more accurate the search, be recognized by an appropriation for an adequate force to be employed upon such work.

8. That the subscription price of the Official Gazette be increased from $5 to $10 and the method of distribution to libraries be changed to reduce the number of copies so distributed.

9. That all the work of producing the publications of the Patent Office, including copies of patents, be done at the Government Printing Office.

10. That an appropriation be made for the repair of the rooms occupied by the Patent Office and for the installation of suitable lighting and ventilating facilities and for the purchase of new furniture and equipment.

the largest number of elements in common together under the units, it would be impossible to determine the novelty of each of the multitude of claims in the 70,000 applications now being filed annually with a reasonable approximation to certainty within the brief space of time possible to be allotted to each application in order that such speedy action may be had as the public interests and those of the inventor demand. It is evident that with over 1,040,000 patents of the United States Patent Office at the present time constituting the field of search among United States patents within which examiners must look in determining the novelty of an idea, it is inconceivable that such a search could be made without a classification which will enable the examiner to limit himself to a small number of these million-odd prior patents.

From the beginning the Office has attempted to do this, and between 1790 and 1898 there were 15 different systems or revised systems used which were developed on non-uniform and ill-defined principles. By Act of Congress approved June 10, 1898, a Classification Division was created to classify United States and foreign patents and literature in books, pamphlets and periodicals and in trade catalogues. This has been in active operation ever since and it has accomplished work of value, especially in the classification of that most complicated material found in chemical literature, where, in spite of some unfortunate errors, the results are useful and the methods original. The magnitude of the task may be realized Classification of Subjects of Inven- from the report of the Commission, tion. A serious difficulty which leads which, taking the average number of to delay and complicates search is patents classified per year per man found in the classification of inven- since 1898, finds it will take 25 men tions, applications and topics. Many 16 years or 50 men seven years to examples of decisions in the assign-finish the reclassification of the United ment of applications for examination States patents. are given in the report. Without a classification of the subjects of invention appropriate to and coördinated with the principles of patentability sufficiently defined to divide the entire field into relatively small ultimate units sufficiently uniform in principle to guide the searcher to the proper unit, and with such a basis of division as will bring those means which have

Patent Litigation.-There has for long been loud and widespread complaint of the cost of litigation; the long delays; and the loading of the record with irrelevant matters in patent issues. These evils have generally been charged to the "patent laws," and even members of Congress have sought to remedy them by proposed patent legislation, when in fact, since

was so severely criticised by the bar, inventors, manufacturers and men of science.

itors at the Panama-Pacific Exposition to import free of duty articles and building materials intended for the Exposition, further provides that:

most litigation relative to patents is in equity proceedings, it is controlled by existing equity rules. After many decades the U. S. Supreme Court or- A storm of adverse comment has dered a revision of the rules, and on also been evoked by the bill introNov. 4, 1912, promulgated its new duced by Representative Kahn of Caliequity rules to become effective Nov.fornia which, while enabling exhib1, 1913. The most significant changes are that the testimony, as a rule, is to be taken in open court; that an expert's affidavit may be taken out of court and presented to the court subject to the defendant's right to call him for cross-examination; that delays are made more difficult; and that in case of an appeal being taken the appellant is required substantially to digest the testimony, the trial court having authority to decide what shall be the record. This rule as to making up the record has prevailed in the courts of the state of New York and it is significant that the Court of Appeals of New York abrogated this rule to take effect in the state courts the day the rule of the U. S. Supreme Court became effective in the Federal Courts.

It shall be unlawful for any person without authority thereof to copy, imitate, reproduce, or of the proprietor republish any pattern, model, design, article protected by the laws of any fortrademark, copyright, or manufactured eign country by registration, copyright, patent, or otherwise, which shall be imported for exhibition at the PanamaPacific International Exposition, and there exhibited.

The onus of this lies in the fact that not only by it is the exhibitor prac tically granted a patent or copyright by this country without being subject to the conditions required of other applicants for patents, but it also creates a new form of property that does not rest upon novelty or invention, but may include what is old and well known in this country, or what is patented and has long been patented to others in this country, or what is in its nature not patentable in this country. Since several foreign countries issue patents of importation, an article long well known here may be patented there by the importer of the article into that country, and, under this statute, such person, if he brought that article back into this country and exhibited it at the Exposition, would be given a monopoly of the article in the United States for approximate

Patent Law. During the year the U. S. Supreme Court, in Bauer v. O'Donnell, modified its decision given in Henry v. A. B. Dick Co. (A. Y. B., 1912, p. 522) by holding, in substance, that the dealer or patentee might not bring suit for infringement based upon the fact that the patentee had fixed the price (see also IX, Law and Jurisprudence). Mr. Oldfield renewed his bill for revising the patent laws, which failed in the preceding Congress, by filing a substitute bill, H. R. 1700, containing that same matter, especially in its anti-trust provisions, which the House Judiciary Committee refused to report favorably, and which ly four years.