About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


18 J. Pat. Off. Soc'y 853 (1936)
1836 Senate Committee Report

handle is hein.journals/jpatos18 and id is 1133 raw text is: December, 1936, Vol. XVIII, No. 12 1836 Senate Committee Report Numerous requests for copies of .the report of the Senate Committee which introduced the Patent Act of 1836, and the absence of sources conveniently available to everyone, make a reprinting of the famous report advisable. At the same time the opportunity is taken of recounting a few minor details concerning the act which were not included in the Outline of the History of the United States Patent Office, the July number of this JOURNAL The Committee, which was appointed December 31, 1835 by the Senate consisted of John Ruggles of Maine; Samuel Prentiss of Vermont, and Isaac Hill of New Hampshire, an unusual lack of geographical distribution. Mr. Ruggles' report was made on April 28, 1836; three thousand additional copies were ordered printed and the report was also quoted and reprinted in newspapers and other periodicals of the day. The proposed bill which accompanied the report was considered by the Senate in Committee of the Whole on June 1, 15 and 18, and passed on the twentieth. The proceedings of Congress were not reported verbatim at that time, as is done now, and con- sequently it is impossible to learn the details of the debates which took place on the bill. However numerous amendments were proposed in the Senate and a few of them adopted. The Senate of that time included many distinguished members, such as Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, James Buchanan, and Thomas Ewing, grandfather of Commissioner of Patents Ewing. Twelve years earlier there had been a vigorous debate between Webster and Buchanan on the patent system, Webster making a long speech in its defense. The occasion was a proposed bill permitting a patentee to re- cover costs in an infringement suit. Senator Ruggles' bill did not contain such a provision but there is one in the act as passed and perhaps the debate was repeated. 'When the Patent Act finally passed the Senate there was not a single dissenting vote, a fact which called for editorial comment in the Washington papers and several