Mr. HUBBARD, ofConnecticut. I can state in a.few words all the facts thatare material in this case. The improvement in cotton resses.for the shipping of cotton. invented by this man, is one of great public utility, as was shown by all the testimony before the committee; and such is the opinion of the ComrPatents. These presses are only available to any important extent in the cotton growing States. The invention was patented on the 16thdfJan Just before the time of its expiration, namely, in January, 1859, the ctitioner a plied to the then ComrPatents, on. Joseph Holt, fora renewal. He obtained a renewal for 7 years. It appears that during the 1st 14 years he perfected the improvement, and constructed and sold divers presses at the South, from which he realized a profit of $23, 417 22, which sum the Commissioner deemed to be a very inadequate compensation in view of the great public utility of the invention. The Commissioner, in his report, says that it has saved to the country millions of dollars. The committee regard it as an invention of the greatest importance, and although the inventor during the whole 14 years has realized, as appeared by the account submitted of expenditures and receipts, some 23,000 dollars. the committee believe that that was an entirely inadequate compensation for the great service which he had rendered to the country. Upon the renewal of the tent by the ComrPatents in anuary, 1859, the petitioner went to the South and obtained divers orders for presses; returned, gathered up material at great expense for the construction of machines, employed men and went to work diligently in their construction the orders having been obtained a year in advance and the machines to be sold on credit. But before he could perfect his machines and get them into market to any considerable extent the southern rebellion came on. which prostrated all his efforts and ruined his business at once, by means of which he losta vast amount in material and in wages which he had to pay to his employees. He also lost agreat deal in the way of debts that were due to him from the cotton growing States. His losses, in fact, were so great that the $23,000 that had been realized by him was not only absorbed, but he was ruined in his estate and became a bankrupt, as I was informed. His whole estate, in point of fact. was swept away. It costs a very considerable sum to make one of these machines. Now, he came to Congress with a petition asking that the 7 years, which were remdered unavailable to him in consequence of the rebellion, and which resulted in his utter ruin, shall be given to him Over again, as if no renewal had been granted. The committee think thatitis an equitable claim. In fact, we never heard a more equitable claim. Surely none has ever been presented to the committee which seemed to make so strong an appeal to our sense of right and justice. But the committee do not ask that a bill be passed directing the ComrPatents to grant this renewal. We have adopted a rule on this subject by which we are bound and restricted, and we only report a bill which authorizes Mr. Tyler, the petitioner, to submit his case to the Commissioner just as if his patent had not been renewed for 7 years, during the time of the rebellion; to submit all the facts and circumstances of it; to bring his witnesses, and if he can convince the ComrPatents that in equity and in law he is entitled to a renewal, then he is to have it. This is all that pertains to the case so far as I know. Unless some gentleman desires to be heard upon it, I will move the previous question.