Mr. HALE. Mr. Speaker, my opposition to this bill certainly arises from no other motive than my desire to see the principles which have heretofore uniformly regulated the legislation of this country upon the question of patents adhered to, and not departed from in a manner which I think would be entirely dangerous as a precedent. If I am correctly informed about the facts of this case, the report which has been made here from the ComPatents is not so remarkable for what it contains as for what it omits to state. If my information is correct, although it is true that this patentee, Mr. Harvey, died without securing from these patents a competency for his family; although it is true that his widow and heirs have or received no substantial benefit from these patents; yet another thing is equally true, which obe a bar to the proposed extension, and that is, that the as signees of the patents of Thomas W. Harvey, men who claimed and held under hini, who succeeded by his own act to his rights, have obtained immense fortunes from the patents which have already been granted. The principal one of these patents was ori ginally granted in 1846 for the term of 14 years. It has been extended for 7 years, the full limit allowed by our patent laws. As I am informed, Mr. Harvey having parted with his interest to other parties, these parties have carried on the business of making serews under it and have built up the most enormous, the most gigantic monopoly that this country has ever witnessed in a manufacturing article. These parties have not only had under these patents the potentiality, as Dr. Johnson said, of wealth beyond the dreams of avarice, but this potentiality has ripened into absolute fact, and fortunes have been accumulated and are accumulating today under these patents. If that be so, I put it to the honorable gentlemen of the House on what principle are we to interfere between the heirs of the patentee and the grantees of the patentee? By what principle are we to say, because this man has perhaps made an unfortunate and foolish bargain in the sale of his patents and thus enabled his assign ees and successors to realize wealth which he probably under other circumstances might have realized, how are we to say they are to be disregarded and the family now made good from loss, not from any defect in our laws, not from any want of liberality on our part, but from his own actions whether mistaken or compelled by circumstances? It seems to me, then, the principle which has always assumed to govern the legislation of this country is, wherever either the patentee, his heirs, his grantee, or any parties desiring title under him, have been sufficiently compensated that should be the end of the exclusive right. We are not to investigate whether parties who have obtained the fruits of the patent are the most deserving of them; but when the time expires the patented article should be thrown open to the public. The gentleman says this involves no expense, that it takes no money out of the Treasury. Every exclusion of the public, every exclusive right to a manufacturer is a detriment to the country, and is only recognized on the ground that the inventor should have to some extent, some reasonable extent, which the law has fixed primarily at 14 years, with a possible extension of half that time, in which to reap the fruits of his own invention. If by his act other parties have reaped those fruits it is no reason, it seems to me, why we should interfere and say, A having made a colossal fortune out of this thing at the expense of the public, we will turn in by in order to give him an opportunity to reap a 2nd fortune. I believe the principle is an unsound one; and I believe the facts are as I have stated them. I call on the ComPatents if I do not give the history of this case as it actually exists. [Here the hammer fell]