Mr. BROMWELL. I wish merely to saya few words in answer to my colleague from Illinois [Mr. HARDING] and to the Gentfrom Massachusetts, [Mr. Dawes] In the 1st place, as to the cotton press mentioned by the Gentfrom Massachusetts, I think it is safe to say that the House never did hear that question discussed, because there was so much noise in the House while the gentleman who reported the bill was trying to show the reason for the extension of that patent. I admit that there was more reason for the extension in that case than in this. But with all due deference to my colleagues vicws touching the right of the public in these inventions, allow me to say that in all these cases some principle of equity must be, and doubtless will be, recognized by this Congress. Many of these inventors devote the best years of their lives to a struggle to perfect their inventions; and it is these inventions and improvements that have transformedthis country from a wilderness into what it is. Many of the men who have brought forward the most valuable of these inventions have led lives of poverty and vexation and have died poor. The period of 14 years has been named in the law as being, in general, and all things considered, a propertime during which the inventor shall enjoy the exclusive benefits ofhis invention. But is this period never to be varied by any considerations of equity? What do these hills which have been brought forward propose? lhey propose that the officer whom the law has appoints to consider questions of this nature, a competent man with legal knowledge, shall, by means of a bill of this kind, have jurisdiction to hear and determine the question between the inventor and the public at large upon principles of common equity. Shall this be denied. I the Commissioner is not a man of suflicisnt knowledge and judgment to hear such cases properly, then authorize the appointment of a chancellor for that cities and let him hear such cases; for these questions resting on equitable considerations continually arise. Now, sir, the committee did not report any of these bills until they had been satisfied that the cases were such as to call for such interposition. The case at present before the House is that of a man exceedingly old and exceedingly poor. His means, whatever they may have been, are completely exhausted. He has a son who has attempted to carry on the manufacture of these corn shellers for the benefit of the old man. This is the only resource left for the support of that old man, after a life time expended in efforts to perfect inventions, some of which have been valuable, but the term of which has exired, so that the public has now the benefit of them all. This bill exressly protects the rights of every person who may, since the expiration of the patent, have been possessed of one of these macriiines. The bill can hurt no one. It is not necessary that, the “ watch dog of the Treasury” should fight these bills. They seek to take nothing from the Treasury. the question simply is whether this Convress is wi ling that the officer appointed by the law to hear such matters shall be endowed with jurisdiction to do justice in certain cases in which the law, by reason of its generality, operates harshly. I am not prepared to say that this case presents stronger claims than any other. On the contrary, I think that there have been before the House cases equally entitled to favorable consideration, and l have no doubt that such cases will come before us again. I know, indeed, that some such cases will be reported soon. But I think that in this case there are sufficient reasons to induce us to allowthe ComrPatents to hear the application and decide it as he deems right in view of the rights of the public and the inventor.