Mr. MYERS. I withdraw for the present the demand for the previous question, and will make a brief statement, which 1 think will be satisfactory to the House. Mr. Speaker, when this question was before the House the other day, my friendfrom Massachusetts [Mr. Dawns] occupied a considerable portion of time, yielded to him by me, in a statement that I was mistaken in saying that this bill had passed the Senate in the last congress, had come to this House, had been unan imously reported upon favorably by the ComPatents of this House, and only failed here for lack of time. That gentleman then took it upon himself to say that the bill had been considered in the House, and after a full and fair discussion had been voted down. That is a mistake; and the gentleman does not.need any time to send to private parties in Massachusetts to learn whether that was a mistake, because the Globe shows that just what I stated is true; that the bill was reported in this House on the last night of the session by the chairman of the ComPatents, and the Gentfrom Massachusetts objected to its consideration. Yet the gentleman endeavors here today. as he endeavored the other day, to create a prejudicc against the bill by asking time, when he has had plenty of time, and stating that he can obtain evidence perhaps in a week that I was mistaken. The Globe will show what I state to be true, that on the last night of the session the bill was reported; that consent was asked for its consideration; that because of the gentleman’s objection it went over; and Congress adjourned without reaching the bill. Now, Mr. Speaker, I will occupy but a few moments more in the discussion of the merits of this bill; and I call the attention of every member to the statement which I am about to make. Sir, during 3 sessions of Congress the ComPatents have reported favor ably on only 3 bills. It is usual to attach some importance to the report ofacommittee, even if it be only the report of a majority of the committee; but here you have a unanimous report in favor of this bill; a committee, as I have said, and I take credit to the committee for it, that during 3 sessions of Congress has in similar cases only reported favorably on 3 of them. I conceive this to be a fact which ought to commend the bill at once to the attention of the House. The ordinary life of a patent, until a late act was 14 years. When, however, itwasfoun that a patent was new and useful, and the in ventor had not, in the opinion of the ComrPatents, received sufficient compensation, it has been customary, and such, indeed, is the law, for the Commissioner to grant an extension for 7 years. It is in rare cases Congress is called upon to act, or rather that the ComrPatents is called upon to act favorably in reference to a further extension. And it should be of rare occurrence. Now, it is proved that this patent has not had its full life before the public, and, although it was highly beneficial, still it was 11 years before it. came fairly before the public, so great was the prejudice against it. At 1st, so great was the prejudice against it, parties had to give bonds, running from 5 to 20 years, against loss in its use. The prejudice was strong in favor of the old iron water pipes and against this patented article. I understand the constituents of the Gentfrom NewYork on my left had to give a bond running for 25 years before he could lay it down. The House will readily perceive that these water pipes had to lie in the ground for years before the public could be entirely satisfied in reference to their merits. The committee had before it pipes which had lain in the ground for 13 years, and which when taken up were found to be in as perfect condition as when put down. It has also had before it cast iron pipes which had been ten years in the ground at the Boston water works, and the evidence was in controvertible that these old iron pipes were not fit for public use, if not injurious to the public health. It was found that by means of the cement in these patented pipes corrosion, in crustation, and diminution of the capacity of water pipes were prevented. It is an invention of great public benefit, but it was a long time before its merits were made known so that the patentee could take advantage of his patent. That, sir, is the whole case. The Senate committee reported favorably on it, and it passed the Senate. It came to this House, and has met the unanimous approval of the ComPatents. There is no objection to it except from one man, perhaps the one referred to by the Gentfrom Massachusetts, who came before us and endeavored to show that this was not an original invention, but that some other was. The question of originality was not one for Congress, and we said he could go before the courts to test the question which was original and which was not. We had nothing to do with that, our business being with this application. Why, sir, it has been shown that this inventor has not made any more cut of this patent during its whole life than might be made out of one contract. It was our duty, therefore, to see that this man was properly recompensed. The public generally destre that he should have this measure of justice. Although public notice has been given, no objection has been made to this extension except the one to which I have referred. This pi c has only been laid in 33 towns. twill be of immense service if this inventor be allowed to put it down in other places. I think the reasons I have given are sufficient. I will yield now to the chairman of the committee.