Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the statement made by the gentleman who reported this bill that it is the duty of the public to protect individuals who invent new or improved machines and Present them to the public; and I am not one of those who would endeavor to deprive any man of his just claims to the fruits of his valuable invention. I admit also with the committee that these inventions of Mr. Harvey are indeed most valuable improvements. But the simple point to which I wish to call the attention of the House is that so far as the Government is concerned in this case we have fulfilled our entire obligation to the inventor. He received the benefit of his improvement by a patent being granted for 14 years, and at the expiration of that time it was extented for 7 years longer. The Government, therefore, so far as it is concerned, has discharged all of its obligations to the inventor of these improvements. No further obligation rests upon the Government. The gentleman makes the point that, the in ventor having parted with this patent without receiving a fair equivalent as he claims, the Government is placed under an obligation to extend the patent for an additional period. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the reason assigned is a good one, and the patent is extended for 7 years more, and the parties part with it for a nominal sum, would not the argument be the same and as strong at the end of that 7 years? Is the Government under obligation to guaranty that an inventor will manage his own business shrewdly in the disposal o his patent? If this inventor has not received an equiva lent it is not the fault of the Government, for the public have paid millions and millions for this invention. It has been one of the great est monopolies which existed in the country. It has been confined to a few manufacturers who controlled it, and they made enormous profits, and the people were compelled to submit to the monopoly. I ask members of this House if, under these circumstances, they are going to vote to extend this, monopoly? They will bear in mind that in this report it is said that all of these companies that have been building up im mense fortunes at the expense of the public are to have the benefit of this extension, if it is granted, gratis. The gentleman who spoke in favor of this extension says that the machines are very expensive; and that it costs a large amount of money to maintain a manufacture of this kind., Sir, that is the very best reason why it should not be extended. If the machines were cheap, if every individual with a small amount of money could enter into competition in the manufacture, even if the patent were extended, they could be afforded at a fair price. But if the patent is not extended these companies that are still in operation will have the mo nopoly of this manufacture at least for 5 ears to come; because it is admitted on all ands that so extensive is. the machinery rethat it will take at least 5 years of ree competition for new companies to be able to compete with the companies now in operation. And it will be understood by members of the House that there are 2 or 3 companies in this country today that are manufacturing these screws. The Gentfrom Iowa inquired how this interested the agricultural portion of try. Sir, the counthere is not an individual, no matter what his calling may be, who is not interested in the question of the extension of this patent. The farmer, the mechanic, all ranks and classes of men, have to use these articles almost as freely as the most common implement in use. There is not a person in the whole countnunity that is not interested in the question of the extension of this patent beyond the Wood of 21 years. As I said before, Government having done its duty in giving the patentee the monopoly for the full limit of the time allowed by law, I hope this House is not going to say that the public shall still pay a royalty for 7 years longer. Let the manufacture be thrown open. We cannot rid ourselves of the Present monopoly for 5 years to come even if the patent is not extended. Here the hammer fell]