Mr. UPSON. The reason, as I understand it, why it is urged that the patent shall be renewed is on account of the war. I have yet to learn that we are to guaranty to all individuals payment for damages sustained on account of the war. This patent has now been running 14 years. I understand the gentleman to say that the patentee has made $23,000, but the committee think that is not enough, and that, therefore, we must extend the patent in order to enable him to make some more money, for the reason that the war prevented him from makingasmuch as he otherwise would have made. We are now, by a bill pending before the House, proposing to tax cotton 5 or 6 cents perpound, and in addition to that it is now proposed to levy this additional tax for the machinery to be used in pressing it. It seems to me that the same reason would justify the extension of every patent which was renewed before the war broke out. For one, I am op used to this measure. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I maysay that generally anything that is reported by my distinguished, friendfrom Connecticut [Mr. HUBBARD] is commended to my consideration} for I know how careful he is and how right he is generally on all matters which come before the House for consideration; but I must confess that I am somewhat astonished to see him “switch off” on this patent cotton gin affair. Now, I have read the report, and if the House have listened to iIt thin they will agree with me that there is no occasion for us to de art from the principle the House has adhere to in the last 2 congresses without a single exception, when they have resolutely refused. even under the greatest pressure, to extend patents. Now, sir, in the 1st instance, this man got a patent for this machine for 7 years, then he got his patent renewed for 7 years more. He has had his patent for 14 years, and his petition shows that he has received between 23 and 24,000 dollars and now, after showing that fact, he comes here and asks us to do what? Notwithstanding that he has had this patent for 14, years. he asks us to remit the question back to the Patent office as an original case and permit them to grant him another patent. I think the reasons which he alleges are utter ly insufficient to justify us in granting what he wishes; and, as was well said by the Gentfrom Michigan, [Mr. Ursos] the point on which it is put would apply to all of these cases. This man claims that during the war he could not use his patent as he would have done if there had been no rebellion; and hence be comes here and asks us to reimburse him for that loss. On the same principle every man who had a patent renewed before the war can come here and ask a renewal of his patent. Now, Congress has for the last 2 or 3 years, as I have stated guarded, perhaps more vigilantly than anything else, this matter of allowing parties who have patents to have them renewed. This is not a case in which the party shows that he has any claim upon us to depart from the principle upon which we have here tofore acted. I hope, therefore, that the House will not pass this bill.