invention than the prior public use for seven years. In 1834, Captain Shreve presented a memorial to Congress, dated May 1st in that year, in which he says: "Your petitioner further states, that had his invention been of a nature to be applied to private interests or to individual pursuits, he could have made it the means of independence and wealth. Had it been of that character, he could, under the constitution and laws of the country, have secured to himself the exclusive benefit thereof; but its nature is such as to preclude the employment of it in any other than national improvements. He, therefore, appeals to the justice of Congress for reasonable and adequate compensation for his invention, from which he can, under existing circumstances, derive no personal advantage."

Now, taking into consideration the fact that the invention was not marketable; that nobody had used or could use it but the United States; that they were not suable, so that against them the statute would furnish no remedy for the infringement of the property it would create, and the patent would be inefficient; and we think, that Mr. Shreve, in the language quoted, declared the purpose not to take our letters patent, and not seek an exclusive property in his invention his memorial presents as alternatives a patent right available in courts of law and the consideration of the legislature for his services; and he elects to rely on the latter and to abandon the former. He asks, indeed, for compensation, but he waives and disclaims the statute protection of a patent, and this disclaimer is in terms absolute and not conditional, and made then, was irrevocable thereafter. Moreover, it connects itself with the public use and construes that, and the case then exhibits a use in public for seven years, coupled with an express disclaimer of a patent, deliberately made and promulgated. This must necessarily avoid letters patent subsequently obtained.

It was claimed that the United States were precluded by these letters patent from giving in evidence or availing themselves of a public use prior to the application for a patent; but we think this is not so. The letters patent give but a prima facie title; the procedure of the Patent Office is ex parte and upon the matter before and within the knowledge of that department, and it is not to be held to know the transactions of an applicant with other departments of the governmen. The Commissioner of Patents and his corps of examiners are not a judicial tribunal, and letters patent issue subject to all legal objections that may be brought against them. And by the statute in the action of the Patent Office upon the particular matter of prior use is rested on the declaration prescribed for the applicant for the patent. A claim was made at the hearing for the use of the invention in single-hulled boats; but these are clearly not within the patent; for the specification would not enable any one to make a single-hulled boat, nor to place upon it the beam D, the windlass, or gearing, or frame of timbers. Single hulled boats are not mentioned in the specification; and the patent says of the machine invented, "it consists of a double or twin boat.' Besides, if single-hulled boats were within the patent, they would be also within the evidence and objecions of public use prior to the application for a patent.

Rep. C. C. 205--17

On the whole case, we find that Henry M. Shreve was the inventor of the machine patented; that the machine was of great utility to the United States; that Mr. Shreve has never received any compensation therefor; that the evidence fails to establish any contract or obligation on the part of the United States to pay for their use of the invention; and that therefore the petitioners are not legally entitled to the relief they pray for.

FEBRUARY 11, 1860.-Reported from the Court of Claims; committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and ordered to be printed.

The COURT OF CLAIMS submitted the following

REPORT.

To the honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled:

The Court of Claims respectfully presents the following documents as the report in the case of

S. CALVERT FORD vs. THE UNITED STATES.

1. The petition of claimant.

2. Original evidence exhibited in the case by claimant, transmitted to the House of Representatives.

3. Evidence offered by the United States.

4. Claimant's brief.

5. United States solicitor's brief.

6. Opinion of the court adverse to the claim.

By order of the Court of Claims.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said court, at Washington, this fifth day of December, A. D. 1859.

[L. S.]

SAM'L H. HUNTINGTON,
Chief Clerk Court of Claims.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS.

S. CALVERT FORD VS. THE UNITED STATES.

To the honorable the Court of Claims:

The petition of S. Calvert Ford, of the city of Washington, D. C., respectfully represents :

That he was a sutler of the army of the United States at Carlisle barracks, Pennsylvania, from July, 1838, until November, 1845; that in the course of the years 1839, 1840, and 1841, detachments of troops or enlisted men were ordered from said post (Carlisle) to Fort Wayne and

Fort Gibson, west of the Mississippi river; that many of the men comprising said detachments were, when ordered away as aforesaid, indebted to the petitioner in various sums, amounting in the aggregate, to two thousand one hundred and fifty-six dollars and eighty cents, ($2,156 80,) a fraction, perhaps, more or less, as appears from the books of the petitioner, and also the descriptive rolls of said detachments of troops on file in the office of the Adjutant General of the army of the United States; that the paymaster, Major Wharton Rector, who was designated by the department to pay said men, was furnished with copies of said descriptive rolls containing, as aforesaid, statements of the several sums due from said men to your petitioner ; that by the Regulations of the Army of the United States, articles 195 and 196, it was the duty of said paymaster to retain from the pay due said men, on the occasion of paying them, the several sums due from them to your petitioner, and to send the amount to him; that the said paymaster did, on said occassion of paying the men, withhold or retain the same, or the greater part thereof, from their pay, as your petitioner has reason to believe; that said paymaster did at various times transmit parts of the same to your petitioner, amounting in all, to the sum of one thousand and seventy dollars and ninetyeight cents; and that afterwards he, Paymaster Rector, died, without having accounted to the petitioner for the residue, being the sum of $1,085 82, the balance due to and now claimed by him, with interest thereon till paid.

The petitioner further states that after the death of Paymaster Rector, he preferred his claim to the Second Auditor of the Treasury, the officer charged with the audit of the accounts of Paymasters of the army, and it was by him disallowed, for the reason, as he alleged, that your petitioner had no legal claim against the United States. He then applied to Congress with no better success; the Committee on Claims of the House of Representatives, on the 11th of January, 1845, and again the 4th of May, 1846, reporting unfavorably on the case, (see H. Doc., Report No. 630, 1st session 29th Congress,) as likewise did the Committee on Claims of the Senate, the 25th of February, 1847, alleging that no evidence was submitted to the committe showing that the petitioner was entitled to relief.—(Senate Doc., Report No. 184, 2d session 29th Congress.)

Nevertheless, the petitioner seeing nothing in all this to convince him that his claim is not both just and legal, and feeling constrained to conclude that its rejection heretofore was owing to a misapprehension of the import and intention of articles 195 and 196 of the Army Regulations upon which it is founded, and relying on the just judgment of the honorable Court of Claims, respectfully appeals thereto for relief.

And your petitioners will pray, &c.

J. F. POLK, Counsel for Claimant.

Regulation as to sutlers.

ART. 195. Every facility will be afforded to the sutler in the collection of the just debts contracted with him. The sutler will take his place at the table with his books and accounts. If the amount charged against a soldier be disputed, the sutler shall be required to produce a written acknowledgment of the soldier, which shall be sufficient for the then settlement. The same mode will be observed in the case of men detached from a post leaving debts due the sutler.

ART. 196. If an individual leave a post on furlough or command, the commanding officer of the company will note on the description rolls the amount which may appear to be due the sutler; and should the soldier be paid while absent, the paymaster will stop said amount and transmit it to the sutler. Debts due the sutler by men who are discharged at a time when the paymaster is absent from the post will be collected in the same manner.

The above is correctly copied from the Army Regulations of 1841. JOHN M. McCALLA, Second Auditor.

The paymaster gives a bond to the United States for the faithful discharge of his duties. The collecting and sending the sutler his money is a part of his duties.

1