Letter: J.J. Coombs to Edward Stabler, July 14, 1865

Washington July 14 1865

Mr. Edward Stabler

Sir In answer to your letter of the 13th Inst. addressed to the Board of Examiners, in Chief U.S. Patent Office, I have to say, on behalf of the Board, that among the papers submitted to the Board in the cases of the Applications of Palmer & Williams, & of Wm. H. Seymour, for the extension of Patents issued to them, respectively, for improvements in Reaping Machines, no formal ^written letter notice from you to the Commissioner of Patents of your intention to oppose the extension of either of said Patents was found.

We did find among the papers, however, a notice signed by you, dated May 13^th 1865, addressed to "Stephen G. Williams Esq. James Ville, Wisconsin", that you should take depositions in opposition to the extension of the Patents of Palmer & Williams, & Wm. H. Seymour, in Baltimore, on the 25^th day of May, at 9 [oclock] A.M.

Attached to this notice was a letter signed "Baldwin & Son Attorneys for Applicants", acknowledging its receipt, through the Post office, but objecting to the notice as insufficient because it mentioned no place where the depositions would be taken, & protesting against the receipt of any depositions taken under it. This the Board supposed to be the first notice the Board ^you had given, either to the Office, or to the applicants, of any intention to oppose said Extensions.

then the cases were under examination before the

[Museum catalogue no. 2001.0001.0018 d]

Board, & when our reports thereon were made, we were not aware that the notice to George Gifford, Att^y. for the Applicants given by Registered letters of the times & places at which you proposed to take testimony, (referred to in our Report in the case of Wm. H, Seymour) were "given in exact accordance in every particular as prescribed & directed by the Commissioner of Patents himself, when he extended the time for taking the depositions."

If it had been known to the Board, that the Commissioner of Patents had prescribed & directed that mode of serving the notices, we should under all the circumstances, have felt constrained to advise him that he could not consistently refuse to receive and consider the testimony taken in strict pursuance of said notices.

In answer to your last question, I beg leave to refer you to what we said in our report in the case of Wm. H. Seymour, on the subject to which it relates, viz - "We cannot divest ourselves of a suspicion that Mr. Gifford knew, or had good ^strong reason to believe suspect the nature of the contents of these letters, and neglected to take them out of the Post office, for that reason.

If so, he failed to receive the notices simply because he did not ^[intend] to receive them, and has no sufficient reason for objecting to the testimony taken under them _

Very respectfy. your Obt. serv. ^nt

J.J. Coombs