WABHBURN sz Mom! MANUF,G oo. v. GRINNELL WIRE 00. 25
cult to say that any element was not found, substantially or nearly so,
in some one or other of these prior barbed wires. Still,looking at it
as a whole, it is unquestionably new, and I think must be held to be
the product of invention rather than of mere mechanical skill. As,
from time to time during my examination, I have looked at these mod-
els of the various forms of wire, I have been reminded of the story
told in my early days of Rufus Choate and Daniel Webster. They
were engaged in a trial in reference to some patent wheel. After
Choate had, in an elaborate argument, noticed, as he thought, all the
alleged differences between it and wheels in prior use, and showed
that there was nothing to distinguish it from such wheels, Webster
rose and said, "If your honor please, there is the wheel." And the
more I have looked at this model, the more I have been impressed
that there was in this Glidden structure something new, something that
required inventive skill to devise, and something that has made the
structure of great utility. Following also the line of argument no-
ticed by the supreme court in two or three cases where the actual re-
sult demonstrated the great utility, I may add that while such fact is
not conclusive, yet it is fair matter of consideration in determining,
in questions of doubt, the fact of patentability; and if we look at the
history of barbed wire there can be but this one conclusion: that of
all the structures and devices this has been the one that has met the
want of the public. It is the barbed wire of almost universal use
to·day.
Judicial investigation of this question has been but limited. Before
Judges Bnooorrrr and DRUMMOND one case was tried,-—the one to which
I alluded a few moments since,—and in that the patentability of Glid-
den’s invention was affirmed. It is true, this particular patentinow
before me was not the one then considered; but still this express point
was decided. The cases which were tried before Judges TREAT and
MCCRARY were not based upon this patent, and were decided upon
the ground of the invalidity of the reissue of the patent of the spring
of 1874, so that the only direct adjudication has been in accord with
the views I have expressed. I do not know that I can add anything
to express my views and conclusions more clearly or satisfactorily.
As I said in the beginning, this question has troubled me greatly. I
am no mechanic; have no taste for mechanics; no mechanical turn
of mind. And it has been very hard for me to weigh or appreciate
the reasons and arguments based upon the facts and laws of mechan-
ics, and I can only say, in concluding this branch of the case, that I
have done the best I could.
Passing that, we go to a line of inquiry that is rather more conge-
nial to me. That is as to prior uses; the instances given being some
five in number,—being the Freeman,Merrill, Stone, Sehone, and Delhi
Fair fences. Some of them I do not think present questions of any
difficulty.
The Delhi County Fair fence discloses this state of facts: That about