Early in last winter, a great rivalry began to develop itself in the
business of manufacturing velocipedes; and the demand became so large,
as to lead the principal carriage-makers of the country into making it
an important branch of their business. At that time it was generally
understood that any manufacturer was at liberty to make the two-wheeled
velocipede, in any way he deemed most profitable.
When the _furore_ first manifested itself, Mr. Calvin Witty of
Broadway, New York, saw it would be a “big thing,” and very quietly
went to work to find out in what way the business of making the machine
could be controlled. He ascertained, by careful investigation, that
a patent had been recorded, covering the principal features of the
bicycle, now in such popular use. He sought out the owners of the
patent, found them in moderate circumstances, eager to turn to account
rights which had heretofore been of but little avail, and purchased of
them for a comparatively small sum. He now claims to hold the right
to the exclusive use of the two-wheeled velocipede, with treadle and
guiding arms. This patent, however, does not cover the idea of making a
two-wheeled machine, or of applying a propelling power.
As soon as Mr. Witty had completed his arrangements, he ascertained the
names of parties engaged in manufacturing velocipedes throughout the
country, and the majority of them were the astonished recipients of the
following notification:--
“No. 638 Broadway, N. Y., _Feb. 3d, 1869_.
“You are hereby notified, that Letter Patent No. 59,915, granted Nov.
20th, 1866, secures a velocipede with the two wheels, treadle, and
guiding arms; and that the velocipede you are manufacturing is an
infringement upon said patent. The present is to require you to cease
the further manufacture of said velocipede, and to settle with me for
all past infringements of the rights under said patent.
(Signed)
“CALVIN WITTY.”
The following is a copy of the record of the patent, registered at the
Patent Office in Washington:--
“Patent No. 59,915. Pierre Lallement, Paris, France, assignor to
himself and James Carroll, New Haven, Conn. Velocipede. Nov. 20th,
1866.
“The fore wheel is axled in the jaws of a depending bar which is
riveted in the frame, and turned by a horizontal lever bar. This
wheel is revolved by a treadle crank. Claim: The combination and
arrangement of the two wheels, provided with the treadles and the
guiding arms, so as to operate substantially, and for the purpose,
herein set forth.”
Some manufacturers were nonplused by Mr. Witty’s warning, and
stopped their work entirely. Others paid no attention to the demand,
considering the royalty required worthy of a trial; for if it could
be proved that a similarly constructed velocipede had been introduced
into the country before the date of application, the inventor being an
alien, the patent would be void; or it would be rendered null also, if
the patentee had neglected to put into market and continue the sale of
the invention, within eighteen months after the date of patent. Others
still, including most of the carriage-makers and machinists of note in
the country, who had gone into this business, took pains to have legal
advice upon the subject. A meeting was finally held by them; and the
result was a determination to purchase State and city rights, for the
use of his patent, of Mr. Witty.
We give the names of the prominent firms and parties who have received
licenses for the manufacture and sale of velocipedes, under Patent No.
59,915:--
Wm. P. Sargent & Co., and John P. Whittier, Boston, Mass.,
Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire, excepting the cities of New
Bedford, Taunton, Fall River, and Fair Haven, Mass.; Kimball Bros.,
Boston, for the State of Maine; Wood Bros., Connecticut, excepting one
shop right; Pickering & Davis, New York City, one shop right; Mercer &
Monod, New York City, one shop right; C. Merrill and Sons, Brooklyn,
one shop right. G. L. Brownell, New Bedford, Mass., New Bedford
exclusive; G. C. Elliott, Providence, R. I., Rhode Island exclusive. J.
M. Quimby, Newark, N. J., New Jersey exclusive.
Mr. Witty now has his hands full of business; employs three clerks to
write for him constantly, and has fallen upon a mine of wealth, if
he succeeds in maintaining the validity of his claim. He charges the
manufacturers ten dollars apiece, royalty, for every machine turned
out. If a maker, however, obtains a license to manufacture less than a
hundred, he pays fifteen dollars royalty; if under twenty, twenty-five
dollars apiece.
Sargent and Whittier, of Boston, and many others of the manufacturers,
who have purchased State and town rights, have sent out within their
limits circulars similar to those of Mr. Witty, but with the following
N. B. attached:--
“Those using the two-wheeled velocipedes, not manufactured under
a license, and not having the proper stamp, are also liable for
infringement upon said letter patent.”
We present an engraving taken from the Patent Office Reports, showing
the Lallement patent of 1866. In this _veloce_ the cranks, F, are
points of great interest, as the claim is for the combination of
these treadle cranks with the two wheels A and B, reach C, guiding
arms D, and the fork in which the front wheel is hung. We attribute
the unpopularity of the old dandy-horse to its lack of these cranks,
while the great success of the modern _veloce_ is due to the crank
application. In this _veloce_ it will be noticed that the reach, C,
extends over the rear wheel, and a V brace on each side of the wheel
connects the axle to the reach. With this style of reach or frame, it
was found very difficult to construct a _veloce_ sufficiently steady to
run with any degree of satisfaction.
[Illustration]
There is still another New York patentee, Stephen W. Smith, who
claims that the so-called French Velocipede is an American invention,
perfected in this country, and introduced into France by patent,
and personally by himself; and that the idea was stolen from him
by the French manufacturers. He obtained his patent in 1862, for a
“cantering propeller” for children, or hobby-horse mounted on wheels;
and considers his patent to include the combinations used upon all
velocipedes, and threatens to prosecute infringements.
This patent has lately been reissued for the purpose of widening the
claims and to attempt to cover the whole ground occupied by the patent
bicycle of M. Lallement. The reissued claim is as follows:--
“1st claim, in combination with a saddle-seat for the rider, the
employment and use of a cranked axle, arms, and foot-rest, so arranged
that the power applied by the feet of the rider shall give motion to
the vehicle, substantially as described and specified.
“2. The combination of the following elements, namely, a saddle-seat
for the rider, a cranked axle, for propelling the vehicle by power
applied by the feet of the rider, and a steering mechanism so
constructed that the direction of travel of the vehicle may be
governed by the rider, substantially as described and specified.
“3. The universal joint, in combination with the fulcrum of
the vehicle, and the steering wheel, constructed and operating
substantially as, and for, the purposes specified.
“4. The hinged legs in combination with the body of the horse, and
with the cranks substantially as and for the purposes specified.
“5. The foot-rests upon the arms, substantially as and for the
purposes specified.
“6. The double-armed levers, and diagonal cords, in combination
with the handle and steering wheel, substantially as described and
specified.”
The first and second claims are intended to embrace, and do embrace,
as far as words can accomplish it, the essential elements of the
velocipede now in use. It remains to be determined by the courts how
far the rival claimants clash with each other. The manufacturers have
as yet paid but very little attention to the demands of Mr. Smith.
In 1867, the Hanlon Brothers devised an improved style of reach,
consisting of a bifurcated bar, or fork, in the jaws of which the hind
wheel is allowed to revolve; while the single end of this fork forms
part of the swivel, over the front wheel. Not yet satisfied with this
_veloce_, on account of the difficulty they found in using the same
machine for their in-door performances, and out-door exhibitions,
they had the saddle arranged so as to be enabled to vary its position
nearer to, or farther from, the front wheel, and at the same time had
slots made in the cranks, so that the treadle might be adjusted to
various lengths. The alterations were found to be of such benefit,
that application for a patent covering these improvements was made by
them, and granted by the Patent Office. We know of no velocipedes now
being made in this country, which do not include in their construction
all these late improvements, and the Hanlons are also notifying
manufacturers of the existence of their claims.
The Patent powers in Washington are literally overwhelmed with
applications for patents of different models of these articles. In a
large room in the Patent Office, there are some four hundred of these
models awaiting investigation. Over eighty models have already been
examined and patents for them issued; others are now under examination.
Some hundred caveats or notices that patents will be applied for have
been lately filed. In one week eighty applications and caveats were
received. One single agency in New York city has lately prepared
seventy patents for improvements.