Papers of John Adams, volume 20
th.1790.
This will be handed to you by Mr;
Francis Bailey, printer of the Freemans Journal in this city. I esteem him as an
intelligent, ingenious & honest man. He has lately invented a simple method of
making ornaments, devices and even types for securities, certificates and other public
papers, which cannot possibly be counterfeited.1
As soon as his invention shall be made known, it can be used by any printer, and no patent could secure him much benefit from it: He therefore hopes for employment from Congress in the line of his business so long as he may deserve it, as the only reward for his discovery. With this view he goes to New-York, and requests me to do him the honor of introducing him to you, and solliciting your patronage. Your countenance and recommendation will oblidge an industrious & worthy character.
Be pleased to make my compliments acceptable to Mrs; Adams, Colo: & Mrs; Smith,
and permit me to subscribe myself, what with great sincerity I am, / Sir, Your most
obedient humble servant
RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “His Excellency John Adams Esquire.—”
Francis Bailey (ca. 1735–1815), former printer for the
Continental Congress and the state of Pennsylvania, had published the Philadelphia Freeman’s Journal since 1781. Bailey developed a form of
printing type that he claimed could not be counterfeited “by the most ingenious
Artists in sculpture, or by any other means.” Bailey petitioned both houses of
Congress for the exclusive use of his invention, garnering prominent supporters like
Pennsylvania senator Robert Morris and George Duffield, pastor of Philadelphia’s Third
Presbyterian Church. On 20 Jan. 1790 Duffield wrote to JA (Adams Papers), recommending Bailey as
“a man of great integrity; & I think, I may safely say, universally esteemed by
his Acquaintance for his honesty & uprightness.”
From 2 to 26 Feb., a House of Representatives committee
considered Bailey’s petition and passed a bill in support of it. It was sent to the
Senate on 2 March, where it foundered, likely because of Alexander Hamilton’s negative
report on the efficacy of Bailey’s invention. On 4 March the Senate opted to postpone
discussion of Bailey’s request until a “bill to promote the progress of useful arts
shall be taken into consideration,” for which see Richard Cranch’s 22 Jan. letter, and note 1, below
(Washington, Papers, Presidential Series
, 5:89–90;
AFC
, 1:216; Hamilton, Papers
, 6:277–278;
Annals of Congress
, 1st Cong., 1st sess., p.
988).
y.22
d1790.
This will be delivered to you by my esteemed Friend Mr. Nathan Reed, who was a very worthy Tutor to your eldest
Son, and to mine, when at the University. He is a Gentleman whose acquaintance with
the Principles of Natural Philosophy and the Mathematicks is very extensive, and he is
more particularly well versed in the application of those Principles to the purposes
of constructing usefull Machines.1 And
he appears to me to have such a natural Turn and original Genious that way, as, if
encouraged, may prove of very great advantage to the Publick. He has exhibited to the
Academy a number of Drafts of Machines of his invention or improvement, which, 222 having been [ca]refully examined by their
standing Committee, have been highly approved; and Mr.
Reed is now desirous of submitting them to the Examination of Congress by such a
Committee as they may please to honour him with for that purpose; hoping that if any
of them should be approved, he may be so happy as to obtain a Patent, or such other
encouragement as may enable him to carry them into execution for the publick Benefit.
Our good Friends Doctr. Holyoke,2 Doctr. Tufts and
several other learned Members of the Academy have expressed their approbation of
several of Mr. Reed’s Inventions and Improvements, in a
Paper by them subscribed, and given to him, which I wish you would read as containing
my Sentiments also.
I heartily recommend Mr. Reed to your
Notice and Friendship, and am, with Sentiments of highest Esteem and Affection, your
obliged Brother
[Ple]ase to give my best Regards to Sister Adams and your whole
Family. We are all well at Braintree Weymo. &c.
RC (Adams Papers). Some loss of text due to the removal of the seal and a torn manuscript.
Nathan Read (1759–1849), Harvard 1781, of Warren, Mass., petitioned Congress on 8 Feb. for “an exclusive privilege for constructing” his mechanical inventions, which included improvements on the steam engine. Members of the House referred Read’s request to a committee which on 16 Feb. presented a bill “to promote the progress of the useful arts.” The bill passed both houses of Congress, after minor amendments, by 5 April. George Washington signed the Patent Act five days later, ushering in a new system for American inventors to retain ownership of their innovations. The act established a patent board, first manned by Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph, that reviewed all citizens’ proposals for “any useful Art, Manufacture, Engine, Machine or Device, or any improvement therein not before known or used.” Applicants paid between $4 and $5 to process submissions, which included a drawing or model of the invention. Under the act, the State Department held the power to issue patents extending to fourteen years.
Read broadened the scope of his application in subsequent
petitions of 16 and 23 April; all proved unsuccessful, as a number of inventors
competed to dominate the new steam-engine industry. He pressed on with additional
inquiries, and in April 1791 the board “agreed to grant patents to all the claimants
of steam-patents . . . without taking it upon themselves to ascertain
whether those claimants were really the inventors, as they severally alleged in their
petitions.” Read’s patent was issued on 26 Aug. (
Biog. Dir. Cong.
;
First Fed.
Cong.
, 1:271–272, 277–278, 282; 3:288–289; David Read, Nathan Read: His Invention . . . of the True Mode of
Applying Steam-Power to Navigation and Railways, N.Y., 1870, p. 111, 113,
115–116).
Edward Augustus Holyoke was the former president of the Massachusetts Medical Society (vol. 17:605).