infringe patents owned by him, he can proceed against the manufacturers who supplied the apparatus to the Navy. 3. The National Electric Signalling Company, represented by Professor Fessenden, has always been considered on the same plane as other companies in the same business, when it is desired to procure wireless apparatus, and if contracts were not awarded to him it was because his price was not satisfactory as compared with other bidders. "4. With reference to the specific claim of Professor Fessenden, that the Navy is using apparatus covered by patents owned by him without his authority and without just compensation to him, the Bureau desires to state that it is not within its province to determine the legal questions involved, or whether such legal questions are involved. This has already been referred to the duly constituted authorities. ***" 4. Referring to your inquiry concerning the nature of the Fessenden patents: An examination of these patents discloses the fact that they cover a very good system of wireless telegraphy as systems go. With the exception of the liquid barreter, however, they are or would be of no particular value to the Government. 5. The control of these patents merely places the owner under the same status as a number of other owners who furnish wireless apparatus for the Government. The liquid barreter (commonly known as electrolytic receiver), patent is of considerable value in the art and is used to some extent in the Navy. It is not, however, essential to the efficient and successful working of wireless telegraphy, as there are other detectors in the market, nearly if not quite so efficient. The liquid barreter patent is No. 12115, dated May 26, 1903, which is a reissue of No. 706744, dated August 12, 1902. The Bureau understands that if any patent includes the substance of one previously issued, the later patent would confer upon the lessee all the rights existing under the prior patent. 6. In addition to Mr. Fessenden's claim for infringement on account of the liquid barreter or electrolytic detector, he also claims infringement on account of Nos. 706735 and 707736, covering the current-actuated or perfect contact receiver, claims 31 and 32, and the tuned condenser circuit at the receiving end, claim 6; No. 706737 and reissue patents 12168 and 12169, covering the use of a multiple wire aerial, also a large capacity aerial; No. 706742, covering means for eliminating electrostatic disturbances; and No. 706746, covering the use of the wave chute or artificial ground. Very respectfully, WM. S. COWLES, Chief of the Bureau of Equipment. Hon. CHARLES E. LITTLEFIELD, M. C., NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, September 15, 1903. SIR: This Department has received a letter on the subject of wireless telegraphy from Mr. Reginald A. Fessenden. This letter is so extreme in reference to inventions claimed to have been made by him and royalties due on account of the use by this Department of other systems of wireless telegraphy that the Department is desirous of obtaining some information concerning the character. It is understood that Mr. Fessenden was formerly an employee of the Agricultural Department, and that he experimented with wireless telegraphy under its direction for a considerable period. The Department would very much appreciate a statement of the facts in the case, and would be glad to receive your opinion of the merits of his claims. Respectfully, The SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE. W. H. MOODY, Secreary. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, The SECRETARY OF THE NAVY. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D. C., September 19, 1903. SIR: Replying to your letter of the 15th instant, requesting information in regard to the employment of Mr. Reginald A. Fessenden by this Department, I have the honor to inform you that Mr. Fessenden was employed in the Weather Bureau of this Department from January 19, 1900, to August 31, 1902, when he resigned. He was employed during his term of service in experiments in wireless telegraphy, and was furnished with ample assistance and all the apparatus and equipments that he asked for. Subject: Agricultural Department: Record of Service of Reginald A. Fessenden in Weather Bureau. Respectfully referred to the Bureau of Equipment for its information. B. F. PETERS, OLD POINT COMFORT, VA., September 5, 1903. Washington, D. C. SECRETARY OF UNITED STATES NAVY, DEAR SIR: We have been for a number of years engaged in developing a system of wireless telegraphy. A large amount of money has been spent in doing this and a system has been developed which Lieutenant Hudgins (the Navy expert for wireless telegraphy) will, I believe, inform you is much superior to any other system in existence. During the recent tests which were made by the Navy at Fortress Monroe, Lieutenant Hudgins inspected our stations and ascertained the fact that although our masts were only 50 feet high we were receiving messages over distances much longer than those covered by the Slaby-Arco and other systems which were being tested with masts 135 feet high. In addition our system is the only one free from atmospheric disturbances and from interference generally. It is also capable of covering very much longer distances than any other system, and at the present time we are operating stations between New York and Philadelphia with an expenditure of onequarter of a horsepower and masts only 135 feet high. If my understanding is correct, the Slaby-Arco people were barely able to operate between Annapolis and Washington, a distance of 30 miles, when using masts 175 feet high and more than 1 horsepower of energy. We should be glad to have your expert witness the operation of our stations at New York and Philadelphia at any time which may be convenient to you. We would also be very glad to install for you stations for working between Cape Henry and Annapolis. Our apparatus will do this with the greatest ease, while I believe you will not be able to find any other system capable of doing this which does not use our methods. I should also like to have an interview with you to secure some information as to the best means of taking up the question of the royalties on apparatus which are due us from the Navy. As you are aware, the Navy has purchased some 20 or 30 sets of Slaby-Arco apparatus, which apparatus infringes a number of 23848-07-73 our most important patents. In fact, the Slaby-Arco people would not be able to operate more than a few miles if it were not for the fact that they are using the methods invented by us and covered by our United States patents. These patents have been investigated by Messrs. Kenyon & Kenyon, who are perhaps the most eminent patent lawyers in this country, and have been declared valid and sustainable in court. We therefore are desirous of taking the proper steps to secure the royalties due us from the Navy for the use of our patented apparatus as used by the Slaby-Arco people. These royalties will amount to somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000 per set, and the total will therefore be considerable. In this connection I would respectfully call your attention to the different attitude taken by the United States Government and the German Government in connection with the subject of wireless telegraphy. In Germany every assistance has been afforded by the Government to Professor Slaby, considerable sums of money have been granted him, he has been decorated by the Emperor, and his apparatus has been adopted by the Government, in spite of the fact that the forms are largely made up of methods devised and patented by us and by the Marconi Company. In this country, on the other hand, although we have spent, up to date, more than $100,000 in experimental work and have devised apparatus which is vastly more sensitive and very much more reliable, which can be used for sending code messages in all kinds of weather and which is very much more free from outside disturbances; up to date the United States Government has declined to buy a single set of apparatus. In fact, so far from affording us any encouragement whatever, the Government has gone out of the country and purchased apparatus which is not only very much inferior to ours, but which obtains what value it has from the fact that it is an embodiment of the ideas invented and patented by us. I am, of course, aware that this state of affairs would not exist had you been aware of the circumstances, and I am in hopes that it will be remedied when it is called to your attention. I would respectfully request the honor of a personal interview with you at such time as may be convenient to you, and would suggest that possibly the facts in the case may be arrived at in the shortest possible time if Lieutenant Hudgins were present to afford information as to the operation of the different types of apparatus, and one of our lawyers were present to make the patent situation clear. I am, Very truly, yours, REGINALD A. FESSENDEN. [First indorsement.] NAVY DEPARTMENT, Subject: Fessenden, Reginald A., Old Point Comfort, Va. Calls attention to inefficiency of other wireless telegraph systems as compared to their system, and requests interview to demonstrate same; also as to amount of royalties due them. tion. Respectfully referred to the Bureau of Equipment for report and recommendaBy direction of the Secretary of the Navy: B. F. PETERS, Chief Clerk. (Witness: Zappone.) DIVISION OF ACCOUNTS AND DISBURSEMENT S. COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m. Present: Messrs. Littlefield (chairman) and Samuel. STATEMENT OF MR. A. ZAPPONE, CHIEF OF DIVISION OF ACCOUNTS AND DISBURSING CLERK, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. The CHAIRMAN. You are the chief of the Division of Accounts and disbursing clerk? Mr. ZAPPONE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Has your division had charge of the expenditure of the sums appropriated for the building for the Department of Agriculture? Mr. ZAPPONE. The Division of Accounts has paid the accounts. The expenditure of that money is under the direction of a building committee, of which Doctor Galloway is the chairman. All expenditures from the fund are directed by the committee. The CHAIRMAN. This building was authorized by the act approved February 9, 1903, and entitled "An act for the erection of a building for the use and accommodation of the Department of Agriculture?" Mr. ZAPPONE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And that act, in its first section, authorized the Secretary of Agriculture "to cause a suitable and commodious fireproof building, for the use and accommodation of the Department of Agriculture, including all of its bureaus and offices now occupying rented quarters in the District of Columbia, to be erected on such portion of the grounds of the Department of Agriculture belonging to the United States as he may deem expedient immediately in the vicinity of the present building," etc. The limit of the cost of the completed building, including heating and ventilating apparatus, elevators, and approaches, and the cost for the removal of the present building or buildings of the Department of Agriculture, was fixed at $1,500,000; and the act provided that "no contract shall be entered into or expenditure authorized in excess of said amount." That is section 3, is it not? Mr. ZAPPONE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. How much money has been appropriated under that act, up to date, giving years? Mr. ZAPPONE. $1,250,000; as follows: $250,000 in the fiscal year 1904; $700,000 in the fiscal year 1906, and $300,000 in the fiscal year 1907. (Witness: Zappone.) The CHAIRMAN. What has been done under that appropriation; first, with reference to the site and foundations? Mr. ZAPPONE. Mr. Chairman, as I have only been at the Department a little over a year, I really can not answer that question, but Doctor Galloway would be able to give you full information. The CHAIRMAN. Section 2 provides for the supervision of the construction of the building by some person to be appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture, subject to the approval of the head of the Department in which the officer is employed. Did the Secretary appoint an officer or a board? Mr. ZAPPONE. He appointed both an officer and a board, according to my recollection. The CHAIRMAN. Who was the officer? Mr. ZAPPONE. Capt. John S. Sewell, of the Engineer Corps. Mr. ZAPPONE. Doctor Galloway. The CHAIRMAN. Since you have been at the head of the Division of Accounts you have had the disbursement of the appropriation for the construction of the building? Mr. ZAPPONE. I have, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And that is all the connection you have had with it? Mr. ZAPPONE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You simply disburse the funds upon vouchers and orders approved by the men who have charge of the construction? Mr. ZAPPONE. That is it, exactly. The CHAIRMAN. You had nothing to do with the original location or the character of the building? Mr. ZAPPONE. Nothing whatever. The CHAIRMAN. You did not have the management of any details, but simply disbursed the funds as the vouchers came to you? Mr. ZAPPONE. That is right, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Do you have charge of the personnel in your Division? Mr. ZAPPONE. I have, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Will you state, in a general way, how the salaries are arranged, the distinction between the services rendered by the different classes, and the question of promotion? Mr. ZAPPONE. The force in the Division of Accounts, as you will notice, is rather small. It consists of about 23 employees, their salaries ranging from $600 up to $2,000 in the strictly clerical grades. The low-grade man is practically a messenger; in the appropriation bill for next year I recommended that the title be changed to that of messenger. The clerks in the next grade, $720, are occupied principally with copying, indexing, and work of a more or less mechanical nature. The next two grades, $1,000 and $1,200, include stenographers, typewriters, and assistant bookkeepers. The next grade, the $1,400 grade, comprises the draft clerks and some of the auditors. The $1,600 men are auditors, as are also the $1,800 man and the $2,000 man. The auditing in a Department like the Department of Agriculture is an immense undertaking. We handle on an average about 75,000 accounts a year-at least, that will be the amount for the present |