“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.
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.