He received the answer that I knew he would, for what good business man ever lets such an opening go by him? They said they were just on the point of writing him that they did not wish to renew unless on very different terms. By the contract they made with me they paid a royalty of £2 on each indicator sold at retail, and £1 10 shillings on each one sold at wholesale. The selling price was £8 10 shillings. They made a large profit on extra springs, of which they sold a great number at 10 shillings each, and which cost them about 2 shillings. They wrote at length on the difficulty of holding the market against the competition of cheap indicators selling at £4 (which was just the competition against which the indicator was at first introduced but which had long before ceased to be serious) and closed by saying that if Mr. Smith would agree to accept one half the former royalty, they would themselves make a corresponding reduction in their profits and would be able to put the indicators at a price that would probably make the business satisfactory. Otherwise they would find themselves compelled to discontinue the manufacture altogether, which they should do unless they received an affirmative reply at once. Of course they got the affirmative reply. Mr. Smith had no alternative. They never reduced the selling price one penny. They had no competition during the life time of the patent, and their sales were enormous. The amount of royalties lost during the remaining seven years of the patent was certainly not less than $35,000. The following is a story with a moral. The moral is, working to gauges is an excellent plan, providing the gauges are mixed with brains. No manufacturing system is perfect that is not fool-proof. If a mistake is possible it is generally made.