In 1801 South Carolina voted the purchase of the patent rights on the cotton gin for that state for $50,000, $20,000 to be paid in hand and the remainder in three annual payments of $10,000 each. A year later Whitney sold the right for North Carolina. The legislature laid a tax on every saw, to be continued for five years. After deducting the expenses of collection, the proceeds were to be passed over to the patentee. Negotiations were also entered into with the state of Tennessee. The prospects of the firm were, therefore, growing more favorable, when the legislature of South Carolina suddenly annulled the contract, refused payment due, and sued for the refunding of what had already been paid. Doubts were raised as to the validity of the patent; the patentees were charged with nonfulfillment of a part of their contract relating to the submission of models; it was charged that _somebody_ in Switzerland had conceived of the idea beforehand; and that Whitney had been antedated in the use of saws instead of wire teeth by Holmes. This action was the result of the political agitation against the patent, which was strong throughout the cotton-growing states. Tennessee followed the example of South Carolina, and the same attempt was made in North Carolina, but the legislative committee to whom it was referred reported in Whitney’s favor, declaring that such action was a breach of contract and of good faith. In 1803 Mr. Miller, who had represented the firm in the South, died disappointed and broken by the struggle. In the following year South Carolina rescinded its action and carried out its contract, so that from North and South Carolina Whitney received a considerable sum. In all he received about $90,000; $50,000 from North Carolina; at least $30,000 from South Carolina and about $10,000 from Tennessee. A large portion of this amount was, however, balanced by the cost of the endless litigation in Georgia. More than sixty suits had been instituted in the latter state before the first decision was obtained on the merits of the claims. This decision was rendered in the United States Court in December, 1807, by Judge Johnson. Whitney, as the survivor of the firm of Miller & Whitney, was suing a man named Arthur Fort for violation of the patent right and for a perpetual injunction restraining him from use of the gin. Judge Johnson’s decision is so clear a statement of the situation, and so splendid an example of justice in the face of popular agitation that we give it nearly in full: Defendant admits most of the facts in the bill set forth, but contends that the complainants are not entitled to the benefits of the act of Congress on this subject, because: 1st. The invention is not original. 2d. It is not useful. 3d. That the machine which he uses is materially different from their inventions, in the application of an improvement, the invention of another person....