3d. The third and last ground taken by the defendant, appears to be that on which he mostly relies. In the specification, the teeth made use of are of strong wire inserted into the cylinder. A Mr. Holmes has cut teeth in plates of iron, and passed them over the cylinder. This is certainly a meritorious improvement in the mechanical process of constructing this machine. But at last, what does it amount to except a more convenient method of making the same thing? Every characteristic of Mr. Whitney’s machine is preserved. The cylinder, the iron tooth, the rotary motion of the tooth, the breast work and brush, and all the merit that this discovery can assume, is that of a more expeditious mode of attaching the tooth to the cylinder. After being attached, in operation and effect they are entirely the same. Mr. Whitney may not be at liberty to use Mr. Holmes’ iron plate, but certainly Mr. Holmes’ improvement does not destroy Mr. Whitney’s patent right. Let the decree for a perpetual injunction be entered.[177] [177] _Ibid._, p. 39. This decision was confirmed by a series of subsequent ones, and from that time onward there was no serious questioning of the patent right. In 1812 Mr. Whitney made application to Congress for the renewal of his patent. In his memorial he points out that his patent had nearly expired before it was sustained; that his invention had been a source of wealth to thousands of citizens of the United States; that the expense to which he had gone in defense of the patent had left him little or no return on the invention; that the men who had grown rich by the use of his machine had combined to prevent the patentee from deriving reward from his invention; that in the state where he had first introduced the machines he had received nothing; that from no state had he received all told an amount equal to ¹⁄₂ cent per pound on the cotton cleaned by his machine in one year; that the whole amount received by him for his invention had not been equal to the labor saved in one hour by the cotton gins then in use in the United States; that the invention had already trebled the value of land throughout a great extent of territory; that the degree to which the cultivation of cotton would still be augmented was incalculable; and that the species of cotton grown had from time immemorial never been known as an article of commerce until his method of cleaning it had been invented. He closed with an argument for the policy of providing adequate reward for the encouragement of invention.[178] Notwithstanding these arguments and a favorable committee report, the application was rejected. With the exception of a few liberal-minded men, nearly all the members from the cotton-growing states opposed the application strongly. [178] _Ibid._, pp. 55-57.