SEC. 10. A simple change of form shall not entitle any one to evade the patent of any inventor by a new patent. The above are the principal improvements desired by inventors. Some think it not well to ask for all they want at once, but we think differently, for it will be said hereafter, when new amendments are desired, 'Gentlemen, you petitioned for the very provisions you now seek to have annulled. Your own committee was here at Washington assenting.' What answer will there be to this? None can be made without confusion of face for having over assented to a wrong. We do not desire to censure the committee charged with the mission to Washington.--They have thought to act prudently and for the greatest good. We differ only on the real expediency of the case. We do not believe that such men as Benton, Calhoun, and other kindred spirits, ask or desire anything but what they think is right. They will not sacrifice their reputation against a body of men to whom the Republic owe so much, and who have so long suffered in silence. The law as it now stands, is an improvement on the former law, and considering how low was the state of morals in former times respecting inventors, such sentiments as have been advanced by Judge Woodbury, and which are in spirit the same as the above, are destined ultimately to prevail. And those who choose to record their names in opposition are free to do so, as are also the tribe of persecutors who in all ages have stoned the prophets. The principle endeavored to be followed throughout, is that of the common and statutes laws respecting the rights to real property. It may tend to create litigation, as to claims which are now refused entirely, but if no litigation or less is the grand desideratum, why not establish a dictatorship at once? The _ipse dixit_ of one man will then prevent all argument. But the rights of property and jury trial in all cases are ours by the constitution--and equally are we entitled by the constitution to the pursuit of happiness and wealth in ærial regions as on the common earth--and if we may not be divested of our other property without certain laws and a fair jury trial, why should we be of patent property? And if patent agents presume to beguile honest inventors, why should they not be held responsible? They may refuse to back their operation by a guaranty, but then the inventor has a right to know it, and to know he has a remedy, should they do so improperly. The Clerk of one of our Courts guarantied the searches of one of his Clerks as to a piece of real property, and had to pay some ten thousand dollars, and why should it not be so.