Opinion of the Court.

the cast. In neither case did the defendant introduce any testimony. Nothing, therefore, appears in the record as to the value of the materials when purchased appropriate to each opera glass. It is evident that the question involved is one of considerable importance, as in some articles, the raw material is the main cost, and in others, the labor.

We think the theory of the importer was the correct one, and that the value of the materials should be taken at the time they are put together to form the completed glass. There are grave difficulties in making the estimation at any other time. Whether, for instance, the shell shall be taken in its rough and uncleansed state as it comes from the animal, or after it has been cleaned and polished. Shall the glass be taken in its polished or unpolished state? Shall the value of the metal be taken immediately after it is smelted or in a more advanced state of manufacture? The position of the government seems to be that the value of the component materials should be taken as they go into the hands of the manufacturer. But one manufacturer may buy them in their rough state, another in their polished state, and another in their final state, ready to be put together in the form of a glass. The value of the raw material, as is shown in this case with respect to the shell and copper, may be subject to violent fluctuations. One manufacturer may have bought them at a high price, another at a low price, both being held a considerable time in stock. What price shall govern? Thus, in appraising the value of a piece of furniture. made of wood and silk plush, it would be obviously inequitable to take the value of the lumber as it comes from the tree, and the silk from the worm or the spinner. The true rule would seem to be to take each of them as they go into the furniture.

While it may be true that to a certain extent the government may be at the mercy of the importers' witnesses in estimating the value of the labor put upon the raw material as it goes into the completed article, this difficulty cannot be allowed to defeat the plain object of the enactment. Such difficulties were doubtless foreseen, as they did not appear

Statement of the Case.

to be of such magnitude as to prevent Congress, in the act of 1890, from providing particularly that "the value of each component material shall be determined by the ascertained. value of such material in its condition as found in the article," and thus putting the question at rest. We regard this as merely declaratory of the law.

There is another point raised in this case, namely, that the opera glasses should be regarded as falling within the description of paragraph 216, as a manufacture composed wholly or in part of metal, and, therefore, dutiable at 45 per cent ad valorem. As this question is not raised by the record, and no instruction was asked of the court based upon this interpretation, we do not find it necessary to express an opinion. upon the subject.

The judgment of the court below in each case, is therefore, Affirmed.

MCALEER v. UNITED STATES.

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

No. 108. Argued November 23, 1893. Decided December 4, 1893.

An employê in the Treasury Department, having obtained letters patent for an invention which proved to be of use in the department, executed an indenture to the department in which he said: "For the sum of one dollar and other valuable consideration to me paid by the said department, I do hereby grant and license the said United States Treasury Department and its bureaus the right to make and use machines containing the improvements claimed in said letters patent to the full end of the term for which said letters patent are granted." Held, that this instrument constituted a contract fully executed on both sides, which gave the right to the Treasury Department, without liability for remuneration thereafter, to make and use the machines containing the patented improvements to the end of the term for which the letters were granted; which contract could not be defeated, contradicted, or varied, by proof of a collateral parol agreement inconsistent with its terms.

THIS was an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims, rendered March 31, 1890, dismissing the petition of one Philip

Statement of the Case.

McAleer, whose administratrix was substituted in this court. The petition was filed November 27, 1888, "to recover from the United States compensation for the use by the United States of certain inventions made by the petitioner and protected by letters patent of the United States issued to him, such use being under licenses to the United States executed by petitioner." The several inventions and improvements for which letters patent were issued to petitioner were set out, and it was averred that "knowing that the said inventions. and improvements so as aforesaid secured to the petitioner by letters patent were mainly and almost exclusively useful to the United States in the said Bureau of Engraving and Printing, the petitioner, at the request and by the advice of George B. McCartee, Esq., then superintendent of said bureau, for the United States executed and 'delivered to the said McCartee a license to the United States to use the petitioner's inventions aforesaid mentioned in letters patent No. 170,183, which was accepted by said McCartee for the United States, and under said license the United States continued thereafter to use said inventions." The license was then set out, and similar licenses were alleged to have been executed and delivered for the use by the United States of other inventions and improvements. The petition also averred that the United States advanced about the sum of two hundred dollars to be expended in procuring the issue of letters patent, "the officers of said bureau having urged the petitioner to have his aforesaid inventions and improvements protected by letters patent, with the view of securing to the United States, in the said Bureau of Engraving and Printing, by licenses as aforesaid, the exclusive use of the said inventions and improvements;" that at the time of the issue of the letters patent and of the execution of the licenses it was agreed between petitioner and the superintendent of the bureau in behalf of the United States that petitioner should be retained and employed in the bureau as machinist as long as the bureau continued to use said inventions or improvements, or any of them under the licenses; and that he was subsequently discharged. The petition further stated: "That under the aforesaid licenses there was an

Statement of the Case.

implied agreement between the United States and the petitioner that the United States should pay to the petitioner for the use of said improvements and inventions whatever the said use was reasonably worth, and the petitioner upon information and belief says that the said use was reasonably worth the sum of thirty-one thousand dollars ($31,000)."

The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations, the assignment for valuable consideration of the patented improvements, and want of novelty.

The case having been heard, the Court of Claims, upon the evidence, filed the following findings of fact and conclusion of law:

"1. Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States, a resident of the city of Washington, and a machinist by occupation.

"2. From the year 1864 until about the 16th day of February, 1876, plaintiff was employed as a mechanic in the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, formerly designated the currency division of the Treasury Department. His duties were those of a skilled mechanic, and during the greatest part of the time particularly related to the charge and repair of machines used in that bureau for cutting and trimming fractional currency, including machines of the character hereinafter mentioned.

"During eleven months, beginning in November, 1876, and ending about September 10, 1877, he was employed in said bureau and paid as a watchman. At the latter date he was discharged.

"3. December 7, 1875, letters patent No. 170,873, were issued to plaintiff for improvement in paper-perforating machines.

"4. Of the perforating machines described in the specifications accompanying letters patent 170,873, thirteen have been made for the use of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and that number of machines are now in use there, as are some 'pin machines.'

"5. The difference in operation between the plaintiff's invention for paper perforating and the machine known as the 'pin machine,' which it was designed to supersede, is in many

Statement of the Case.

respects in favor of the former. The speed of the former is greater than the latter; it will perforate more sheets per diem; the cost of constructing the knives is less than that of constructing the pins; the knife machine requires less repair than the pin machine. The pin machine does not punch. entirely through the paper, but leaves a burr at the back, while the knife machine makes a clean cut, leaving no burr. This is the principal advantage of the knife machine and is a material one.

"6. Except as hereinafter found (see finding 9) plaintiff has received no compensation from the government for the use of his invention.

"7. January 10, 1876, plaintiff executed the instrument set forth at the close of this finding, which was recorded in the Patent Office, (Liber C 20, p. 40,) January 17, 1876.

"This assignment was made at the suggestion of George B. McCartee, then chief of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.

"It was contemporaneously agreed by and between plaintiff and said McCartee that the assignment should hold good only during plaintiff's employment in said Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and not longer. Plaintiff was discharged from government service without fault on his part September, 1877, and his efforts to be restored have been fruitless.

"Plaintiff's request to have the machines in question stamped with his name as patentee was refused by the chief of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.

"Whereas I, Philip McAleer, of Washington, D. C., have invented certain improvements in paper-perforating machines, for which letters patent of the United States were granted to me and bear date December 7, 1875;

"And whereas the United States Treasury Department is desirous of acquiring the right to use said invention as fully described in said letters patent:

"Now this indenture witnesseth, that for the sum of one dollar and other valuable consideration to me paid by the said department, I do hereby grant and license the said United