CHAPTER XV.

hundreds of fraudulent machines at work in the South, made and sold in direct and open violation of Whitney's rights. In vain the inventor brought suit against those who infringed his patent. It was rare that a jury in a cotton State gave a verdict in his favor. In Georgia it was boldly asserted that Whitney was not the inventor of the cotton gin, but that some persons in Switzerland had invented something similar to it, and the substitution of teeth, cut in an iron plate, instead of wire, was claimed as superseding his invention. The Legislature of South Carolina granted him the beggarly sum of $50,000 for the use of his invention by the planters of that State; but it was only by going to law, and after several tedious and vexatious suits, that he was able to secure this sum. Tennessee agreed to allow him a percentage for the use of each saw for a certain period, but afterward repudiated her contract. The action of North Carolina forms the only bright page in this history of fraud and wrong. That State allowed him a percentage for the use of each saw for the term of five years, and promptly collected the money and paid it over to the patentee. For fourteen years Whitney continued to manufacture his machines, reaping absolutely no profit from his investments, and earning merely a bare support. During all this time his rights were systematically violated, suits were wrongfully decided against him by various Southern courts, and he was harassed and plundered on every side. America never presented a more shameful spectacle than was exhibited when the courts of the cotton-growing regions united with the piratical infringers of Whitney's rights in robbing their greatest benefactor. In 1807, Whitney's partner died, and his factory was destroyed by fire. In the same year his patent expired, and he sought its renewal from Congress. Here again he was met with the ingratitude of the cotton States. The Southern members, then all powerful in the Government, united in opposing the extension of his patent, and his petition was rejected. At the same time a report was industriously circulated that his machine injured the fiber of the cotton; but it is a significant fact that, although the planters insisted vehemently upon this