Papers Of Abraham Lincoln

Jonathan Haines to Abraham Lincoln, 7 September 18581

STANWIX
HALL,
ALBANY, N.Y.
L. L. BRITTON,
PROPRIETOR. OPPOSITE
NEW YORK
Central,
NORTHERN,
BOSTON
AND
HUDSON RIVER
RAILROADS.

Albany, N.Y[New York].Sept 71858Hon A Lincoln Springfield Ill.Dear Sir
I have had the pleasure being in company with P H Watson from Cleaveland O to Hoosick Falls about 30 mls[miles] East of this place.

He says he has a good joke on you in relation to the bill against Talcott Emerson & Co. He thinks you had more politics than law in your head at the time you drew it up.2 Still he says he will take no advantage of it. Well, I understand him to say that he intends defending on the ground that, my Patent is good only for the precise manner that I use it, i.e. in a shoving machine, but will not reach him, or the Manny machine; and said if it would

<Page 2>
reach the Manny machine, it was so broad as to ruin it. He says, he will put in his answer in October, then we can see his position all clear.3

Now in relation to my ^P^t[Patent]^ being so broad as to viciate it provided it covers the Manny mⁿ[Machine] I confess I cannot understand it, unless he means that, if my Patent is constrewed to reach to Mannys, then it is cut out by the Moore & Haskall and the Jonathan Read's machines.

Now of these two I think the M & H, to be the most difficult to explain away: had I best make a Model corresponding with the M & H drawings so as to make the matter plain? for I am satisfyed that they will make the strong fight on that point.

Perhaps you do not remember the precise arrangement of the M & H machine as well as I do, but my opinion is that the ponderous weight forward of that machine will be the only defence for us, for certain it is that he used a lever the same as I

<Page 3>
do, but certain it is that the manner in which he attached his horses, and the great weight forward the driver could not have governed it, and another thing, there was no "Seat or Stand" for the driver on the machine at al– Also we will try to make it appear that there was no "drivers Seat or Stand" on the Read machine, although in the drawings of the reissue, the driver is placed just beside the raker. Tho, fortunately the so called driver Stand is upon the body of the mach[ine] and the lever is attached to the same thing— also Read's machine had a tremendous weight forward, and I am now under the impression that our Strongest points lays in this feature of those old machines. My Patent is, attaching a lever in a certain manner to a frame, or tongue of a harvesting machine, "nearly balanced on its supporting wheels," Manny's machine is nearly balanced–

Now I think I can prove by good witnesses that Manny's machine is nearly balanced— and also that

<Page 4>
the Moore & Haskal and Reads machines were not "nearly balanced on their supporting wheels–

Having nothing to do this evening I thot I would drop you this line–

Watson will be at Chicago the latter part of this month, attending to the suit by Hussy against M^cCormick. I would like to be present at that trial as I think there will be something to learn, that may benefit me– I hope you will have some business there too at that time–4
Yours TrulyJonathan Haines

<Page 5>

[Envelope]

ALB[ANY] N.Y
SEP[SEPTEMBER] 8Hon. A. LincolnSpringfieldI^lls

[ docketing ]
Lincoln, Abraham (President)

Not now5
J. Haines6

<Page 6>

STANWIX HALL, ALBANY, N.Y.
L. L. BRITTON, Proprietor.
OPPOSITE
N.Y. Central, Northern, Boston and Hudson River Railroads.

1Jonathan Haines wrote and signed this letter. He also wrote Abraham Lincoln’s name and address on the envelope shown in the fifth image.

2Haines is most likely referencing Lincoln’s bill of complaint in the case Haines & Haines v. Talcott et al. In American law, a bill of complaint or bill for relief is a statement put forth by the plaintiff which includes the major facts of the case—including the specific complaint or wrong the complainant suffered—and a request for the court to compel the defendant in the case to respond to the charges of the bill.
In Haines & Haines v. Talcott et al., brothers Jonathan Haines and Ansel Haines sued Wait Talcott, along with the other surviving representatives of Manny and Company, for infringement upon a patent for a reaper (a kind of harvesting machine). The Haines brothers retained Lincoln, who launched the case in July 1858, and Peter H. Watson served as the attorney for Talcott. At the time, Lincoln was running as the Illinois Republican Party’s candidate to replace incumbent Democrat Stephen A. Douglas in the U.S. Senate in the 1858 Federal Election.
“Bill of Complaint,” Reference, Glossary, Martha L. Benner and Cullom Davis et al., eds., The Law Practice of Abraham Lincoln: Complete Documentary Edition, 2d edition (Springfield: Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, 2009), https://lawpracticeofabrahamlincoln.org/Reference.aspx?ref=Reference%20html%20files/Glossary.html; Haines & Haines v. Talcott et al., Martha L. Benner and Cullom Davis et al., eds., The Law Practice of Abraham Lincoln: Complete Documentary Edition, https://www.lawpracticeofabrahamlincoln.org/Details.aspx?case=137699; Michael Burlingame, Abraham Lincoln: A Life (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008), 1:458.

3This is most likely a reference to Watson’s reply to the bill of complaint that Lincoln filed on the Haines’ brothers behalf.

4Haines references Hussey v. McCormick, a reaper patent lawsuit with which Lincoln was not involved. In the case, Obed Hussey sued Cyrus H. McCormick in May 1857 in the U.S. Circuit Court, Northern District of Illinois for infringing upon his reaper patents. He sought damages for past infringements and an injunction against further sales. Watson served as Hussey’s attorney in this case. In September 1859, Circuit Justice John McLean upheld Hussey’s claims, issued an injunction restricting McCormick from using the patented elements at stake, and assessed $80,618.73 in damages.
Lincoln did not travel to Chicago in the latter part of September to attend the U.S. Circuit Court, Northern District of Illinois’ hearings on Hussey v. McCormick, as he was campaigning throughout the state on behalf of Republican candidates for the Illinois General Assembly. Hussey later gave deposition in another reaper patent case with which Lincoln was involved. For details on that case, see McCormick v. Talcott et al., Martha L. Benner and Cullom Davis et al., eds., The Law Practice of Abraham Lincoln: Complete Documentary Edition, https://www.lawpracticeofabrahamlincoln.org/Details.aspx?case=137741.

Ultimately, in the local elections of 1858, Republicans won a majority of all votes cast in Illinois, yet pro-Douglas Democrats retained control of the Illinois General Assembly. At the time, members of the General Assembly voted for and elected the state’s representatives in the U.S. Senate, and Douglas won reelection. Through the campaign, however, and in particular through his participation in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, Lincoln gained recognition as well as standing within the national Republican Party.

Lincoln and the Haines brothers corresponded at least twice more regarding the case Haines & Haines v. Talcott et al. after this letter. Lincoln also corresponded with other individuals regarding this case at least five times. In 1859, Lincoln wrote to Watson as the attorney for Talcott in the case, requesting that they try the case in separate pieces. Watson refused. The trial was delayed because both sides needed to take depositions. No additional correspondence related to the case has been located beyond October 1859. Lincoln most likely represented the Haines’ interests in this case until he was elected president in the 1860 Federal Election, but the final outcome of the case is unknown.
William T. Hutchinson, Cyrus Hall McCormick: Seed-Time, 1809-1856 (New York: Century, 1930), 119, 450-51; The Lincoln Log: A Daily Chronology of the Life of Abraham Lincoln, September 1858, https://thelincolnlog.org/Results.aspx?type=CalendarMonth&year=1858&month=9; Michael Burlingame, Abraham Lincoln: A Life, 1:556-57, 414-16; Allen C. Guelzo, “Houses Divided: Lincoln, Douglas, and the Political Landscape of 1858,” The Journal of American History 94 (September 2007), 394; Ansel Haines and Jonathan Haines to Abraham Lincoln; Abraham Lincoln to Jonathan Haines; Abraham Lincoln to Peter H. Watson; Peter H. Watson to Abraham Lincoln; Peter H. Watson to Abraham Lincoln; Abraham Lincoln to Peter H. Watson; T. Lyle Dickey to Abraham Lincoln; Haines & Haines v. Talcott et al., Martha L. Benner and Cullom Davis et al., eds., The Law Practice of Abraham Lincoln: Complete Documentary Edition, https://www.lawpracticeofabrahamlincoln.org/Details.aspx?case=137699.

5Lincoln wrote this docketing in pencil vertically on the left side of the envelope shown in the fifth image.

6Lincoln wrote this docketing in pencil vertically on the right side of the envelope shown in the fifth image.