“Although I thus write, you need have no fears that my operations will be seriously affected by any schemes of common letter printing telegraphs.  I have just filed a caveat for one which I have invented, which as far transcends in simplicity and efficiency any previous plan for the purpose, as my telegraph system is superior to the old visual telegraphs.  I will have it in operation by the time you return.”

Apropos of the attacks made upon him by would-be infringers, the following from a letter of his legal counsel, Daniel Lord, Esq., dated January 12, 1847, may not come amiss:  “It ought to be a source of great satisfaction to you to have your invention stolen and counterfeited.  Think what an acknowledgment it is, and what a tribute to its merits.”

Referring to this in a letter to Mr. Lord of a later date, Morse answers:  “The plot thickens all around me; I think a denouement not far off.  I remember your consoling me under these attacks with bidding me think that I had invented something worth contending for.  Alas! my dear sir, what encouragement is there to an inventor if, after years of toil and anxiety, he has only purchased for himself the pleasure of being a target for every vile fellow to shoot at, and, in proportion as his invention is of public utility, so much the greater effort is to be made to defame, that the robbery may excite the less sympathy?  I know, however, that beyond all this is a clear sky, but the clouds may not break away until I am no longer personally interested whether it be foul or fair.  I wish not to complain, but I have feelings and cannot play the stoic if I would.”

It was a new experience for Morse to become involved in the intricacies of the law, and, in a letter to a friend, Henry I. Williams, Esq., dated February 22, 1847, he naively remarks:  “A student all my life, mostly in a profession which is adverse in its habits and tastes from those of the business world, and never before engaged in a lawsuit, I confess to great ignorance even of the ordinary, commonplace details of a court.”

His desire to be both just and merciful is shown in a letter to Mr. Kendall, written on February 16, just before the decision was rendered against him:  “I have been in court all day, and have been much pleased with the clearness and, I think, conclusiveness of Mr. Miles’s argument.  I think he has produced an evident change in the views of the judge.  Yet it is best to be prepared for the worst, and, even if we succeed in getting the injunction, I wish as much leniency as possible to be shown to the opposing parties.  Indeed, in this I know my views are seconded by you.  However we may have ‘spoken daggers,’ let us use none, and let us make every allowance for honest mistake, even where appearances are at first against such a supposition.  O’Reilly may have acted hastily, under excitement, under bad advisement, and in that mood have taken wrong steps.  Yet I still believe he may be recovered, and, while I would use every precaution to protect our just rights, I wish not to take a single step that can be misconstrued into vindictiveness or triumph.”