“The various steps required by the English law were taken by me to procure a patent for my mode, and the fees were paid at the Clerk’s office, June 22, and at the Home Department, June 25, 1838; also, June 26, caveats were entered at the Attorney and Solicitor-General’s, and I had reached that part of the process which required the sanction of the Attorney-General.  At this point I met the opposition of Messrs. Wheatstone and Cooke, and also of Mr. Davy, and a hearing was ordered before the Attorney-General, Sir John Campbell, on July 12, 1838.  I attended at the Attorney-General’s residence on the morning of that day, carrying with me my telegraphic apparatus for the purpose of explaining to him the total dissimilarity between my system and those of my opponents.  But, contrary to my expectation, the similarity or dissimilarity of my mode from that of my opponents was not considered by the Attorney-General.  He neither examined my instrument, which I had brought for that purpose, nor did he ask any questions bearing upon its resemblance to my opponents’ system.  I was met by the single declaration that my ‘invention had been published,’ and in proof a copy of the London ‘Mechanics’ Magazine,’ No. 757, for February 10, 1838, was produced, and I was told that ’in consequence of said publication I could not proceed.’

“At this summary decision I was certainly surprised, being conscious that there had been no such publication of my method as the law required to invalidate a patent; and, even if there had been, I ventured to hint to the Attorney-General that, if I was rightly informed in regard to the British law, it was the province of a court and jury, and not of the Attorney-General, to try, and to decide that point.”

The publication to which the Attorney-General referred had merely stated results, with no description whatever of the means by which these results were to be obtained and it was manifestly unfair to Morse on the part of this official to have refused his sanction; but he remained obdurate.  Morse then wrote him a long letter, after consultation with Mr. Smith, setting forth all these points and begging for another interview.

“In consequence of my request in this letter I was allowed a second hearing.  I attended accordingly, but, to my chagrin, the Attorney-General remarked that he had not had time to examine the letter.  He carelessly took it up and turned over the leaves without reading it, and then asked me if I had not taken measures for a patent in my own country.  And, upon my reply in the affirmative, he remarked that:  ’America was a large country and I ought to be satisfied with a patent there.’  I replied that, with all due deference, I did not consider that as a point submitted for the Attorney-General’s decision; that the question submitted was whether there was any legal obstacle in the way of my obtaining letters patent for my Telegraph in England.  He observed that he considered my invention as having been published, and that he must therefore forbid me to proceed.