Page images
PDF
EPUB

HEARING

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEVENTY-FOURTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 498

FOR THE RELIEF OF WILLIAM K. RICHARDSON

66959

APRIL 22, 1936

Printed for the use of the Committee on Claims

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1936

COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS

AMBROSE J. KENNEDY, Maryland, Chairman

ROBERT RAMSPECK, Georgia
SAMUEL DICKSTEIN, New York
MARTIN F. SMITH, Washington
JOHN M. HOUSTON, Kansas
DAN R. MCGEHEE, Mississippi
J. BURWOOD DALY, Pennsylvania
ELMER J. RYAN, Minnesota
JACK NICHOLS, Oklahoma
MARCELLUS H. EVANS, New York
CHARLES L. SOUTH, Texas
JOHN H. TOLAN, California

MICHAEL J. STACK, Pennsylvania

U. S. GUYER, Kansas

GEORGE N. SEGER, New Jersey WILLIAM A. PITTENGER, Minnesota JOHN W. GWYNNE, Iowa

WILLIAM A. EKWALL, Oregon

FRANK CARLSON, Kansas

EVELYN V. COSTIN, Clerk

ROBERT E. MITCHELL, Assistant Clerk

JOHN M. HOUSTON, Kansas

SUBCOMMITTEE ON H. J. RES. 498

WILLIAM A. EKWALL, Oregon, Chairman

WILLIAM A. PITTENGER, Minnesota

(II)

LIBRARY OF CONGR, SS

JUN C-1936

DIVISION OF DOCUMENTS

[blocks in formation]

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS,

Regular meeting, Friday, May 1, 1936.

Mr. Ekwall submitted the following resolution:

Ordered, That the hearing before a subcommittee of the Committee on Claims on Wednesday, April 22, 1936, in connection with House Joint Resolution No. 498, for the relief of William K. Richardson, together with material exhibits, including the evidence of both plaintiff and defendant in Case A-200 before the Court of Claims, and the decision of said court, shall be prepared and printed for the official use of the committee.

The foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the committee in executive session this day.

AMBROSE J. KENNEDY, Chairman.

III

WILLIAM K. RICHARDSON

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 1936

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., Hon. William A. Ekwall, presiding.

Present: Hon. William A. Ekwall, Representative from Oregon, chairman; Hon. William A. Pittenger, Representative from Minnesota; and Hon. John M. Houston, Representative from Kansas.

Mr. EKWALL. The subcommittee meeting will now be called to order. This hearing is held to consider H. J. Res. 498, for the relief of William K. Richardson, which will be printed in full at this point in the record.

(H. J. Res. 498 is as follows:)

[H. J. Res. 498, 74th Cong., 2d sess.]

JOINT RESOLUTION For the relief of William K. Richardson

Whereas William King Richardson invented a new form for a projectile for use in present constructed guns, consisting of three salient features, to wit, a long point, a relatively reduced cylinder length, and a beveled base now known as the streamline shell; and

Whereas this invention was submitted to the United States War and Navy Department by said Richardson in 1914 as a secret invention, and later application for Letters Patent was made, and United States Patent Numbered 1141415 was granted to said Richardson on June 1, 1915, and later adjudicated by the Court of Claims as a valid patent; and

Whereas the United States Army used many millions of said streamline shells in the war against Germany and Austria, and there were no streamline shells for cannon used in the aforesaid war until after the issue of the Richardson patent; and

Whereas the streamline shell greatly increased the range and preserved accuracy of our guns, and the patent disclosed a great discovery in the science of streamline of a body, and for the first time in science gave the correct velocity flow of air to an instantly created vacuum, making it possible to mathematically express as demonstrated in the patent the pressure at the point and base of a projectile due to form and velocity; and Whereas in suit numbered A-200, brought by said Richardson against the United States in the Court of Claims for use of his invention during the Great War, a judgment was rendered December 1, 1930, "that the patent is valid and not infringed"; and

Whereas noninfringement was established by imposing exact dimensions on the elements of the claim; and

Whereas the court rendered a dual opinion on special finding of fact XI of said judgment; and

Whereas the court ignored competent testimony in the case; and
Whereas motion for a new trial was made by plaintiff, and this motion was

overruled on November 2, 1931, whereupon petition in the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari was made and denied March 17, 1932, without review; and

1

« PreviousContinue »