1825 John Quincy Adams - Patent Laws and the Gibbons v. Ogden Case

In 1825, President John Quincy Adams asked Congress "whether the [patent] laws have effectively insured to the inventors the reward destined to them by the Constitution -- even a limited term of exclusive right to their discoveries?"  The request seems like a very noble one, as it would help protect the inventor, but a deeper dive into history shows that this request mirrors the arguments of his Attorney General William Wirt in the Gibbons v. Ogden case.  Wirt argued that patent laws should be the domain of the federal government not the states.  Something we take for granted today, but must have sounded like sour grapes in 1825.

The case of Gibbons v. Ogden, pitted the United States against the rights New York State to grant exclusive steamboat navigation privileges to Livingston and Fulton (the Fulton Steamboat) overall the waters within the jurisdiction of that state.  The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, and had become so sensational, that President Monroe's Attorney General William Wirt described the states as being "on the eve of civil war".   Given this, Gibbons hired the very high powered attorney Daniel Webster to join William Wirt to represent his rights as protected by the federal government.

Opening Arguments.

On the morning of February 4, 1824 Senator Daniel Webster and Attorney General William Wirt sat at the table as counsel for Thomas Gibbons, with General Thomas Addis Emmet and Thomas Oakley at a second table for Aaron Ogden.  Chief Justice Marshall and five other Supreme Court listened to the arguments.   Webster argued that the people of New York had a right to be protected against the steamboat monopolies imposed by the states.  Thomas Oakley argued on behalf of Ogden, that under the Tenth Amendment, state laws could not be struck down unless they were absolutely and completely contradictory to the federal interests.  Oakley, also argued that the federal government had very limited powers when it came to patent rights.  Congress could only protect common-law intellectual rights.  This became a crucial point as Oakley was now arguing that Livingston and Fulton had imported the steamboat technology from Europe, and as a reward they deserved the exclusive rights to it under New York Law.  Oakley was arguing that federal patent laws did not apply, and that unless the activities were directly contradicting federal laws, states had the sovereign right to regulate commerce within their borders including the establishment of tolls and steamboat ferry monopolies.

Attorney General William Wirt's arguments

On February 9th, William Wirt set up his argument to prove that the steamboat monopoly was unconstitutional because it directly contradicted federal commerce and patent laws.  The Attorney General argued for very broad commerce powers.  He argued that while the constitution gave federal and state governments concurrent jurisdiction, only the federal government could wield power over the whole Union.  Regarding patent laws, he argued that if a state could control patent rights, then why would the framers had given patent rights to the federal government at all.  Wirt also rejected that New York should grant a reward to Fulton for importing steam power from Europe, and pointed out that it has been well-documented that Fulton and Livingston had claimed to invent it.  To now claim otherwise, in Wirt's opinion was just a ruse to avoid federal patent laws.

Supreme Court Decision.

In the end the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gibbons, accepting that Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce.  Chief Justice Marshall ruled that this violated the federal licensing act of 1793 by defining that the clause "Congress shall have power to regulate commerce among the several states" included not just interstate trade, but also 'intercourse' or navigation among the states.  The Supreme Court made no ruling on the federal patent laws. In fact, the question about whether federal patent laws could preempt state patent laws was not decided until  1964 in case of Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co.   Under Chief Justice Hugo Black, the Supreme Court ruled that the power over intellectual property was reserved to the federal government exclusively.

In 1825, President John Quincy Adams following the lead of one of his predecessor's James Madison, and urged Congress to consider two important items.  First, he urged Congress to elevate the office of Attorney General to a department, and second he requested that Congress review the "relating to the administration of the Patent Office".  In both of these cases, Adams was looking to expand the power of the federal government, and based on his words seemed sincere in his belief that the framers of the constitution including James Madison had intended it this way.  During Gibbons v. Ogdens Attorney General Wirt was arguing against a state's right to protect intellectual property like stamp power, but here President Adams was taking a different tact.  He ignored the argument of states' rights, and focused solely on whether or not federal laws were strong enough to protect and insure "to the inventors the reward destined to them by the Constitution".   As a man of science, John Quincy Adams did truly care about the inventors, but given the recent case of Gibbons v. Ogdens argued by his Attorney General, one must also acknowledge that he was asking to increase federal power over the states.

"The constitution of the judiciary, experimental and imperfect as it was even in the infancy of our existing Government, is yet more inadequate to the administration of national justice at our present maturity. Nine years have elapsed since a predecessor in this office, now not the last, the citizen who, perhaps, of all others throughout the Union contributed most to the formation and establishment of our Constitution, in his valedictory address to Congress, immediately preceding his retirement from public life, urgently recommended the revision of the judiciary and the establishment of an additional executive department. The exigencies of the public service and its unavoidable deficiencies, as now in exercise, have added yearly cumulative weight to the considerations presented by him as persuasive to the measure, and in recommending it to your deliberations I am happy to have the influence of this high authority in aid of the undoubting convictions of my own experience. 

The laws relating to the administration of the Patent Office are deserving of much consideration and perhaps susceptible of some improvement. The grant of power to regulate the action of Congress upon this subject has specified both the end to be obtained and the means by which it is to be effected, "to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". If an honest pride might be indulged in the reflection that on the records of that office are already found inventions the usefulness of which has scarcely been transcended in the annals of human ingenuity, would not its exultation be allayed by the inquiry whether the laws have effectively insured to the inventors the reward destined to them by the Constitution -- even a limited term of exclusive right to their discoveries?"

References

Presidency.ucsb.edu. (2018). John Quincy Adams: First Annual Message. [online] Available at: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29467 [Accessed 20 Feb. 2018].

Cox, T. (2009). Gibbons v. Ogden, law, and society in the early republic. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press.

En.wikipedia.org. (2018). Gibbons v. Ogden. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbons_v._Ogden [Accessed 20 Feb. 2018].

Simon, J. (2012). The Presidents and the Supreme Court: What Kind of Nation; Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney; FDR and Chief Justice Hughes. Simon and Schuster.

Wagner, D. (2018). 1824 James Monroe - Gibbons v. Ogden. [online] Stateoftheunionhistory.com. Available at: http://www.stateoftheunionhistory.com/2015/07/1824-james-monroe-gibbons-v-ogden.html [Accessed 20 Feb. 2018].

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Clermont_illustration_-_Robert_Fulton_-_Project_Gutenberg_eText_15161.jpg