On the arrival of the company at headquarters, Fort Brooke, it appears that Captain Sconce was directed by General Armistead to report with his company for duty with the Missouri volunteers, which order was revoked on the same day by the following: ORDER > } HEADQUARTERS, FORT BROOKE, 1. Order No. 4, of the present date, directing Captain Sconce to report with his company for duty with the Missouri volunteers, is hereby revoked. 2. Lieutenant Col. Morgan will proceed with Captain Sconce's company, and report to Colonel Taylor. By order of General Armistead. H. GARNER, Lieutenant and Aid-de-camp. Upon the back of the foregoing order is the following memorandum: ("General Armistead, without knowing under what circumstances I came to Florida, ordered the spies to consolidate with the lamented Gentry's troop, which I positively and peremptorily refused; and this was his order." Signed A. G. Morgan.) It nowhere appears that Lieutenant Colonel Morgan (so called) was acting under a commission of any grade whatever, the condition upon which he was promised the lieutenant-colonelcy by General Atkinson, viz: the raising of three companies of volunteers, having failed; or that at any time he had under his command a larger number of men than were included in the single company mustered into service at Jefferson Barracks, under Captain Sconce. At the same time, however, it does appear that he was sometimes designated in the army orders as "lieutenant colonel," and the company raised by him as "the spy battalion ;" and under these designations both Morgan and the company were recognised in the following order: ORDER HEADQUARTERS ARMY SOUTH OF THE WITHLACOCHEE, Fort Brooke, January 12, 1854. Lieutenant Colonel Morgan, with the spy battalion of the Missouri volunteers, will proceed, on the morning of the 16th instant, to Fort Gardner, and report to Colonel Taylor for duty in the field. By order of General Armistead. H. GARNER, Lieutenant and Aid-de-camp. So also in the order of Colonel Taylor, of February, 1838, directing the Missouri volunteers to proceed to Tampa Bay, for the purpose of being mustered out of service, he "avails himself of the opportunity to tender to Major Hughes, Captain Russel, Jackson Kurd, as well as the officers and men of the companies, also to Colonel Morgan and the few officers and ment of the spies that remained with him, his sincere thanks for the zeal and devotion with which they have served in the late movement in pursuit of the enemy, as well for the prompt, cheerful, and soldierlike manner they have discharged all the duties required of them, in wading swamps, penetrating hammocks, and various other privations connected with the prosecution of the campaign in an unexplored wilderness, particularly in Florida." Notwithstanding these apparent recognitions of Morgan as lieutenant colonel, and the men composing Captain Sconce's company as a spy battalion, it distinctly appears by a letter on file in the Adjutant General's office, that General Jesup, the major general commanding, refused to receive Lieutenant Colonel Morgan as a field officer. That letter is as follows: "CAMP ON JUPITER RIVER, February 2, 1838. "SIR: I have the honor to return to you herewith the accompanying papers, forwarded to the major general commanding, with your note (without date) from Okeechobee. "I am directed by the general to say that he has no legal authority to recognise so small a force as that which you command as a battalion, which should consist of at least two companies, each of equal strength to the whole force which you report. If the general had the power, it would afford him great pleasure to receive Lieutenant Colonel Morgan as a field officer; but unless you have a battalion, it would be idle for him to receive you as a major or lieutenant colonel, as it would be in violation of the law as well as of the instructions of the War Department, and would not be recognised by any department of the govern ment. 66 "J. A. CHAMBERS, Acting Assist. Adjutant General to General Jesup. Major A. G. MORGAN, "Okeechobee lake, Florida." The papers and correspondence accompanying this bill are voluminous, and have been referred to so far only as was deemed necessary to present, in the shortest compass, the true character of the claim; and from which it appears that Alexander G. Morgan did render valuable service to the government in the raising of troops in the State of Missouri, as well as in command of the same in the Florida war. The committee therefore recommend the passage of the Senate bill, allowing compensation at the rate of the pay and allowances of a captain of cavalry, from the 11th September, 1837, to the 18th March, 1838. 1st Session. ISAAC ADAMS. [To accompany bill H. R. No. 465.] JULY 11, 1854. Mr. BRIDGES, from the Committee on Patents, made the following REPORT. The Committee on Patents and the Patent Office, to whom was referred the petition of Isaac Adams, praying the extension of two patents granted him for improvements in the power printing press, report: It appears from the testimony that on the 4th of October, 1830, letters patent were granted to said Adams for improvements in the power printing press, and that on the 2d of March, 1836, letters patent were also granted to him for additional improvements on the same machine. Both patents have been extended at the Patent Office for the term of seven years each. It also appears that the presses constructed according to the specifications of the two patents-and they have all been so constructed since 1806-are of great value and importance. The case shows that they are regarded by eminent engineers and machinists engaged in the manufacture of printing presses, as well as by the most eminent printers and publishers in the United States, as the very best power-press for book-printing now in use, or which has been invented. To give the House an idea of the great ingenuity of the inventor in the construction of this press, the perfection of its work and its undoubted merits, the committee here copy, from the emphatic testimony in its favor contained in the depositions of Richard M. Hoe, the inventor of the unrivalled press for newspaper printing, and of Daniel Treadwell, late Rumford, professor of applied science in Harvard University, himself the inventor of the first power platten press in use on this continent, the following statements: Mr. Hoe says he is a mechanical engineer by profession, and for sixteen years has been specially engaged in the manufacture of printing presses, and has directed his attention especially to the progress of improvements in this branch of the arts in this country and in Europe; and has also obtained several patents for inventions of his own in this branch of the mechanic arts. He then adds, that "the Adams press was the first successful, and is now the best, power printing press for the best quality of work; that the production and reduction to successful pracice of such an invention at that time, against all rival attempts and prejudices against power-presses, must have been attended with great difficulties, and must have required mechanical ingenuity and perseve rance of a high order, and that the enterprise must have involved great labor and expense; that from his [my] knowledge of the progress of invention in this and other branches of the useful arts, this invention possesses the very highest claims to the protection of the public." Professor Treadwell, after giving an account of his own invention, and of the great difficulties he encountered in introducing it into public use, says: "I consider his [Mr. Adams's] press as very valuable to the art of printing, and one of the most perfect and ingenious machines known. It has many advantages over every press in the compactness of form and the arrangement of the operating instruments, and likewise in the additions of various parts which render it more complete and automatic in its operations. For book-printing, where the great object is to combine in the production excellence of work with cheapness of cost, without regard to time or rapidity of execution, I believe this to be the best press in the world." Testimony equally as emphatic, in favor of this invention, is given by John Harper, of the firm of Harper and Brothers, of New York; Nathan Hale, for thirty years printer, publisher, and editor, of Boston; and many other leading publishing firms in our great Atlantic cities. As to the great ingenuity, value, and utility of the machine, the testimony before the committee is abundant and conclusive. The testimony also shows that the petitioner encountered great difficulties in introducing his press into public use, and that he in fact derived but very little profit from it during the term of his first patent. The testimony further shows that Mr. Adams has never charged to purchasers of his press anything for the right to use the same, but has contented himself with a fair and reasonable profit upon the manufacture of the machines, and in that way he has received but a few thousand dollars for an invention which has been of more than a million of dollars' value to the public, according to the statement of some of the witnesses. As the rights secured to the patentee by his first patent seem to be necessary to the full enjoyment and protection of his rights under his second patent, the committee would have had no hesitation in recommending the further extension of his first patent to the 2d of March, 1857, when the extension of his second patent will expire. But the petitioner asks the further extension of both his patents to the 2d of March, 1864, to enable him to realize a proper remuneration for his invention; and there are, also, petitions before the committee from many of the most eminent publishing houses in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, all praying for the extension of the petitioner's patents to the year 1864, on the ground that they and those engaged in the publishing trade will, in that event, be able to obtain the best constructed presses at prices allowing the petitioner only fair profits for the manufacture, without charge for the right to use the press. They deem it an advantage to their trade, and to the public, that the manufacture should be continued in the hands and under the control of the petitioner. (See appendix.) It further appears that the improvements in both the patents constitute but one machine, as constructed since 1836. The committee, under all the circumstances, have come to the conclusion that the petitioner, considering the great merits of his invention, the difficulties he had to encounter in introducing it into public use, and the |