Page:The History of the Standard Oil Company Vol 2.djvu/131

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
THE BUFFALO CASE

drawn and the costs paid, when Wilson consented, in December, 1881, to leave the Buffalo Works. Wilson's loss was particularly serious, as he was a salesman of experience.

The suits for infringing the Vacuum patents and processes, which Everest at the start had warned Matthews would be brought, were begun in September, 1881—four separate suits within a year. Matthews, as has been said, had convinced himself that the patents were not valid, and some time in the spring of 1882 he saw H. H. Rogers in New York concerning the suits. "I told him I had come in to talk with him about the patent litigation, or suits that were begun by the Vacuum Oil Company against my company," Matthews said in his testimony. "'Well,' he said, 'well, what about it?'—something like that. I told him that the product patent, that I well knew, was without merit, and that he knew it was without merit, and I could not see what object or good they could get out of it by bringing suit on that patent. And also the steam patent I considered was without value, and that he knew it was without value. He said that if one court did not sustain the patents they would carry along up until we got enough of it—that was the substance of that talk."

Matthews was evidently discouraged by the result of his talk with Mr. Rogers, for, meeting Benjamin Brewster, of the Standard Oil Company, he offered to sell the Buffalo Lubricating Works for $100,000. The offer was refused, and the suits against which Mr. Matthews protested were pushed. On the 21st of February, 1882, the Vacuum Oil Company filed a complaint in the United States Circuit Court of the Northern District of New York, asking that the Buffalo company be prevented from manufacturing lubricating oils, on the ground that the Vacuum Oil Company had a patent covering the process of manufacturing lubricating oils. The action was regarded as unfounded by the court, and was dismissed on July 16, 1884, "the ground being that the letters sued on in this

[ 97 ]