initial commit of ebook 29633HEADmain

1 files changed, 2138 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/29633.txt b/29633.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d0b0713
--- /dev/null
+++ b/29633.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,2138 @@
+Project Gutenberg's The Beginnings of Cheap Steel, by Philip W. Bishop
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: The Beginnings of Cheap Steel
+
+Author: Philip W. Bishop
+
+Release Date: August 8, 2009 [EBook #29633]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ASCII
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BEGINNINGS OF CHEAP STEEL ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+
+
+
+
+CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
+THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY:
+PAPER 3
+
+
+
+THE BEGINNINGS OF CHEAP STEEL
+
+
+_Philip W. Bishop_
+
+
+
+
+STEEL BEFORE THE 1850's                    29
+
+BESSEMER AND HIS COMPETITORS               30
+
+ROBERT MUSHET                              33
+
+EBBW VALE AND THE BESSEMER PROCESS         35
+
+MUSHET AND BESSEMER                        37
+
+WILLIAM KELLY'S AIR-BOILING PROCESS        42
+
+CONCLUSIONS                                46
+
+
+
+
+THE BEGINNINGS OF CHEAP STEEL
+
+By Philip W. Bishop
+
+
+_Other inventors claimed a part in the invention of the Bessemer
+process of making steel. Here, the contemporary discussion in the
+technical press is re-examined to throw light on the relations of these
+various claimants to the iron and steel industry of their time, as
+having a possible connection with the antagonism shown by the
+ironmasters toward Bessemer's ideas._
+
+THE AUTHOR: _Philip W. Bishop is curator of arts and manufactures,
+Museum of History and Technology, in the Smithsonian Institution's
+United States National Museum._
+
+
+The development of the world's productive resources during the 19th
+century, accelerated in general by major innovations in the field of
+power, transportation, and textiles, was retarded by the occurrence of
+certain bottlenecks. One of these affected the flow of suitable and
+economical raw materials to the machine tool and transportation
+industries: in spite of a rapid growth of iron production, the methods
+of making steel remained as they were in the previous century; and
+outputs remained negligible.
+
+In the decade 1855-1865, this situation was completely changed in Great
+Britain and in Europe generally; and when the United States emerged
+from the Civil War, that country found itself in a position to take
+advantage of the European innovations and to start a period of growth
+which, in the next 50 years, was to establish her as the world's
+largest producer of steel.
+
+This study reviews the controversy as to the origin of the process
+which, for more than 35 years[1] provided the greater part of the steel
+production of the United States. It concerns four men for whom priority
+of invention in one or more aspects of the process has been claimed.
+
+      [1] From 1870 through 1907, "Bessemer" production accounted for
+      not less than 50 percent of United States steel production. From
+      1880 through 1895, 80 percent of all steel came from this source:
+      Historical Statistics of the United States 1789-1945 (Washington,
+      U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1949), Tables
+      J. 165-170 at p. 187.
+
+The process consists in forcing through molten cast iron, held in a
+vessel called a converter, a stream of cold air under pressure. The
+combination of the oxygen in the air with the silicon and carbon in the
+metal raises the temperature of the latter in a spectacular way and
+after "blowing" for a certain period, eliminates the carbon from the
+metal. Since steel of various qualities demands the inclusion of from
+0.15 to 1.70 percent of carbon, the blow has to be terminated before
+the elimination of the whole carbon content; or if the carbon content
+has been eliminated the appropriate percentage of carbon has to be put
+back. This latter operation is carried out by adding a precise quantity
+of manganiferous pig-iron (spiegeleisen) or ferromanganese, the
+manganese serving to remove the oxygen, which has combined with the
+iron during the blow.
+
+The controversy which surrounded its development concerned two aspects
+of the process: The use of the cold air blast to raise the temperature
+of the molten metal, and the application of manganese to overcome the
+problem of control of the carbon and oxygen content.
+
+Bessemer, who began his experiments in the making of iron and steel in
+1854, secured his first patent in Great Britain in January 1855, and
+was persuaded to present information about his discovery to a meeting
+of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held at
+Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, in August 1856. His title "The Manufacture
+of Iron without Fuel" was given wide publicity in Great Britain and in
+the United States. Among those who wrote to the papers to contest
+Bessemer's theories were several claimants to priority of invention.
+
+Two men claimed that they had anticipated Bessemer in the invention of
+a method of treating molten metal with air-blasts for the purpose of
+"purifying" or decarbonizing iron. Both were Americans. Joseph Gilbert
+Martien, of Newark, New Jersey, who at the time of Bessemer's address
+was working at the plant of the Ebbw Vale Iron Works, in South Wales,
+secured a provisional patent a few days before Bessemer obtained one of
+his series of patents for making cast steel, a circumstance which
+provided ammunition for those who wished to dispute Bessemer's somewhat
+spectacular claims. William Kelly, an ironmaster of Eddyville,
+Kentucky, brought into action by an American report of Bessemer's
+British Association paper, opposed the granting of a United States
+patent to Bessemer and substantiated, to the satisfaction of the
+Commissioner of Patents, his claim to priority in the "air boiling"
+process.
+
+A third man, this one a Scot resident in England, intervened to claim
+that he had devised the means whereby Martien's and Bessemer's ideas
+could be made practical. He was Robert Mushet of Coleford,
+Gloucestershire, a metallurgist and self-appointed "sage" of the
+British iron and steel industry who also was associated with the Ebbw
+Vale Iron Works as a consultant. He, like his American contemporaries,
+has become established in the public mind as one upon whom Henry
+Bessemer was dependent for the origin and success of his process. Since
+Bessemer was the only one of the group to make money from the expansion
+of the steel industry consequent upon the introduction of the new
+technique, the suspicion has remained that he exploited the inventions
+of the others, if indeed he did not steal them.
+
+In this study, based largely upon the contemporary discussion in the
+technical press, the relation of the four men to each other is
+re-examined and an attempt is made to place the controversy of
+1855-1865 in focus. The necessity for a reappraisal arises from the
+fact that today's references to the origin of Bessemer steel[2] often
+contain chronological and other inaccuracies arising in many cases from
+a dependence on secondary and sometimes unreliable sources. As a
+result, Kelly's contribution has, perhaps, been overemphasized, with
+the effect of derogating from the work of another American, Alexander
+Lyman Holley, who more than any man is entitled to credit for
+establishing Bessemer steel in America.[3]
+
+      [2] See especially material distributed by the American Iron and
+      Steel Institute in connection with its celebration of the
+      centennial of Steel: "Steel centennial (1957), press
+      information," prepared by Hill and Knowlton, Inc., and released
+      by the Institute as of May 1, 1957.
+
+      [3] Holley's work is outside the scope of this paper. Belatedly,
+      his biography is now being written. It can hardly fail to
+      substantiate the contention that during his short life
+      (1832-1882) Holley, who negotiated the purchase of the American
+      rights to Bessemer's process, also adapted his methods to the
+      American scene and laid a substantial part of the foundation for
+      the modern American steel industry.
+
+
+Steel Before the 1850's
+
+In spite of a rapid increase in the use of machines and the
+overwhelming demand for iron products for the expanding railroads, the
+use of steel had expanded little prior to 1855. The methods of
+production were still largely those of a century earlier. Slow
+preparation of the steel by cementation or in crucibles meant a
+disproportionate consumption of fuel and a resulting high cost.
+Production in small quantities prevented the adoption of steel in uses
+which required large initial masses of metal. Steel was, in fact, a
+luxury product.
+
+The work of Reaumur and, especially, of Huntsman, whose development of
+cast steel after 1740 secured an international reputation for
+Sheffield, had established the cementation and crucible processes as
+the primary source of cast steel, for nearly 100 years. Josiah Marshall
+Heath's patents of 1839, were the first developments in the direction
+of cheaper steel, his process leading to a reduction of from 30 to 40
+percent in the price of good steel in the Sheffield market.[4] Heath's
+secret was the addition to the charge of from 1 to 3 percent of
+carburet of manganese[5] as a deoxidizer. Heath's failure to word his
+patent so as to cover also his method of producing carburet of
+manganese led to the effective breakdown of that patent and to the
+general adoption of his process without payment of license or royalty.
+In spite of this reduction in the cost of its production, steel
+remained, until after the midpoint of the century, an insignificant
+item in the output of the iron and steel industry, being used
+principally in the manufacture of cutlery and edge tools.
+
+      [4] Andrew Ure, _Dictionary of arts, manufactures and mines_, New
+      York, 1856, p. 735.
+
+      [5] See abridgement of British patent 8021 of 1839 quoted by
+      James S. Jeans, _Steel_, London, 1880, p. 28 ff. It is not clear
+      that Heath was aware of the precise chemical effect of the use of
+      manganese in this way.
+
+The stimulus towards new methods of making steel and, indeed, of making
+new steels came curiously enough from outside the established industry,
+from a man who was not an ironmaster--Henry Bessemer. The way in which
+Bessemer challenged the trade was itself unusual. There are few cases
+in which a stranger to an industry has taken the risk of giving a
+description of a new process in a public forum like a meeting of the
+British Association for the Advancement of Science. He challenged the
+trade, not only to attack his theories but to produce evidence from
+their own plants that they could provide an alternative means of
+satisfying an emergent demand. Whether or not Bessemer is entitled to
+claim priority of invention, one can but agree with the ironmaster who
+said:[6] "Mr. Bessemer has raised such a spirit of enquiry throughout
+... the land as must lead to an improved system of manufacture."
+
+      [6] _Mining Journal_, 1857, vol. 27, p. 465.
+
+
+Bessemer and his Competitors
+
+Henry Bessemer (1813-1898), an Englishman of French extraction, was the
+son of a mechanical engineer with a special interest in metallurgy. His
+environment and his unusual ability to synthesize his observation and
+experience enabled Bessemer to begin a career of invention by
+registering his first patent at the age of 25. His active experimenting
+continued until his death, although the public record of his results
+ended with a patent issued on the day before his seventieth birthday. A
+total of 117 British patents[7] bear his name, not all of them, by any
+means, successful in the sense of producing a substantial income.
+Curiously, Bessemer's financial stability was assured by the success of
+an invention he did not patent. This was a process of making bronze
+powder and gold paint, until the 1830's a secret held in Germany.
+Bessemer's substitute for an expensive imported product, in the then
+state of the patent laws, would have failed to give him an adequate
+reward if he had been unable to keep his process secret. To assure this
+reward, he had to design, assemble, and organize a plant capable of
+operation with a minimum of hired labor and with close security
+control. The fact that he kept the method secret for 40 years, suggests
+that his machinery[8] (Bessemer describes it as virtually automatic in
+operation) represented an appreciation of coordinated design greatly in
+advance of his time. His experience must have directly contributed to
+his conception of his steel process not as a metallurgical trick but as
+an industrial process; for when the time came, Bessemer patented his
+discovery as a process rather than as a formula.
+
+      [7] _Sir Henry Bessemer, F.R.S., an autobiography_, London, 1905,
+      p. 332.
+
+      [8] _Ibid._, p. 59 ff.
+
+In the light of subsequent developments, it is necessary to consider
+Bessemer's attitude toward the patent privilege. He describes his
+secret gold paint as an example of "what the public has had to pay for
+not being able to give ... security to the inventor" in a situation
+where the production of the material "could not be identified as having
+been made by any particular form of mechanism."[9] The inability to
+obtain a patent over the method of production meant that the disclosure
+of his formula, necessary for patent specification, would openly invite
+competitors, including the Germans, to evolve their own techniques.
+Bessemer concludes:[10]
+
+    Had the invention been patented, it would have become public
+    property in fourteen years from the date of the patent, after which
+    period the public would have been able to buy bronze powder at its
+    present [_i.e._, _ca._ 1890] market price, viz. from two shillings
+    and three pence to two shillings and nine pence per pound. But this
+    important secret was kept for about thirty-five years and the
+    public had to pay excessively high prices for twenty-one years
+    longer than they would have done had the invention become public
+    property in fourteen years, as it would have been if patented. Even
+    this does not represent all the disadvantages resulting from secret
+    manufacture. While every detail of production was a profound
+    secret, there were no improvements made by the outside public in
+    any one of the machines employed during the whole thirty-five
+    years; whereas during the fourteen years, if the invention had been
+    patented, there would, in all probability have been many improved
+    machines invented and many novel features applied to totally
+    different manufactures.
+
+      [9] _Ibid._, p. 82.
+
+      [10] _Ibid._, p. 83.
+
+While these words, to some extent, were the rationalizations of an old
+man, Bessemer's career showed that his philosophy had a practical
+foundation; and, if this was indeed his belief, the episode explains in
+large measure Bessemer's later insistence on the legal niceties of the
+patent procedure. The effect of this will be seen.
+
+Bessemer's intervention in the field of iron and steel was preceded by
+a period of experiments in the manufacture of glass. Here Bessemer
+claims to have made glass for the first time in the open hearth of a
+reverberatory furnace.[11] His work in glass manufacture at least gave
+him considerable experience in the problems of fusion under high
+temperatures and provided some support for his later claim that in
+applying the reverberatory furnace to the manufacture of malleable iron
+as described in his first patent of January 1855, he had in some manner
+anticipated the work of C. W. Siemens and Emil Martin.[12]
+
+      [11] _Ibid._, p. 108 ff.
+
+      [12] _Ibid._, p. 141. Bessemer's assertion that he had approached
+      "within measurable distance" of anticipating the Siemens-Martin
+      process, made in a paper presented at a meeting of the American
+      Society of Mechanical Engineers (_Transactions of the American
+      Society of Mechanical Engineers_, 1897, vol. 28, p. 459), evoked
+      strong criticism of Bessemer's lack of generosity (_ibid._, p.
+      482). One commentator, friendly to Bessemer, put it that
+      "Bessemer's relation to the open-hearth process was very much
+      like Kelly's to the Bessemer process.... Although he was
+      measurably near to the open-hearth process, he did not follow it
+      up and make it a commercial success...." (_ibid._, p. 491).
+
+The general interest in problems of ordnance and armor, stimulated by
+the Crimean War (1854-1856), was shared by Bessemer, whose ingenuity
+soon produced a design for a projectile which could provide its own
+rotation when fired from a smooth-bore gun.[13] Bessemer's failure to
+interest the British War Office in the idea led him to submit his
+design to the Emperor Napoleon III. Trials made with the encouragement
+of the Emperor showed the inadequacy of the cast-iron guns of the
+period to deal with the heavier shot; and Bessemer was presented with a
+new problem which, with "the open mind which derived from a limited
+knowledge of the metallurgy of war," he attacked with impetuosity.
+Within three weeks of his experiments in France, he had applied for a
+patent for "Improvements in the Manufacture of Iron and Steel."[14]
+This covered the fusion of steel with pig or cast iron and, though this
+must be regarded as only the first practical step toward the Bessemer
+process,[15] it was his experiments with the furnace which provided
+Bessemer with the idea for his later developments.
+
+      [13] British patent 2489, November 24, 1854.
+
+      [14] Bessemer, _op. cit._ (footnote 7), p. 137 He received
+      British patent 66, dated January 10, 1855.
+
+      [15] See James W. Dredge, "Henry Bessemer 1813-1898,"
+      _Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers_,
+      1898, vol. 19, p. 911.
+
+These were described in his patent dated October 17, 1855 (British
+patent 2321). This patent is significant to the present study because
+his application for an American patent, based on similar
+specifications, led to the interference of William Kelly and to the
+subsequent denial of the American patent.[16] In British patent 2321
+Bessemer proposed to convert his steel in crucibles, arranged in a
+suitable furnace and each having a vertical tuyere, through which air
+under pressure was forced through the molten metal. As Dredge[17]
+points out, Bessemer's association of the air blast with the increase
+in the temperature of the metal "showed his appreciation of the end in
+view, and the general way of attaining it, though his mechanical
+details were still crude and imperfect."
+
+      [16] See U.S. Patent Office, Decision of Commissioner of Patents,
+      dated April 13, 1857, in Kelly vs. Bessemer Interference. This is
+      further discussed below (p. 42).
+
+      [17] Dredge, _op. cit._ (footnote 15), p. 912.
+
+[Illustration: Figure 1.--BESSEMER'S DESIGN FOR A CONVERTER, AS SHOWN
+IN U.S. PATENT 16082. This patent, dated November 11, 1856, corresponds
+with British patent 356, dated February 12, 1856. The more familiar
+design of converter appeared first in British patent 578, March 1,
+1860. The contrast with Kelly's schematic drawing in Fig. 2 (p. 42) is
+noticeable.]
+
+Experiments were continued and several more British patents were
+applied for before Bessemer made his appearance before the British
+Association on August 13, 1856.[18] Bessemer described his first
+converter and its operation in some detail. Although he was soon to
+realize that he "too readily allowed myself to bring my inventions
+under public notice,"[19] Bessemer had now thrown out a challenge which
+eventually had to be taken up, regardless of the strength of the vested
+interests involved. The provocation came from his claims that the
+product of the first stage of the conversion was the equivalent of
+charcoal iron, the processes following the smelting being conducted
+without contact with, or the use of, any mineral fuel; and that further
+blowing could be used to produce any quality of metal, that is, a steel
+with any desired percentage of carbon. Yet, the principal irritant to
+the complacency of the ironmaster must have been Bessemer's attack on
+an industry which had gone on increasing the size of its smelting
+furnaces, thus improving the uniformity of its pig-iron, without
+modifying the puddling process, which at best could handle no more than
+400 to 500 pounds of iron at a time, divided into the "homeopathic
+doses" of 70 or 80 pounds capable of being handled by human labor.[20]
+Bessemer's claim to "do" 800 pounds of metal in 30 minutes against the
+puddling furnace's output of 500 pounds in two hours was calculated to
+arouse the opposition of those who feared the loss of capital invested
+in puddling furnaces and of those who suspected that their jobs might
+be in jeopardy. The ensuing criticism of Bessemer has to be
+interpreted, therefore, with this in mind; not by any means was it
+entirely based on objective consideration of the method or the
+product.[21]
+
+      [18] Bessemer's paper was reported in _The Times_, London, August
+      14, 1856. By the time the Transactions of the British Association
+      were prepared for publication, the controversy aroused by
+      Bessemer's claim to manufacture "malleable iron and steel without
+      fuel" had broken out and it was decided not to report the paper.
+      Dredge (_op. cit._, footnote 15, p. 915) describes this decision
+      as "sagacious."
+
+      [19] Bessemer, _op. cit._ (footnote 7), p. 164.
+
+      [20] _The Times_, London, August 14, 1856.
+
+      [21] David Mushet recognized that Bessemer's great feature was
+      this effort to "raise the after processes ... to a level
+      commensurate with the preceding case" (_Mining Journal_, 1856, p.
+      599).
+
+Within a month of his address, Bessemer had sold licenses to several
+ironmasters (outside Sheffield) and so provided himself with capital
+with which to continue his development work; but he refused to sell his
+patents outright to the Ebbw Vale Iron Works and by this action, as
+will be seen, he created an enemy for himself.
+
+The three years between 1856 and 1859, when Bessemer opened his own
+steel works in Sheffield, were occupied in tracing the causes of his
+initial difficulties. There was continued controversy in the technical
+press. Bessemer (unless he used a _nom-de-plume_) took no part in it
+and remained silent until he made another public appearance before the
+Institution of Civil Engineers in London (May 1859). By this time
+Bessemer's process was accepted as a practical one, and the claims of
+Robert Mushet to share in his achievement was becoming clamorous.
+
+
+Robert Mushet
+
+Robert (Forester) Mushet (1811-1891), born in the Forest of Dean,
+Gloucestershire, of a Scots father (David, 1772-1847) himself a noted
+contributor to the metallurgy of iron and steel, is, like the American
+William Kelly, considered by many to have been a victim of Bessemer's
+astuteness--or villainy. Because of Robert Mushet's preference for the
+quiet of Coleford, many important facts about his career are lacking;
+but even if his physical life was that of a recluse, his frequent and
+verbose contributions to the correspondence columns of the technical
+press made him well-known to the iron trade. It is from these letters
+that he must be judged.
+
+In view of his propensity to intervene pontifically in every discussion
+concerning the manufacture of iron and steel, it is somewhat surprising
+that he refrained from comment on Bessemer's British Association
+address of August 1856 for more than fourteen months. The debate was
+opened over the signature of his brother David who shared the family
+facility with the pen.[22] Recognizing Bessemer's invention as a
+"congruous appendage to [the] now highly developed powers of the blast
+furnace" which he describes as "too convenient, too powerful and too
+capable of further development to be superseded by any retrograde
+process," David Mushet greeted Bessemer's discovery as "one of the
+greatest operations ever devised in metallurgy."[23] A month later,
+however, David Mushet had so modified his opinion of Bessemer as to
+come to the conclusion that the latter "must indeed be classed with the
+most unfortunate inventors." He gave as his reason for this turnabout
+his discovery that Joseph Martien had demonstrated his process of
+"purifying" metal successfully and had indeed been granted a
+provisional patent a month before Bessemer. The sharp practice of
+Martien's patent lawyer, Mushet claimed, had deprived him of an
+opportunity of proving priority of invention against Bessemer. Mushet
+was convinced that Martien's was the first in the field.[24]
+
+      [22] See _Mining Journal_, 1857, vol. 27, pp. 839 and 855. David
+      Mushet withdrew from the discussion after 1858 and his relapse
+      into obscurity is only broken by an appeal for funds for the
+      family of Henry Cort. A biographer of the Mushets is of the
+      opinion that Robert Mushet wrote these letters and obtained
+      David's signature to them (Fred M. Osborn, _The story of the
+      Mushets_, London, 1952, p. 44, footnote). The similarity in the
+      style of the two brothers is extraordinary enough to support this
+      idea. If this is so, Robert Mushet who disagreed with himself as
+      "Sideros" was also in controversy with himself writing as
+      "David."
+
+      [23] _Mining Journal_, 1856, vol. 26, p. 567.
+
+      [24] _Ibid._, pp. 631 and 647. The case of Martien will be
+      discussed below (p. 36). David Mushet had overlooked Bessemer's
+      patent of January 10, 1855.
+
+Robert Mushet's campaign on behalf of his own claims to have made the
+Bessemer process effective was introduced in October 1857, two years
+after the beginning of Bessemer's experiment and after one year of
+silence on Bessemer's part. Writing as "Sideros"[25] he gave credit to
+Martien for "the great discovery that pig-iron can, whilst in the fluid
+state, be purified ... by forcing currents of air under it ...," though
+Martien had failed to observe the use of temperature by the "deflation
+of the iron itself"; and for discovering that--
+
+    when the carbon has been all, or nearly all, dissipated, the
+    temperature increases to an almost inconceivable extent, so that
+    the mass, when containing only as much carbon as is requisite to
+    constitute with it cast steel ... still retains a perfect degree of
+    fluidity.
+
+      [25] _Mining Journal_, 1857, vol. 27, p. 723. Robert Mushet was a
+      constant correspondent of the _Mining Journal_ from 1848. The
+      adoption of a pseudonym, peculiar apparently to 1857-1858 (see
+      _Dictionary of national biography_, vol. 39, p. 429), enabled him
+      to carry on two debates at a time and also to sing his own
+      praises.
+
+This, says "Sideros," was no new observation; "it had been before the
+metallurgical world, both practical and scientific, for centuries," but
+Bessemer was the first to show that this generation of heat could be
+attained by blowing cold air through the melted iron. Mushet goes on to
+show, however, that the steel thus produced by Bessemer was not
+commercially valuable because the sulphur and phosphorous remained, and
+the dispersion of oxide of iron through the mass "imported to it the
+inveterate hot-short quality which no subsequent operation could
+expel." "Sideros" concludes that Bessemer's discovery was "at least for
+a time" now shelved and arrested in its progress; and it had been left
+"to an individual of the name of Mushet" to show that if "fluid
+metallic manganese" were combined with the fluid Bessemer iron, the
+portion of manganese thus alloyed would unite with the oxygen of the
+oxide and pass off as slag, removing the hot-short quality of the iron.
+Robert Mushet had demonstrated his product to "Sideros" and had
+patented his discovery, though "not one print, literary or scientific,
+had condescended to notice it."
+
+"Sideros" viewed Mushet's discovery as a "spark amongst dry faggots
+that will one day light up a blaze which will astonish the world when
+the unfortunate inventor can no longer reap the fruits of his life-long
+toil and unflinching perseverance." In an ensuing letter he[26] summed
+up the situation as he saw it:
+
+Nothing that Mr. Mushet can hereafter invent can entitle him to the
+merit of Mr. Bessemer's great discovery ... and ... nothing that Mr.
+Bessemer may hereafter patent can deprive Mr. Robert Mushet of having
+been the first to remove the obstacles to the success of Mr. Bessemer's
+process.
+
+      [26] _Ibid._, p. 823. Mushet's distinction between an inventor
+      and a patentee is indicative of the disdain of a son of David
+      Mushet for an amateur (see also p. 886).
+
+Bessemer still did not intervene in the newspaper discussion; nor had
+he had any serious supporters, at least in the early stage.[27]
+
+      [27] One William Green had commented extensively on David
+      Mushet's early praise of the Bessemer process and on his sudden
+      reversal in favor of Martien soon after Bessemer's British
+      Association address (_Mechanics' Magazine_, 1856, vol. 65, p. 373
+      ff.). Green wrote from Caledonian Road, and the proximity to
+      Baxter House, Bessemer's London headquarters, suggests the
+      possibility that Green was writing for Bessemer.
+
+Publication in the _Mining Journal_ of a list of Mushet's patents,[28]
+evidently in response to Sideros' complaint, now presented Bessemer
+with notice of Robert Mushet's activity, even if he had not already
+observed his claims as they were presented to the Patent Office.
+Mushet, said the _Mining Journal_--
+
+    appears to intend to carry on his researches from the point where
+    Mr. J. G. Martien left off and is proceeding on the Bessemer plan
+    of patenting each idea as it occurs to his imaginative brain. He
+    proposes to make both iron and steel but does not appear to have
+    quite decided as to the course of action ... to accomplish his
+    object, and therefore claims various processes, some of which are
+    never likely to realize the inventor's expectations, although
+    decidedly novel, whilst others are but slight modification of
+    inventions which have already been tried and failed.
+
+      [28] _Mining Journal_, 1857, vol. 27, p. 764.
+
+The contemporary attitude is reflected in another comment by the
+_Mining Journal_:[29]
+
+    Although the application of chemical knowledge to the manufacture
+    of malleable iron cannot fail to produce beneficial results, the
+    quality of the metal depends more upon the mechanical than the
+    chemical processes.... Without wishing in any way to discourage the
+    iron chemists, we have no hesitation in giving this as our opinion
+    which we shall maintain until the contrary be actually proved. With
+    regard to steel, there may be a large field for chemical research
+    ... however, we believe that unless the iron be of a nature adapted
+    for the manufacture of steel by ordinary processes, the purely
+    chemical inventions will only give a metal of a very uniform
+    quality.
+
+      [29] _Ibid._, p. 764.
+
+Another correspondent, William Green, was of the opinion that Mushet's
+"new compounds and alloys," promised well as an auxiliary to the
+Bessemer process but that "the evil which it was intended to remove was
+more visionary than real." Bessemer's chief difficulty was the
+phosphorus, not the oxide of iron "as Mr. Mushet assumes." This,
+Bessemer no doubt would deal with in due course, but meanwhile he did
+well "to concentrate his energies upon the steel operations," after
+which he would have time to tackle "the difficulties which have so far
+retarded the iron operations."[30]
+
+      [30] _Ibid._, p. 791.
+
+Mushet[31] claims to have taken out his patent of September 22, 1856,
+covering the famous "triple compound," after he--
+
+    had fully ascertained, upon the ordinary scale of manufacture that
+    air-purified cast-iron, when treated as set forth in my
+    specifications, would afford tough malleable iron ... I found,
+    however, that the remelting of the coke pig-iron, in contact with
+    coke fuel, hardened the iron too much, and it became evident that
+    an air-furnace was more proper for my purpose ... [the
+    difficulties] arose, not from any defect in my process, but were
+    owing to the small quantity of the metal operated upon and the
+    imperfect arrangement of the purifying vessel, which ought to be so
+    constituted that it may be turned upon an axis, the blast taken
+    off, the alloy added and the steel poured out through a spout ...
+    _Such a purifying vessel Mr. Bessemer has delineated in one of his
+    patents._
+
+      [31] _Ibid._, p. 770 (italics supplied).
+
+Mushet also claimed to have designed his own "purifying and mixing"
+furnace, of 20-ton capacity, which he had submitted to the Ebbw Vale
+Iron Works "many months ago," without comment from them. There is an
+intriguing reference to the painful subject of two patents not
+proceeded with, and not discussed "in the avaricious hope that the
+parties connected with the patents will make me honorable amends ...
+these patents were suppressed without my knowledge or consent." Lest
+his qualifications should be questioned, Mushet concludes:
+
+    I do not profess to be an iron chemist, but I have undoubtedly made
+    more experiments upon the subject of iron and steel than any man
+    now living and I am thereby enabled to say that all I know is but
+    little in comparison with what has yet to be discovered.
+
+So began Mushet's claim to have solved Bessemer's problem, a claim
+which was to fill the correspondence columns of the engineering
+journals for the next ten years. Interpretation of this correspondence
+is made difficult by our ignorance of the facts concerning the control
+of Mushet's patents. These have to be pieced together from his
+scattered references to the subject.
+
+His experiments were conducted, at least nearly up to the close of the
+year 1856, with the cooperation of Thomas Brown of the Ebbw Vale Iron
+Works.[32] The price of this assistance was apparently half interest in
+Mushet's patents, though for reasons which Mushet does not explain the
+deed prepared to effect the transfer was never executed.[33] Mushet
+continued, however, to regard the patents as "wholly my own, though at
+the same time, I am bound in honor to take no unfair advantage of the
+non-execution of that deed." A possible explanation of this situation
+may be found in Ebbw Vale's activities in connection with Martien and
+Bessemer, as well as with an Austrian inventor, Uchatius.
+
+      [32] _Ibid._, p. 770.
+
+      [33] _Ibid._, p. 823.
+
+
+Ebbw Vale and the Bessemer Process
+
+After his British Association address in August 1856, Bessemer had
+received applications from several ironmasters for licenses, which were
+issued in return for a down payment and a nominal royalty of 25 pence
+per ton. Among those who started negotiations was Mr. Thomas Brown of
+Ebbw Vale Iron Works, one of the largest of the South Wales plants. He
+proposed, however, instead of a license, an outright purchase of
+Bessemer's patents for L50,000. Bessemer refused to sell, and according
+to his[34] account--
+
+    intense disappointment and anger quite got the better of [Brown]
+    and for the moment he could not realize the fact of my refusal....
+    [He then] left me very abruptly, saying in an irritated tone ...
+    "I'll make you see the matter differently yet" and slammed the door
+    after him.
+
+      [34] Bessemer, _op. cit._ (footnote 7), p. 169.
+
+David Mushet's advocacy of Martien's claim to priority over Bessemer
+has already been noticed (p. 33). From him we learn[35] that Martien's
+experiments leading to his patent of September 15, 1855, had been
+carried out at the Ebbw Vale Works in South Wales, where he engaged in
+"perfecting the Renton process."[36] Martien's own process consisted in
+passing air through metal as it was run in a trough from the furnace
+and before it passed into the puddling furnace.
+
+      [35] _Mining Journal_, 1856, vol. 26, p. 631.
+
+      [36] James Renton's process (U.S. patent 8613, December 23, 1851)
+      had been developed at Newark, New Jersey, in 1854. It was a
+      modification of the puddling furnace, in which the ore and carbon
+      were heated in tubs, utilizing the waste heat of the
+      reverberatory furnace (see the _Mechanics' Magazine_, vol. 62, p.
+      246, 1855). Renton died at Newark in September 1856 (_Mechanics'
+      Magazine_, 1856, vol. 65, p. 422).
+
+It is known that Martien's patent was in the hands of the Ebbw Vale
+Iron Works by March 1857.[37] This fact must be added to our knowledge
+that Mushet's patent of September 22, 1856 was drawn up with a specific
+reference to the application of his "triple compound" to "iron ...
+purified by the action of air, in the manner invented by Joseph Gilbert
+Martien,"[38] and that this and his other manganese patents were under
+the effective control of Ebbw Vale. It seems a reasonable deduction
+from these circumstances that Brown's offer to buy out Bessemer and his
+subsequent threat were the consequences of a determination by Ebbw Vale
+to attack Bessemer by means of patent infringement suits.
+
+      [37] _Mining Journal_, 1857, vol. 27, p. 193.
+
+      [38] British patent 2219, September 22, 1856.
+
+Some aspects of the Ebbw Vale situation are not yet explained. Martien
+came to South Wales from Newark, New Jersey, where he had been manager
+of Renton's Patent Semi-Bituminous Coal Furnace, owned by James Quimby,
+and where he had something to do with the installation of Renton's
+first furnace in 1854. The first furnace was unsuccessful.[39] Martien
+next appears in Britain, at the Ebbw Vale Iron Works. No information is
+available as to whether Martien's own furnace was actually installed at
+Ebbw Vale, although as noted above, David Mushet claims to have been
+invited to see it there.
+
+      [39] Joseph P. Lesley, _The iron manufacturer's guide_, New York,
+      1859, p. 34. Martien's name is spelled Marteen. A description of
+      the furnace is given in _Scientific American_ of February 11,
+      1854, (vol. 9, p. 169). In the patent interference proceedings
+      referred to below, it was stated that the furnace was in
+      successful operation in 1854.
+
+Martien secured an American patent for his process in 1857 and to file
+his application appears to have gone to the United States, where he
+remained at least until October 1858.[40] He seems to have taken the
+opportunity to apply for another patent for a furnace similar to that
+of James Renton. This led to interferences proceedings in which Martien
+showed that he had worked on this furnace at Bridgend, Glamorganshire
+(one of the Ebbw Vale plants), improving Renton's design by increasing
+the number of "deoxydizing tubes." This variation in Renton's design
+was held not patentable, and in any case Renton's firm was able to show
+that they had successfully installed the furnace at Newark in
+1852-1853, while Martien could not satisfy the Commissioner that his
+installation had been made before September 1854. Priority was
+therefore awarded to Quimby, Brown, Renton, and Creswell.[41]
+
+      [40] U.S. patent 16690, February 22, 1857. A correspondent of the
+      _Mining Journal_ (1858, vol. 28, p. 713) states that Martien had
+      not returned to England by October 1858.
+
+      [41] U.S. Patent Office, Decision of Commissioner of Patents,
+      dated May 26, 1859 in the matter of interference between the
+      application of James M. Quimby and others ... and of Joseph
+      Martien.
+
+Since Renton had not patented his furnace in Great Britain, Martien's
+use of his earlier knowledge of Renton's work and of his experience at
+Bridgend in an attempt to upset Renton's priority is a curious and at
+present unexplainable episode. Perhaps the early records of the Ebbw
+Vale Iron Works, if they exist, will show whether this episode was in
+some way linked to the firm's optimistic combination of the British
+patents of Martien and Mushet.
+
+That Ebbw Vale exerted every effort to find an alternative to
+Bessemer's process is suggested, also, by their purchase in 1856 of the
+British rights to the Uchatius process, invented by an Austrian Army
+officer. The provisional patent specifications, dated October 1, 1855,
+showed that Uchatius proposed to make cast steel directly from pig-iron
+by melting granulated pig-iron in a crucible with pulverized "sparry
+iron" (siderite) and fine clay or with gray oxide of manganese, which
+would determine the amount of carbon combining with the iron. This
+process, which was to prove commercially successful in Great Britain
+and in Sweden but was not used in America,[42] appeared to Ebbw Vale to
+be something from which, "we can have steel produced at the price
+proposed by Mr. Bessemer, notwithstanding the failure of his process to
+fulfil the promise."[43]
+
+      [42] J. S. Jeans, _op. cit._ (footnote 5), p. 108. The process is
+      not mentioned by James M. Swank, _History of the manufacture of
+      iron in all ages_, Philadelphia, American Iron and Steel
+      Association, 1892.
+
+      [43] _Mining Journal_, 1856, vol. 26, p. 707.
+
+So far as is known only one direct attempt was made, presumably
+instigated by Ebbw Vale, to enforce their patents against Bessemer, who
+records[44] a visit by Mushet's agent some two or three months before a
+renewal fee on Mushet's basic manganese patents became payable in 1859.
+Bessemer "entirely repudiated" Mushet's patents and offered to perform
+his operations in the presence of Mushet's lawyers and witnesses at the
+Sheffield Works so that a prosecution for infringement "would be a very
+simple matter." That, he says, was the last heard from the agent or
+from Mushet on the subject.[45] The renewal fee was not paid and the
+patents were therefore abandoned by Ebbw Vale and their associates, a
+fact which did not come to Mushet's knowledge until 1861, when he
+himself declared that the patent "was never in my hands at all [so]
+that I could not enforce it."[46]
+
+      [44] Bessemer, _op. cit._ (footnote 7), p. 290.
+
+      [45] The American Iron and Steel Institute's "Steel centennial
+      (1957) press information" (see footnote 2), includes a pamphlet,
+      "Kelly lighted the fireworks ..." by Vaughn Shelton (New York,
+      1956), which asserts (p. 12) that Bessemer paid the renewal fee
+      and became the owner of Mushet's "vital" patent.
+
+      [46] Robert Mushet, _The Bessemer-Mushet process_, Cheltenham,
+      1883, p. 24; _The Engineer_, 1861, vol. 12, pp. 177 and 189.
+
+Further support for the thesis that Ebbw Vale's policy was in part
+dictated by a desire to make Bessemer "see the matter differently" is
+to be found in the climatic episode. Work on Martien's patents had not
+been abandoned and in 1861 certain patents were taken out by George
+Parry, Ebbw Vale's furnace manager. These, represented as improvements
+of Martien's designs, were regarded by Bessemer as clear infringements
+of his own patents.[47] When it came to Bessemer's knowledge that Ebbw
+Vale was proposing to "go to the public" for additional capital with
+which to finance, in part, a large scale working of Parry's process, he
+threatened the financial promoter with injunctions and succeeded in
+opening negotiations for a settlement. All the patents "which had been
+for years suspended" over Bessemer were turned over to him for L30,000.
+Ebbw Vale, thereupon, issued their prospectus[48] with the significant
+statement that the directors "have agreed for a license for the
+manufacture of steel by the Bessemer process which, from the peculiar
+resources they possess, they will be enabled to produce in very large
+quantities...." So Bessemer became the owner of the Martien and Parry
+patents. Mushet's basic patents no longer existed.
+
+      [47] _The Engineer_, 1862, vol. 14, p. 3. Bessemer, _op. cit._
+      (footnote 7), p. 296.
+
+      [48] _Mining Journal_, 1864, vol. 34, p. 478.
+
+
+Mushet and Bessemer
+
+That Mushet was "used" by Ebbw Vale against Bessemer is, perhaps, only
+an assumption; but that he was badly treated by Ebbw Vale is subject to
+no doubt. Mushet's business capacity was small but it is difficult to
+believe that he could have been so foolish as to assign an interest in
+his patents to Ebbw Vale without in some way insuring his right of
+consultation about their disposition. He claims that even in the
+drafting of his specifications he was obliged to follow die demands of
+Ebbw Vale, which firm, believing, "on the advice of Mr. Hindmarsh, the
+most eminent patent counsel of the day,"[49] that Martien's patent
+outranked Bessemer's, insisted that Mushet link his process to
+Martien's. This, as late as 1861, Mushet believed to be in effective
+operation.[50] His later repudiation of the process as an absurd and
+impracticable patent process "possessing neither value nor utility"[51]
+may more truly represent his opinion, especially as, when he wrote his
+1861 comment, he still did not know of the disappearance of his
+patents.
+
+      [49] _The Engineer_, 1861, vol. 12, p. 189.
+
+      [50] _Ibid._, p. 78.
+
+      [51] Mushet, _op. cit._ (footnote 46), p. 9.
+
+Mushet's boast[52] that he had never been into an ironworks other than
+his own in Coleford is a clue to the interpretation of his behavior in
+general and also of his frequent presumptuous claims. When, for
+instance, the development of the Uchatius process was publicized, he
+gave his opinion[53] that the process was a useless one and had been
+patented before Uchatius "understood its nature"; yet later[54] he
+could claim that the process was "in fact, my own invention and I had
+made and sold the steel thus produced for some years previously to the
+date of Captain Uchatius' patent". Moreover, he claims to have
+instructed Uchatius' agents in its operation! He may, at this later
+date, have recalled his challenge (the first of many such) in which he
+offered Uchatius' agent in England to pay a monetary penalty if he
+could not show a superior method of producing "sound serviceable cast
+steel from British coke pig-iron, _on the stomic plan_ and without any
+mixture of clay, oxide of manganese or any of these pot destroying
+ingredients."[55]
+
+      [52] _Ibid._, p. 25.
+
+      [53] _Mining Journal_, 1857, vol. 27, p. 755.
+
+      [54] Mushet, _op. cit._ (footnote 46), p. 28. The Uchatius
+      process became the "You-cheat-us" process to Mushet (_Mining
+      Journal_, 1858, vol. 28, p. 34).
+
+      [55] _Mining Journal_, 1857, vol. 27, p. 755 (italics supplied).
+
+It was David Mushet (or Robert, using his brother's name)[56] who
+accused Bessemer, or rather his patent agent, Carpmael, of sharp
+practice in connection with Martien's specification, an allegation
+later supported by Martien's first patent agent, Avery.[57] The story
+was that for the drafting of his final specification, Martien,
+presumably with the advice of the Ebbw Vale Iron Works, consulted the
+same Carpmael, as "the leading man" in the field. The latter advised
+that the provisional specification restricted Martien to the
+application of his method to iron flowing in a channel or gutter from
+the blast furnace, and so prevented him from applying his aeration
+principle in any kind of receptacle. In effect, Carpmael was acting
+unprofessionally by giving Bessemer the prior claim to the use of a
+receptacle. According to Mushet, Martien had in fact "actually and
+publicly proved" his process in a receptacle and not in a gutter, so
+that his claim to priority could be maintained on the basis of the
+provisional specification.
+
+      [56] See footnote 22.
+
+      [57] _Mining Journal_, 1856, vol. 26, pp. 583, 631.
+
+This, like other Mushet allegations, was ignored by Bessemer, and
+probably with good reason. At any rate, Martien's American patent is in
+terms similar to those of the British specification; he or his advisers
+seem to have attached no significance to the distinction between a
+gutter and a receptacle.
+
+Mushet's claim to have afforded Bessemer the means of making his own
+process useful is still subject to debate. Unfortunately, documentation
+of the case is almost wholly one sided, since his biggest publicizer
+was Mushet himself. An occasional editorial in the technical press and
+a few replies to Mushet's "lucubrations" are all the material which
+exists, apart from Bessemer's own story.
+
+Mushet and at least five other men patented the use of manganese in
+steel making in 1856; his own provisional specification was filed
+within a month of the publication of Bessemer's British Association
+address in August 1856. So it is strange that Robert Mushet did not
+until more than a year later join in the controversy which followed
+that address.[58] In one of his early letters he claims to have made of
+"his" steel a bridge rail of 750 pounds weight; although his brother
+insists that he saw the same rail in the Ebbw Vale offices in London in
+the spring of 1857, when it was presented as a specimen of Uchatius
+steel![59] Robert Mushet's indignant "advertisement" of January 5,
+1858,[60] reiterating his parentage of this sample, also claimed a
+double-headed steel rail "made by me under another of my patent
+processes," and sent to Derby to be laid down there to be "subjected to
+intense vertricular triturations." Mushet's description of the
+preparation of this ingot[61] shows that it was derived from "Bessemer
+scrap" made by Ebbw Vale in the first unsuccessful attempts of that
+firm to simulate the Bessemer process. This scrap Mushet had remelted
+in pots with spiegel in the proportions of 44 pounds of scrap to 3 of
+melted spiegel. It was his claim that the rail was rolled direct from
+the ingot, something Bessemer himself could not do at that time.
+
+      [58] October 17, 1857, writing as "Sideros" (_Mining Journal_,
+      1857, vol. 27, p. 723).
+
+      [59] _Mining Journal_, 1857, vol. 27, p. 871, and 1858, vol. 28,
+      p. 12.
+
+      [60] _Ibid._ (1858), p. 34.
+
+      [61] Mushet, _op. cit._ (footnote 46), p. 12. The phrase quoted
+      is typical of Mushet's style.
+
+This was the beginning of a series of claims by Mushet as to his
+essential contributions to Bessemer's invention. The silence of the
+latter during this period is impressive, for according to Bessemer's
+own account[62] his British Association address was premature, and
+although the sale of licenses actually provided him with working funds,
+the impatience of those experimenting with the process and the flood of
+competing "inventions" all embarrassed him at the most critical stage
+of this development of the process: "It was, however, no use for me to
+argue the matter in the press. All that I could say would be mere talk
+and I felt that action was necessary, and not words."[63]
+
+      [62] Bessemer, _op. cit._ (footnote 7), pp. 161 ff. and 256 ff.
+
+      [63] _Ibid._, p. 171.
+
+Action took the form of continued experiments and, by the end of 1857,
+a decision to build his own plant at Sheffield.[64] An important
+collateral development resulted from the visit to London in May 1857 of
+G. F. Goransson of Gefle, Sweden. Using Bessemer equipment, Goransson
+began trials of the process in November 1857 and by October 1858 was
+able to report: "Our firm has now entirely given up the manufacture of
+bar iron, and our blast furnaces and tilt mills are now wholly employed
+in making steel by the Bessemer process, which may, therefore, be now
+considered an accomplished commercial fact."[65]
+
+      [64] This enterprise, started in conjunction with Galloway's of
+      Manchester, one of the firms licensed by Bessemer to make his
+      equipment, was under way by April 1858 (see _Mining Journal_,
+      1858, vol. 28, p. 259).
+
+      [65] _Mining Journal_, 1858, vol. 28, p. 696. Mushet commented
+      (p. 713) that he had done the same thing "eighteen months ago."
+
+Goransson was later to claim considerable improvements on the method of
+introducing the blast, and, in consequence, the first effective
+demonstration of the Bessemer method[66]--this at a time when Bessemer
+was still remelting the product of his converter in crucibles, after
+granulating the steel in water. If Mushet is to be believed, this
+success of Goransson's was wholly due to his ore being "totally free
+from phosphorous and sulphur."[67] However, Bessemer's own progress was
+substantial, for his Sheffield works were reported as being in active
+operation in April 1859, and a price for his engineers' tool and
+spindle steel was included in the _Mining Journal_ "Mining Market"
+weekly quotations for the first time[68] on June 4, 1859.
+
+      [66] Swank, _op. cit._ (footnote 42), p. 405.
+
+      [67] _The Engineer_, 1859, vol. 7, p. 350.
+
+      [68] _Mining Journal_, 1859, vol. 29, pp. 396 and 401. The price
+      quotation was continued until April 1865.
+
+In May 1859 Bessemer gave a paper, his first public pronouncement since
+August 1856, before the Institution of Civil Engineers.[69] The early
+process, he admitted, had led to failure because the process had not
+reduced the quantity of sulphur and phosphorous, but his account is
+vague as to the manner in which he dealt with this problem:
+
+    Steam and pure hydrogen gas were tried, with more or less success
+    in the removal of sulphur, and various flues, composed chiefly of
+    silicates of the oxide of iron and manganese were brought in
+    contact with the fluid metal, during the process and the quantity
+    of phosphorous was thereby reduced.
+
+      [69] _The Engineer_, 1859, vol. 7, p. 437.
+
+But the clear implication is that the commercial operation at Sheffield
+was based on the use of the best Swedish pig iron and the hematite pig
+from Workington. The use of manganese as standard practice at this time
+is not referred to,[70] but the rotary converter and the use of
+ganister linings are mentioned for the first time.
+
+      [70] Jeans, _op. cit._ (footnote 5), p. 349 refers to the
+      hematite ores of Lancashire and Cumberland as "the ores hitherto
+      almost exclusively used in the Bessemer process."
+
+      A definitive account of the Swedish development of the Bessemer
+      process, leading to a well-documented claim that the first
+      practical realization of the process was achieved in Sweden in
+      July 1858, was recently published (Per Carlberg, "Early
+      Production of Bessemer Steel at Edsken," _Journal of the Iron and
+      Steel Institute, Great Britain_, July 1958, vol. 189, p. 201).
+
+Mushet had, with some intuition, found opportunity to reassert his
+contributions to Bessemer a few days before this address, describing
+his process as perhaps lacking "the extraordinary merit of Mr.
+Bessemer," being "merely a vigorous offshoot proceeding from that great
+discovery; but, combined with Mr. Bessemer's process, it places within
+the reach of every iron manufacturer to produce cast steel at the same
+cost for which he can now make his best iron."[71]
+
+      [71] _The Engineer_, 1859, vol. 7, p. 314. Bessemer's intention
+      to present his paper had been announced in April.
+
+One of Mushet's replies to the paper itself took the form of the
+announcement of his provisional patent for the use of his triple
+compound which, in the opinion of _The Mining Journal_ appeared to be
+"but a very slight modification of several of Mr. Bessemer's
+inventions." Another half dozen patents appeared within two months, "so
+that it is apparent that Mr. Mushet's failure to make the public
+appreciate his theories has not injured his inventive faculties."[72]
+These patents include, besides variations on his "triple compound"
+theme, his important patent on the use of tungsten for cutting tools,
+later to be known as Mushet steel.[73]
+
+      [72] _Mining Journal_, 1859, vol. 29, p. 539 and 640. Another
+      Mushet patent is described as so much like Uchatius' process that
+      it would seem to be almost unpatentable.
+
+      [73] See Jeans, _op. cit._ (footnote 5), p. 532.
+
+Mushet's formal pronouncement on Bessemer's paper, dated June 28, 1859,
+is perhaps his most intelligible communication on the subject. He alone
+"from the first consistently advocated the merits and pointed out the
+defects of the Bessemer process," and within a few days of the British
+Association address he had shown Ebbw Vale "where the defect would be
+found and what would remedy" it. It was not, in fact, the presence of
+one-tenth of a percent of sulphur or phosphorous which affected the
+result if the Bessemer process were combined with his process by adding
+a triple compound of iron, carbon, and manganese to the pig. "There
+never was a bar of first-rate cast steel made by the Bessemer process
+alone"; (and that included Goransson's product) "and there never can
+be, but a cheap kind of steel applicable to several purposes may be
+thus produced." After emphasizing the uniqueness of his attempt to make
+Bessemer's process successful, he asserts:[74]
+
+    In short, I merely availed myself of a great metallurgical fact,
+    _which has been for years_ before the eyes of the metallurgical
+    world, namely that the presence of metallic manganese in iron and
+    steel conferred upon both an amount of toughness either when cold
+    or when heated, which the presence at the same time of a notable
+    amount of sulphur and phosphorous could not overcome.
+
+      [74] _The Engineer_, 1859, vol. 8, p. 13 (italics supplied). It
+      is noted that Mushet's American patent (17389, of May 26, 1857)
+      prefers the use of iron "as free as possible from Sulphur and
+      Phosphorous."
+
+The succeeding years were enlivened, one by one, by some controversy in
+which Mushet invoked the shadow of his late father as support for some
+pronouncement, or "edict," as some said, on the subject of making iron
+and steel. In 1860, on the question of suitable metal for artillery,
+later to be the subject of high controversy among the leading experts
+of the day, Mushet found a ready solution in his own gun metal. This he
+had developed fifteen years before. It was of a tensile strength better
+even than that of Krupp of Essen who was then specializing in the
+making of large blocks of cast steel for heavy forgings, and
+particularly for guns. Indeed, he was able publicly to challenge Krupp
+to produce a cast gun metal or cast steel to stand test against
+his.[75] A year later his attack on the distinguished French
+metallurgist Fremy, whom he describes as an "ass" for his interest in
+the so-called cyanogen process of steel making, did little to enhance
+his reputation, whatever the scientific justification for his attack.
+His attitude toward the use of New Zealand (Taranaki) metalliferous
+sand, which he had previously favored and then condemned in such a way
+as to "injure a project he can no longer control,"[76] was another
+example of a public behavior evidently resented.
+
+      [75] _The Engineer_, 1860, vol. 9, pp. 366, 416, and _passim_.
+
+      [76] _The Engineer_, 1861, vol. 11, pp. 189, 202, 290, 304.
+
+By mid-1861, on the other hand, Bessemer was beginning to meet with
+increasing respect from the trade. The Society of Engineers received a
+dispassionate account of the achievement at the Sheffield Works from E.
+Riley, whose firm (Dowlais) was among the earlier and disappointed
+licensees of the process.[77] In August 1861, five years after the
+ill-fated address before the British Association, the Institution of
+Mechanical Engineers, meeting in Sheffield, the center of the British
+steel trade, heard papers from Bessemer and from John Brown, a famous
+ironmaster. The latter described the making of Bessemer rails, the
+product which above all was to absorb the Bessemer plants in America
+after 1865. After the meeting, the engineers visited Bessemer's works;
+and later it was reported,[78] "at Messrs. John Brown and Company's
+works, the Bessemer process was repeated on a still larger scale and a
+heavy armor plate rolled in the presence of some 250 visitors...."
+
+      [77] _The Engineer_, 1861, vol. 12, p. 10.
+
+      [78] _Ibid._, p. 63.
+
+These proceedings invited Robert Mushet's intervention. Still under the
+impression that his patent was still alive and, with Martien's, in the
+"able hands" of the Ebbw Vale Iron Company, he condemned Bessemer for
+his "lack of grace" to do him justice, and took the occasion to indict
+the patent system which denied him and Martien the fruits of their
+labors.[79]
+
+      [79] _Ibid._, pp. 78 and 177.
+
+_The Engineer_ found Mushet's position untenable on the very grounds he
+was pleading--that patents should not be issued to different men at
+different times for the same thing; and showed that Bessemer in his
+patents of January 4, 1856, and later, had clearly anticipated Mushet.
+In a subsequent article, _The Engineer_ disposed of Martien's and
+Mushet's claims with a certain finality. The Ebbw Vale Iron Works had
+spent L7,000 trying to carry out the Martien process and it was
+unlikely that they would have allowed Bessemer to infringe upon that
+patent if they had any grounds for a case. Bessemer was not imitating
+Mushet. The latter's "triple compound" required manganese pig-iron
+(with a content of 2 to 5 percent of manganese) at L13 per ton while
+Bessemer used an oxide of manganese (at a 50 percent concentration): at
+L7 per ton.
+
+    The alloy of manganese and other materials now used in the
+    atmospheric process contains 50 percent of manganese a proportion
+    which could never be obtained from the blast furnace, owing to the
+    highly oxidisable nature of that metal. And it is absolutely
+    necessary, in order to apply any useful alloy of iron, carbon and
+    manganese, in the manufacture of malleable iron and very soft steel
+    that the manganese should be largely in excess of the carbon
+    present.[80]
+
+      [80] _Ibid._, p. 208. There is an intriguing reference in this
+      editorial to an interference on behalf of Martien against a
+      Bessemer application for a U.S. patent. No dates are given and
+      the case has not been located in the record of U.S. Patent
+      Commissioner's decision.
+
+Sufficient answer to Mushet was at any rate available in the fact that
+many hundreds of tons of excellent "Bessemer metal" made without any
+mixture of manganese or spiegeleisen in any form were in successful
+use. And, moreover, spiegeleisen was not a discovery of Robert Mushet
+or an exclusive product of Germany since it had been made for twenty
+years at least from Tow Law (Durham) ores. If Bessemer had refused
+Mushet a license (and this was an admitted fact), Bessemer's refusal
+must have been made in self-defense:
+
+    Mr. Mushet having set up a number of claims for "improvements" upon
+    which claims, we have a right to suppose, he was preparing to take
+    toll from Mr. Bessemer, but which claims, the latter gentleman
+    discovered, in time, were worthless and accordingly declined any
+    negotiations with the individual making them.[81]
+
+      [81] _Ibid._, p. 254.
+
+Mushet's claims were by this time rarely supported in the periodicals.
+One interesting article in his favor came in 1864 from a source of
+special interest to the American situation. Mushet's American
+patent[82] had been bought by an American group interested in the Kelly
+process at about this time,[83] and Bessemer's American rights had also
+been sold to an American group that included Alexander Lyman
+Holley,[84] who had long been associated with Zerah Colburn, another
+American engineer. Colburn, who subsequently (1866) established the
+London periodical _Engineering_ and is regarded as one of the founders
+of engineering journalism, was from 1862 onward a frequent contributor
+to other trade papers in London. Colburn's article of 1864[85] seems to
+have been of some importance to Mushet, who, in the prospectus of the
+Titanic Steel and Iron Company, Ltd., issued soon after, brazenly
+asserted[86] that, "by the process of Mr. Mushet _especially when in
+combination with the Bessemer process_, steel as good as Swedish steel"
+would be produced at L6 per ton. Mushet may have intended to invite a
+patent action, but evidently Bessemer could now more than ever afford
+to ignore the "sage of Coleford."
+
+      [82] U.S. patent 17389, dated May 26, 1857. The patent was not
+      renewed when application was made in 1870, on the grounds that
+      the original patent had been made co-terminal with the British
+      patent. The latter had been abandoned "by Mushet's own fault" so
+      that no right existed to an American renewal (U.S. Patent Office,
+      Decision of Commissioner of Patents, dated September 19, 1870).
+
+      [83] See below, p. 45. The exact date of the purchase of Mushet's
+      patent is not known.
+
+      [84] _Engineering_, 1882, vol. 33, p. 114. The deal was completed
+      in 1863.
+
+      [85] _The Engineer_, 1864, vol. 18, pp. 405, 406.
+
+      [86] _Mining Journal_, 1864, vol. 34, pp. 77 and 94 (italics
+      supplied). It has not yet been possible to ascertain if this
+      company was successful. Mushet writes from this time on from
+      Cheltenham, where the company had its offices. Research continues
+      in this interesting aspect of his career.
+
+The year 1865 saw Mushet less provocative and more appealing; as for
+instance: "It was no fault of Mr. Bessemer's that my patent was lost,
+but he ought to acknowledge his obligations to me in a manly,
+straightforward manner and this would stamp him as a great man as well
+as a great inventor."[87]
+
+      [87] _Mining Engineer_, 1865, vol. 35, p. 86.
+
+But Bessemer evidently remained convinced of the security of his own
+patent position. In an address before the British Association at
+Birmingham in September 1865 he made his first public reply to
+Mushet.[88] In his long series of patents Mushet had attempted to
+secure--
+
+    almost every conceivable mode of introducing manganese into the
+    metal.... Manganese and its compounds were so claimed under all
+    imaginable conditions that if this series of patents could have
+    been sustained in law, it would have been utterly impossible for
+    [me] to have employed manganese with steel made by his process,
+    although it was considered by the trade to be impossible to make
+    steel from coke-made iron without it.
+
+      [88] _The Engineer_, 1865, vol. 20, p. 174.
+
+The failure of those who controlled Mushet's batch of patents to renew
+them at the end of three years, Bessemer ascribed to the low public
+estimation to which Mushet's process had sunk in 1859, and he had
+therefore, "used without scruple any of these numerous patents for
+manganese without feeling an overwhelming sense of obligation to the
+patentee." He was now using ferromanganese made in Glasgow. Another
+alloy, consisting of 60 to 80 percent of metallic manganese was also
+available to him from Germany.
+
+This renewed publicity brought forth no immediate reply from Mushet,
+but a year later he was invited to read a paper before the British
+Association. A report on the meeting stated that in his paper he
+repeated his oft-told story, and that "he still thought that the
+accident (of the non-payment of the patent stamp duties) ought not to
+debar him from receiving the reward to which he was justly entitled."
+Bessemer, who was present, reiterated his constant willingness to
+submit the matter to the courts of law, but pointed out that Mushet had
+not accepted the challenge.[89]
+
+      [89] _Mechanics' Magazine_, 1866, vol. 16, p. 147.
+
+Three months later, in December 1866, Mushet's daughter called on
+Bessemer and asked his help to prevent the loss of their home: "They
+tell me you use my father's inventions and are indebted to him for your
+success." Bessemer replied characteristically:
+
+    I use what your father has no right to claim; and if he had the
+    legal position you seem to suppose, he could stop my business by an
+    injunction tomorrow and get many thousands of pounds compensation
+    for my infringement of his rights. The only result which followed
+    from your father taking out his patents was that they pointed out
+    to me some rights which I already possessed, but of which I was not
+    availing myself. Thus he did me some service and even for this
+    unintentional service, I cannot live in a state of indebtedness....
+
+With that he gave Miss Mushet money to cover a debt for which distraint
+was threatened.[90] Soon after this action, Bessemer made Mushet a
+"small allowance" of L300 a year. Bessemer's reasons for making this
+payment, he describes as follows: "There was a strong desire on my part
+to make him (Mushet) my debtor rather than the reverse, and the payment
+had other advantages: the press at that time was violently attacking my
+patent and there was the chance that if any of my licensees were thus
+induced to resist my claims, all the rest might follow the
+example."[91]
+
+      [90] Bessemer, _op. cit._ (footnote 7), p. 294.
+
+      [91] _Ibid._
+
+Mushet's Titanic Steel and Iron Company was liquidated in 1871 and its
+principal asset, "R. Mushet's special steel," that is, his tungsten
+alloy tool metal, was taken over by the Sheffield firm of Samuel Osborn
+and Company. The royalties from this, with Bessemer's pension seem to
+have left Mushet in a reasonably comfortable condition until his death
+in 1891;[92] but even the award of the Bessemer medal by the Iron and
+Steel Institute in 1876 failed to remove the conviction that he had
+been badly treated. One would like to know more about the politics
+which preceded the award of the trade's highest honor. Bessemer at any
+rate was persuaded to approve of the presentation and attended the
+meeting. Mushet himself did not accept the invitation, "as I may
+probably not be then alive."[93] The President of the Institute
+emphasized the present good relations between Mushet and Bessemer and
+the latter recorded that the hatchet had "long since" been buried. Yet
+Mushet continued to brood over the injustice done to him and eventually
+recorded his story of the rise and progress of the "Bessemer-Mushet"
+process in a pamphlet[94] written apparently without reference to his
+earlier statements and so committing himself to many inconsistencies.
+
+      [92] See Fred M. Osborn, _The story of the Mushets_, London,
+      1852.
+
+      [93] _Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute_, 1876, p. 3.
+
+      [94] Robert Mushet, _The Bessemer-Mushet process_, Cheltenham,
+      1883.
+
+
+William Kelly's "Air-boiling" Process
+
+An account of Bessemer's address to the British Association was
+published in the _Scientific American_ on September 13, 1856.[95] On
+September 16, 1856, Martien filed application for a U.S. patent on his
+furnace and Mushet for one on the application of his triple compound to
+cast iron "purified or decarbonized by the action of air blown or
+forced into ... its particles while it is in a molten ... state."[96]
+Mushet, by this time, had apparently decided to generalize the
+application of his compound instead of citing its use in conjunction
+with Martien's process, or, as he put it, he had been obliged to do for
+his English specification by the Ebbw Vale Iron Works.
+
+      [95] _Scientific American_, 1856, vol. 12, p. 6.
+
+      [96] U.S. patent 17389, dated May 26, 1857. Martien's U.S. patent
+      was granted as 16690, dated February 24, 1857.
+
+[Illustration: Figure 2.--ONLY KNOWN DESIGN FOR KELLY'S AIR-BOILING
+FURNACE, FROM U.S. PATENT 17628. _A_ is "the flue to carry off the
+carbonic gas formed in decarbonizing the iron," _B_ is the port through
+which the charge of fluid iron is received, _C_ and _C'_ are the
+tuyeres, and _D_ is the tap hole for letting out the refined metal.]
+
+The discussion in the _Scientific American_, which was mostly concerned
+with Martien's claim to priority, soon evoked a letter from William
+Kelly. Writing under date of September 30, 1856, from the Suwanee Iron
+Works, Eddyville, Kentucky, he claimed to have started "a series of
+experiments" in November 1851 which had been witnessed by hundreds of
+persons and "discussed amongst the ironmasters, etc., of this section,
+all of whom are perfectly familiar with the whole principle ... as
+discovered by me nearly five years ago." A number of English puddlers
+had visited him to see his new process. "Several of them have since
+returned to England and may have spoken of my invention there." Kelly
+expected "shortly to have the invention perfected and bring it before
+the public."[97]
+
+      [97] _Scientific American_, 1856, vol. 12, p. 43, Kelly's
+      suggestion of piracy of his ideas was later enlarged upon by his
+      biographer John Newton Boucher, _William Kelly: A true history
+      of the so-called Bessemer process_, Greensburg, Pennsylvania,
+      1924.
+
+Bessemer's application for an American patent was granted during the
+week ending November 18, 1856, and Kelly began his interference
+proceedings sometime before January 1857.[98]
+
+      [98] _Ibid._, p. 82. Kelly's notice of his intention to take
+      testimony was addressed to Bessemer on January 12, 1857. See
+      papers on "Interference, William Kelly vs. Henry Bessemer
+      Decision April 13, 1857." U.S. Patent Office Records. Quotations
+      below are from this file, which is now permanently preserved in
+      the library of the U.S. Patent Office.
+
+Kelly's witnesses were almost wholly from the ranks of employees or
+former employees. The only exception was Dr. Alfred H. Champion, a
+physician of Eddyville. Dr. Champion describes a meeting in the fall of
+1851 with "two or three practical Ironmasters and others" at which
+Kelly described his process and invited all present to see it in
+operation. He stated:
+
+    The company present all differed in opinion from Mr. Kelly and
+    appealed to me as a chemist in confirmation of their doubts. I at
+    once decided that Mr. Kelly was correct in his Theory and then went
+    on to explain the received opinion of chemists a century ago on
+    this subject, and the present received opinion which was in direct
+    confirmation of the novel theory of Mr. Kelly. I also mentioned the
+    analogy of said Kelly's process in decarbonising iron to the
+    process of decarbonising blood in the human lungs.
+
+The Doctor does not say, specifically, if he or any of the "company"
+went to see the process in operation.
+
+Kelly obtained affidavits from another seventeen witnesses. Ten of
+these recorded their recollections of experiments conducted in 1847.
+Five described the 1851 work. Two knew of or had seen both. One of the
+last group was John B. Evans who became forge manager of Kelly's Union
+Forge, a few miles from Suwanee. This evidence is of interest since a
+man in his position should have been in a position to tell something
+about the results of Kelly's operations in terms of usable metal.
+Unfortunately, he limits himself to a comment on the metal which had
+chilled around a tuyere which had been sent back to the Forge ("it was
+partly malleable and partly refined pig-iron") and to an account of a
+conversation with others who had worked some of Kelly's "good wrought
+iron" made by the new process.
+
+Only one of the witnesses (William Soden) makes a reference to the
+phenomenon which is an accompaniment of the blowing of a converter: the
+prolonged and violent emission of sparks and flames which startled
+Bessemer in his first use of the process[99] and which still provides
+an exciting, if not awe-inspiring, interlude in a visit to a steel
+mill. Soden refers, without much excitement, to a boiling commotion,
+but the results of Kelly's "air-boiling" were, evidently, not such as
+to impress the rest of those who claimed to have seen his furnace in
+operation. Only five of the total of eighteen of the witnesses say that
+they witnessed the operations. Soden, incidentally, knew of seven
+different "air-boiling" furnaces, some with four and some with eight
+tuyeres, but he also neglected to report on the use of the metal.
+
+      [99] Bessemer, _op. cit._ (footnote 7), p. 144.
+
+As is well known, Kelly satisfied the Acting Commissioner that he had
+"made this invention and showed it by drawings and experiment as early
+as 1847," and he was awarded priority by the Acting Commissioner's
+decision of April 13, 1857, and U.S. Patent 17628 was granted him as of
+June 23, 1857. The _Scientific American_ sympathized with Bessemer's
+realization that his American patent was "of no more value to him than
+so much waste paper" but took the opportunity of chastising Kelly for
+his negligence in not securing a patent at a much earlier date and
+complained of a patent system which did not require an inventor to make
+known his discovery promptly. The journal advocated a "certain fixed
+time" after which such an inventor "should not be allowed to subvert a
+patent granted to another who has taken proper measures to put the
+public in possession of the invention."[100]
+
+      [100] _Scientific American_, 1857, vol. 12, p. 341.
+
+Little authentic is known about Kelly's activities following the grant
+of his patent. His biographer[101] does not document his statements,
+many of which appear to be based on the recollections of members of
+Kelly's family, and it is difficult to reconcile some of them with what
+few facts are available. Kelly's own account of his invention,[102]
+itself undated, asserts that he could "refine fifteen hundredweight of
+metal in from five to ten minutes," his furnace "supplying a cheap
+method of making run-out metal" so that "after trying it a few days we
+entirely dispensed with the old and troublesome run-out fires."[103]
+This statement suggests that Kelly's method was intended to do just
+this; and it is not without interest to note that several of his
+witnesses in the Interference proceedings, refer to bringing the metal
+"to nature," a term often used in connection with the finery furnace.
+If this is so, his assumption that he had anticipated Bessemer was
+based on a misapprehension of what the latter was intending to do, that
+is, to make steel.
+
+      [101] Boucher, _op. cit._ (footnote 97).
+
+      [102] U.S. Bureau of the Census, _Report on the manufacturers
+      of the United States at the tenth census (June 1, 1880) ...,
+      Manufacture of iron and steel_, report prepared by James M.
+      Swank, special agent, Washington, 1883, p. 124. Mr. Swank was
+      secretary of the American Iron and Steel Association. This
+      material was included in his _History of the manufacture of iron
+      in all ages_, Philadelphia, 1892, p. 397.
+
+      [103] _Ibid._, p. 125. The run-out fire (or "finery" fire) was a
+      charcoal fire "into which pig-iron, having been melted and
+      partially refined in one fire, was run and further refined to
+      convert it to wrought iron by the Lancashire hearth process,"
+      according to A. K. Osborn, _An encyclopaedia of the iron and
+      steel industry_, New York, 1956.
+
+This statement leaves the reader under the impression that the process
+was in successful use. It is to be contrasted with the statement quoted
+above (page 43), dated September 1856, when the process had, clearly,
+not been perfected. In this connection, it should be noted that in the
+report on the Suwanee Iron Works, included in _The iron manufacturer's
+guide_,[104] it is stated that "It is at this furnace that Mr. Kelly's
+process for refining iron in the hearth has been most fully
+experimented upon."
+
+      [104] J. P. Lesley, _op. cit._ (footnote 39), p. 129. The preface
+      is dated April 6, 1859. The data was largely collected by Joseph
+      Lesley of Philadelphia, brother of the author, during a tour of
+      several months. Since Suwanee production is given for 44 weeks
+      only of 1857 (_i.e._, through November 4 or 5, 1857) it is
+      concluded that Lesley's visit was in the last few weeks of 1857.
+
+A major financial crisis affected United States business in the fall of
+1857. It began in the first week of October and by October 31 the
+_Economist_ (London) reported that the banks of the United States had
+"almost universally suspended specie payment."[105] Kelly was involved
+in this crisis and his plant was closed down. According to Swank,[106]
+some experiments were made to adapt Kelly's process to need of rolling
+mills at the Cambria Iron Works in 1857 and 1858, Kelly himself being
+at Johnstown, at least in June 1858. That the experiments were not
+particularly successful is suggested by the lack of any American
+contributions to the correspondence in the English technical journals.
+Kelly was not mentioned as having done more than interfere with
+Bessemer's first patent application. The success of the latter in
+obtaining patents[107] in the United States in November 1856, covering
+"the conversion of molten crude iron ... into steel or malleable iron,
+without the use of fuel ..." also escaped the attention of both English
+and American writers.
+
+      [105] _Economist_ (London), 1857, vol. 15, pp. 1129, 1209.
+
+      [106] Swank, _op. cit._ (footnote 42), p. 125. John Fritz, in his
+      _Autobiography_ (New York, 1912, p. 162), refers to experiments
+      during his time at Johnstown, _i.e._, between June 1854 and July
+      1860. _The iron manufacturer's guide_ (see footnote 104) also
+      refers to Kelly's process as having "just been tried with great
+      success" at Cambria.
+
+      [107] U.S. patents 16082, dated November 11, 1856, and 16083,
+      dated November 18, 1856. Bessemer's unsuccessful application
+      corresponded with his British patent 2321, of 1855 (see footnote
+      98).
+
+It was not until 1861 that the question arose as to what happened to
+Kelly's process. The occasion was the publication of an account of
+Bessemer's paper at the Sheffield meeting of the (British) Society of
+Mechanical Engineers on August 1, 1861. Accepting the evidence of "the
+complete industrial success" of Bessemer's process, the _Scientific
+American_[108] asked: "Would not some of our enterprising manufacturers
+make a good operation by getting hold of the [Kelly] patent and
+starting the manufacture of steel in this country?"
+
+      [108] _Scientific American_, 1861, new ser., vol. 5, pp. 148-153.
+
+There was no response to this rhetorical question, but a further
+inquiry as to whether the Kelly patent "could be bought"[109] elicited
+a response from Kelly. Writing from Hammondsville, Ohio, Kelly[110]
+said, in part:
+
+    I would say that the New England states and New York would be sold
+    at a fair rate.... I removed from Kentucky about three years ago,
+    and now reside at New Salisbury about three miles from
+    Hammondsville and sixty miles from Pittsburg. Accept my thanks for
+    your kind efforts in endeavoring to draw the attention of the
+    community to the advantages of my process.
+
+      [109] _Ibid._, p. 310.
+
+      [110] _Ibid._, p. 343.
+
+This letter suggests that the Kelly process had been dormant since
+1858. Whether or not as a result of the publication of this letter,
+interest was resumed in Kelly's experiments. Captain Eber Brock Ward of
+Detroit and Z. S. Durfee of New Bedford, Massachusetts, obtained
+control of Kelly's patent. Durfee himself went to England in the fall
+of 1861 in an attempt to secure a license from Bessemer. He returned to
+the United States in the early fall of 1862, assuming that he was the
+only "citizen of the United States" who had even seen the Bessemer
+apparatus.[111]
+
+      [111] His claim is somewhat doubtful. Alexander Lyman Holley, who
+      was later to be responsible for the design of most of the first
+      Bessemer plants in the United States had been in England in 1859,
+      1860, and 1862. In view of his interest in ordnance and armor, it
+      is unlikely that Bessemer could have escaped his alert
+      observation. His first visit specifically in connection with the
+      Bessemer process appears to have been in 1863, but he is said to
+      have begun to interest financiers and ironmasters in the Bessemer
+      process after his visit in 1862 (_Engineering_, 1882, vol. 33, p.
+      115).
+
+In June, 1862, W. F. Durfee, a cousin of Z. S. Durfee, was asked by
+Ward to report on Kelly's process. The report[112] was unfavorable.
+"The description of [the apparatus] used by Mr. Kelly at his abandoned
+works in Kentucky satisfied me that it was not suited for an experiment
+on so large a scale as was contemplated at Wyandotte [Detroit]." Since
+it was "confidently expected that Z. S. Durfee would be successful in
+his efforts to purchase [Bessemer's patents], it was thought only to be
+anticipating the acquisition of property rights ... to use such of his
+inventions as best suited the purpose in view."
+
+      [112] W. F. Durfee: "An account of the experimental steel works
+      at Wyandotte, Michigan," _Transactions of the American Society of
+      Mechanical Engineers_, 1884, vol. 6, p. 40 ff.
+
+Thus the first "Bessemer" plant in the United States came into being
+without benefit of a license and supported only by a patent "not
+suited" for a large experiment. Kelly seems to have had no part in
+these developments. They took some time to come to formation. Although
+the converter was ready by September 1862, the blowing engine was not
+completed until the spring of 1864 and the first "blow" successfully
+made in 1864. It may be no more than a coincidence that the start of
+production seems to have been impossible before the arrival in this
+country of a young man, L. M. Hart, who had been trained in Bessemer
+operations at the plant of the Jackson Brothers at St. Seurin (near
+Bordeaux) France. The Jacksons had become Bessemer's partners in
+respect of the French rights; and the recruitment of Hart suggests the
+possibility that it was from this French source that Z. S. Durfee
+obtained his initial technical data on the operation of the Bessemer
+process.[113]
+
+      [113] Research in the French sources continues. The arrival of L.
+      M. Hart at Boston is recorded as of April 1, 1864, his ship being
+      the SS _Africa_ out of Liverpool, England (Archives of the United
+      States, card index of passenger arrivals 1849-1891 list No. 39).
+
+During the organization of the plant at Wyandotte, Kelly was called
+back to Cambria, probably by Daniel J. Morrell, who, later, became a
+partner with Ward and Z. S. Durfee in the formation of the Kelly
+Pneumatic Process Company.[114] We learn from John E. Fry,[115] the
+iron moulder who was assigned to help Kelly, that--
+
+    in 1862 Mr. Kelly returned to Johnstown for a crucial, and as it
+    turned out, a final series of experiments by him with a rotative
+    [Bessemer converter] _made abroad and imported for his purpose_.
+    This converter embodied in its materials and construction several
+    of Mr. Bessemer's patented factors, of which, up to the close of
+    Mr. Kelly's experiments above noted, he seemed to have no knowledge
+    or conception. And it was as late as on the occasion of his return
+    in 1862, to operate the experimental Bessemer converter, that he
+    first recognized, by its adoption, the necessity for or the
+    importance of any after treatment of, or additions required by the
+    blown metal to convert it into steel.
+
+      [114] Swank, _op. cit._ (footnote 42), p. 409.
+
+      [115] _Johnstown Daily Democrat_, souvenir edition, autumn 1894
+      (italics supplied). Mr. Fry was at the Cambria Iron Works from
+      1858 until after 1882.
+
+Fry later asserted[116] that Kelly's experiments in 1862 were simply
+attempts to copy Bessemer's methods. (The possibility is under
+investigation that the so-called "pioneer converter" now on loan to the
+U.S. National Museum from the Bethlehem Steel Company, is the
+converter referred to by Fry.)
+
+      [116] _Engineering_, 1896, vol. 61, p. 615.
+
+William Kelly, in effect, disappeared from the record until 1871 when
+he applied for an extension of his patent of June 23, 1857. The
+application was opposed (by whom, the record does not state) on the
+grounds that the invention was not novel when it was originally issued,
+and that it would be against the public interest to extend its term.
+The Commissioner ruled that,[117] on the first question, it was settled
+practice of the Patent Office not to reconsider former decisions on
+questions of fact; the novelty of Kelly's invention had been
+re-examined when the patent was reissued in November 1857. Testimony
+showed that the patent was very valuable; and that Kelly "had been
+untiring in his efforts to introduce it into use but the opposition of
+iron manufacturers and the amount of capital required prevented him
+from receiving anything from his patent until within very few years
+past." Kelly's expenditures were shown to have amounted to $11,500,
+whereas he had received only $2,400. Since no evidence was filed in
+support of the public interest aspect of the case, the Commissioner
+found no substantial reason for denying the extension; indeed "very few
+patentees are able to present so strong grounds for extension as the
+applicant in the case."
+
+      [117] See U.S. Patent Office, Decision of Commissioner of
+      Patents, dated June 15, 1871.
+
+In a similar application in the previous year, Bessemer had failed to
+win an extension of his U.S. patent 16082, of November 11, 1856, for
+the sole reason that his British patent with which it had been made
+co-terminal had duly expired at the end of its fourteen years of life,
+and it would have been inequitable to give Bessemer protection in the
+United States while British iron-masters were not under similar
+restraint. But if it had not been for this consideration, Bessemer
+"would be justly entitled to what he asks on this occasion." The
+Commissioner[118] observed: "It may be questioned whether [Bessemer]
+was first to discover the principle upon which his process was founded.
+But we owe its reduction to practice to his untiring industry and
+perseverance, his superior skill and science and his great outlay."
+
+      [118] U.S. Patent Office, Decision of Commissioner of Patents
+      dated February 12, 1870.
+
+
+Conclusions
+
+Martien was probably never a serious contender for the honor of
+discovering the atmospheric process of making steel. In the present
+state of the record, it is not an unreasonable assumption that his
+patent was never seriously exploited and that the Ebbw Vale Iron Works
+hoped to use it, in conjunction with the Mushet patents, to upset
+Bessemer's patents.
+
+The position of Mushet is not so clear, and it is hoped that further
+research can eventually throw a clearer light on his relationship with
+the Ebbw Vale Iron Works. It may well be that the "opinion of
+metallurgists in later years"[119] is sound, and that both Mushet and
+Bessemer had successfully worked at the same problem. The study of
+Mushet's letters to the technical press and of the attitude of the
+editors of those papers to Mushet suggests the possibility that he,
+too, was used by Ebbw Vale for the purposes of their attacks on
+Bessemer. Mushet admits that he was not a free agent in respect of
+these patents, and the failure of Ebbw Vale to ensure their full life
+under English patent law indicates clearly enough that by 1859 the firm
+had realized that their position was not strong enough to warrant a
+legal suit for infringement against Bessemer. Their purchase of the
+Uchatius process and their final attempt to develop Martien's ideas
+through the Parry patents, which exposed them to a very real risk of a
+suit by Bessemer, are also indications of the politics in the case.
+Mushet seems to have been a willing enough victim of Ebbw Vale's
+scheming. His letters show an almost presumptuous assumption of the
+mantle of his father; while his sometimes absurd claims to priority of
+invention (and demonstration) of practically every new idea in the
+manufacturing of iron and steel progressively reduced the respect for
+his name. Bessemer claims an impressive array of precedents for the use
+of manganese in steel making and, given his attitude to patents and his
+reliance on professional advice in this respect, he should perhaps, be
+given the benefit of the doubt. A dispassionate judgment would be that
+Bessemer owed more to the development work of his Swedish licensees
+than to Mushet.
+
+      [119] William T. Jeans, _The creators of the age of steel_,
+      London, 1884.
+
+Kelly's right to be adjudged the joint inventor of what is now often
+called the Kelly-Bessemer process is questionable.[120] Admittedly, he
+experimented in the treatment of molten metal with air blasts, but it
+is by no means clear, on the evidence, that he got beyond the
+experimental stage. It is certain that he never had the objective of
+making steel, which was Bessemer's primary aim. Nor is there evidence
+that his process was taken beyond the experimental stage by the Cambria
+Works. The rejection of his "apparatus" by W. F. Durfee must have been
+based, to some extent at least, upon the Johnstown trials. There are
+strong grounds then, for agreeing with one historian[121] who
+concludes:
+
+    The fact that Kelly was an American is evidently the principal
+    reason why certain popular writers have made much of an invention
+    that, had not Bessemer developed his process, would never have
+    attracted notice. Kelly's patent proved very useful to industrial
+    interests in this country as a bargaining weapon in negotiations
+    with the Bessemer group for the exchange of patent rights.
+
+      [120] Bessemer dealt with Kelly's claim to priority in a letter
+      to _Engineering_, 1896, vol. 61, p. 367.
+
+      [121] Louis C. Hunter, "The heavy industries since 1860," in H.
+      F. Williamson (editor), _The growth of the American economy_, New
+      York, 1944, p. 469.
+
+Kelly's suggestion[122] that some British puddlers may have
+communicated his secret to Bessemer can, probably, never be verified.
+All that can be said is that Bessemer was not an ironman; his contacts
+with the iron trade were, so far as can be ascertained, nonexistent
+until he himself invaded Sheffield. So it is unlikely that such a
+secret would have been taken to him, even if he were a well-known
+inventor.
+
+      [122] Later developed into a dramatic story by Boucher, _op.
+      cit._ (footnote 97).
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of Project Gutenberg's The Beginnings of Cheap Steel, by Philip W. Bishop
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BEGINNINGS OF CHEAP STEEL ***
+
+***** This file should be named 29633.txt or 29633.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        https://www.gutenberg.org/2/9/6/3/29633/
+
+Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+https://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+https://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at https://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit https://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
+donations.  To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     https://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.