"We trust our readers will not for one moment conceive that our admiration of the Patent Office of the Americans extends to their mode of granting patents either to their own countrymen or to foreigners; or that it will be thought that we look upon their mode of charging English inventors about six times as much as native ones with any other feeling than that of disgust. considering it most unjust, and especially so as we make no difference with regard to American inventors and those of our own country. Neither have we failed to notice the late proceedings of the American Patent Office in relation to Mr. Bessemer's patent. We have no hesitation in saying that the annulling of a patent once granted, or the refusal to grant a patent, upon the ground that some person in some remote age made experiments involving the principles contained in the patent granted or applied for, is adopting a most dangerous and unjust principle, and one which cannot fail to be productive of the most baneful consequences. There is one gratifying circumstance attending this annulling of Mr. Bessemer's patent, which is this, that the American press seems ashamed of it, for it has stated its conviction of the necessity for reform in this respect, and that a certain time only should be allowed to elapse after a discovery or invention has been made, during which the discoverer or inventor should obtain a patent or else lose the right of doing so, and that if he eventually gives up the idea of applying for a patent, his experiment being made should be no bar to another person, native or foreigner, obtaining a patent for the same thing, provided it be a bona fide invention. There can be no doubt that this is a just view of this case, and we are very glad to find that if American inventors are ignorant of what is right, they cannot plead ignorance in the future. In another column will be found the remarks of our scientific cotemporary upon this subject, and we trust that they will not be the only ones made in Mr. Bessemer's behalf. We should very much like to know the exact meaning of an original or first inventor, or how it is possible to ascertain whether an inventor is an original one or not; further, we should like to know whether there are any cases on record of an American inventor having obtained a patent, and of his patent having been annulled by the discovery that drawings of his invention were made by somebody else eight years before. We would almost undertake to say that the American Commissioner of Patents could point to no such case. We are not disposed to be too harsh, nor do we wish uncharitably to interpret the decision of the American Commissioner of Patents, inasmuch as it would appear clearly to be American law that one patentee can supersede another, if he can succeed in fishing up a few old drawings, and getting a few persons to swear that what was just patented was nothing more than what their friend did eight years before. It is stated in this case that Mr. Kelly's testimony appears to be reliable in every respect, and for the sake of American inventors we hope it is; but we cannot help condemning, in the strongest terms, the principle upon which Mr. Bessemer's patent has been annulled. We think it would be well for those who have the interest of American inventors in their keeping, to show what precedents there exist of patents being annulled after the lapse of so long a time; otherwise we much fear that, on this side of the Atlantic, many will suspect that the case in point is the first of its kind. For our own part we sincerely hope it is not."

"One of the most beautiful, substantial and appropriate structures in the world is the Patent Office, as it is called, in this city. We do not like its designation, which belittles the building and deceives every man who reads of it. The Patent Office! of course it is some public building, suitable for the deposit of models and the record of great and little inventions. Suppose we call it the Department of the Interior -- that greatest of all departments in this great country, which is to be enlarged until its records shall embrace a history of the products, the genius, the skill, the science, the learning, the overshadowing magnitude of the nation.

The Department of the Interior, then, is enclosed in one of the most unique and substantial public edifices in this or any other country. We do not care to speak of its cost; it doubtless cost enough, and too much, unless at some future day it shall be made to cost more by the extension of the space around it. No private individual would ever risk his name and fame upon the construction and grounds of the Department of the Interior. It is constructed like a store on Broadway or Chestnut street, on just ground enough for its foundations. You come upon it suddenly, and look almost heavenward to see the finest building in America. It is cramped in between dwelling houses, stores, stables, groceries, and liquor shops, encouraged a little at a single point, just across the street, by the magnificent Post Office Department.

Is it not possible even to rescue that noble structure from the Vandalism of its surroundings? Is it beyond the line of our economy to clear away the rubbish of two or three of its fronts, and to exhibit the Interior Department as it is to the admiring beholder.

"The building has the right name now, and it should not be changed; especially as inventive genius, patentees, and inventors have contributed largely towards its erection. The Patent Office is nearly a self-sustaining institution, and it would be quite so if Congress would only modify the law, as at present required. Its name, at least, should stand the same as long as the arts, sciences and agriculture flourish, or American liberty stands, as there is no department of the government of half the importance to the people at large as is the Patent Office and the Patent Office Reports. To this every Member of Congress can attest, by the great demand for the Reports by their constituents.

As to the Interior Department, of which the writer referred to speaks so highly, there is no one who disagrees with him. It is a department of great utility to the country, and no one should wish to rob it of an iota of its great power and good influence, especially under the able, judicious, and honest management of its present chief. But a building for this great department, it is believed, should be erected separate from the Patent Office -- one that would amply accommodate its numerous bureaus, and one equal in every respect to the magnitude of its business."

"The Union seems to regard the name of 'Patent Office' as too insignificant to be applied to so noble a structure. On the contrary, we think the name suggestive of the grant, lofty, and ennobling; and that no building can rise, even in imagination, as too splendid to enshrine the model machinery of inventors -- true benefactors of mankind. The press on which it prints its ideas of the insignificant 'Patent Office' should teach it to be grateful to the genius that gives it the facilities it possesses -- the rollers that ink its type, the type itself, its news by telegraph, the gas that turns night into day in its office, in fact, almost everything it enjoys should admonish it to look with admiration and even awe on the god-like production of genius.

Inventors, as a portion of the productive utilitarian classes, are the true nobility of our land. By them, and for them, governments are instituted. The name 'Patent Office' indeed adds dignity to the building, because it suggests and embodies the power and might of American genius, progress and sovereignty. It is in a Patent Office that the American people can best be seen and appreciated, for there is embodied much indeed of their mind -- of that which distinguishes them from all other nations."