The Thomas A. Edison Papers Digital Edition

Transcription

Letterhead of Eaton & Lewis
<Stamp: RECEIVED
AUG 23 1892
Ans'd______18>
New York  August 22, 1892.
<Edison marginalia: Coster   Didnt DM & Co participate in the spoils I think so  Coffin wants I understand to buy me out in foreign climes  I guess we are all mixed up together & we will sell together  Edison>
Thomas A. Edison, Esq.,
Dear Sir: 
Re Bill of the Waterhouse Law Firm of London, including amount paid by them to the Renshaw Law Firm. Total £47. 18. 6, I beg to submit the following:
(1) In my letter to you of the 12th ult., I suggested that you send me a Bill of Exchange for the above amount drawn to the order of Messrs. Waterhouse, Winterbotham & Harrison. You may remember that this bill was for work done by said law firm in connection with assignments of patents by you under your original agreement of March 1, 1883, with the Marquis of Tweeddale, et al (Edison Indian & Colonial Company). Under date of the 15th ult. Private Secretary Tate wrote in reply to my suggestion as above, and said that you were under the impression that D.M. & Co. and G.P.L. had a contract with you relative to Australia, and that if this were so, they should pay this bill. After thinking the matter over carefully, I have decided not to broach the matter to them until I hear from you after you shall have read this letter.
(2) The only writing between you and the parties above named is a letter from G.P.L. to D.M. & Co., dated March 25th, 1880, stating that an arrangement had been made for D.M. & Co. to have sole control of your inventions in Australia &c., all expenses to be borne by D.M. & Co. and net proceeds to be divided as follows, thirty five per cent to D.M. & Co. (of which G.P.L. was to receive one-third) and sixty five per cent to you, the title to inventions and patents to be assigned to E.P. Fabbri and G.P.L. as Trustees, under trusts similar to England. This letter is all there is. No contracts appear to have been drawn, and nothing further appears to have been done between you and the above parties. Presumably the above arrangement covered your inventions relating to "lighting, heating or motive agent". Whether D.M. & Co. would have any interest in electric railways under this arrangement, is perhaps debatable, and there is no writing to settle it. (3) Under date of October 2nd, 1891, I wrote a letter to Mr. Tate on this general matter, from which I quote as follows: 
"I am told that Messrs. Drexel, Morgan & Company have never paid any of Mr. Edison's expenses touching experiments and patents for these inventions. Consequently, there is some reason to hold that they have lost their rights, and that Mr. Edison can pretty safely go ahead and act on the hypothesis that he alone owns Australia. As a lawyer, I cannot say that he may safely do this; but he, as a business man, may conclude to do it and take his chances".
(4) It would appear from papers in my possession that on March 1, 1833, the Edison Indian & Colonial Company paid you £25,000, in money, plus 5,000 shares of A. Stock and 5,000 of B. Stock. Did any of this go to D.M. & Co. and G.P.L.? If so, the fact that you divided said receipts with them may be deemed to have given vitality and renewed life to the above mentioned letter of March 25, 1880. But if not, have you ever done anything else to recognise the binding effect of said letter of 1880?
(5) You may remember that your above mentioned agreement of March 1, 1883, with the Marquis of Tweeddale, obliged him and his assigns to give you, at your expense, exclusive licenses for railway purposes under the patents which you had assigned pursuant to said agreement. Those licenses have been given. They were prepared so far as your interests were concerned by Messrs Waterhouse, Winterbotham & Harrison. The agreement provided that these licenses were to be given at your expense, and the above mentioned bill from that firm is to cover said expense.
(6) Whether it is best for you to pay this law bill yourself without calling upon D.M. & Co. and G.P.L., or whether it is best for you to now call on them to pay it, and thus revive the old agreement of 1880 and thus acknowledge them as partners in your railway licenses, are questions for you to decide. If you decide to let matters stay as they are, and not to revive just now the question of participation, please send me a bill of exchange made out as above. (7) As you know, I have spent much time of late in going through the question of who now has title to your inventions and patents in different parts of the world. The conclusions which I have reached touching Australia you may like to see. They are found in my report of July 30, 1892, entitled "Edison Patents in Australasia", a copy of which I annex hereto. Messrs Coffin and Fish have a copy of it, and will probably negotiate hereafter to acquire your railway rights in Australia &c. That event would give a cash value to these licenses prepared by the Waterhouse Law Firm, covered by said bill of £47. 18. 6.
Will you kindly let me know at your earliest convenience just what decision you arrive at in this matter, because my firm owes a professional duty of courtesy to the London Solicitors, and should at least do them the favor, in case their bill is not now to be paid, to tell them why.
Very truly yours,
S.B. Eaton