Daily National Intelligencer

From the Virginia Herald.

It seems by a publication in your paper of the 3d inst. I am called before the bar of the public by a certain Gillespie; who seeks to invalidate, by his strictures, a contract entered into between us, under the idea that his deliberate admissions and certificate in writing, that I had made improvements on his mode of distilling, was no proof of the fact. Now, although I could honorably decline the challenge of a man who gives notice that he fights with poisoned weapons, yet in self-defence I am induced to make a short statement of facts: promising you and the public, never again to trouble you in this way, whatever course Gillespie may take.

In the year 1810, Gillespie procured a patent for what he called a perpetual still, which, if he had invented it, would have entitled him to the credit of introducing a new principle in distillation: but unfortunately for this gasconading gentleman, the very same principle, and under the same form, was in use by a Col. Anderson of Pennsylvania, as far back as 1798, of which I have ample proof.—In August, 1813, I saw in the hands of Mr. Benjamin Roberts, a model of a still which he stated was patented to Gillespie. The examination of this model, without any suggestion from Mr. Roberts, as stated by Gillespie, introduced a train of reflections, which ended in the invention of the mode of distilling for which I afterwards obtained a patent; in which not only the form of the still, but the apparatus, and even the principle of distillation are wholly different from the specifications of Gillespie's patent, and the model in the hands of Mr. Roberts.

Surely I cannot be deprived of the benefit of this invention, because I had before seen and studied other and various modes of distilling, any more than the invention of spinning machines can be questioned, because the world was previously acquainted with the effects of the various mechanical powers which are combined in the machine. Afterwards, hearing it said my still was copied from Gillespie's, I procured a copy of his specification, and submitted it with mine in March 1814, to a gentleman of the bar, whose judgment cannot be questioned, and many of the most intelligent practical distillers. An extract from the opinions of the first, and the certificates of the last, follows:

"I have examined a model of Mr. James Wheatley's patent still, and compared it with an authenticated copy of R. Gillespie's specification of a perpetual still, and do not hesitate in saying, that no two inventions in the same art can possibly be more completely distinct and unconnected. I advise Mr. Wheatley to submit to some of the most intelligent practical distillers of his acquaintance the model of his still with Gillespie's specification, and get their certificates explaining the essential difference between them: and although litigation should be avoided as much as possible, yet if any one should persist in using his still without his license, Mr. Wheatley, in justice to himself should not hesitate to sue for damages."

JOHN W. GREEN.

5th March, 1814.

Culpeper Courthouse, 22d March, 1814.

We the subscribers, having been long experienced practical distillers, at the request of Mr. Wheatley to examine R. Gillespie's specification of his perpetual still, and to compare that with his patent still, which we have done, and think the principles upon which the two stills work entirely different and distinct. We have attended to a written comparison by John W. Green, Esq. of Fredericksburg, of the two kinds of stills, and think that comparison correctly made.

James Green,

Moses Gibson,

Zach. Shurley.

March 29th, 1814.

We concur in opinion with the above gentlemen, in every respect, relative to the stills above mentioned.

Nimrod Farrow,

Robert Green.

I also subjoin an extract of a letter from Dr. Thornton, superintendent of the patent office, dated 11th Feb. 1814—“Mr. Wheatley may claim his own peculiar mode of stills; and when Anderson's patent expires, which will be on the 26th February, 1815, he may also claim his own peculiar mode of heating beer, as an improvement on Anderson.—If, after this, there can be any doubt upon the subject, there is one infallible mode of settling all questions. I invite Mr. Gillespie to deposite at the office of the Virginia Herald the same identical model which I saw in Mr. Roberts's possession; where I will also deposit a model of my still—where all who have doubts upon this subject may satisfy themselves by ocular demonstration."

It may be asked why, under these circumstances, I made any contract with Gillespie? I answer—to avoid litigation, and to get clear of a man whose temper and principles threatened a most disagreeable sort of controversy, which he has even now commenced; and because, what I gave up, although it might be of service to him, was of no moment to me, as the states which I yielded to him were such as I never expected to visit. I have proofs as to the hint I have given of his character and disposition. But I will not enlarge upon that subject; only wishing to remind him of the old proverb "he that lives in a glass house, ought not to throw stones."

JAMES WHEATLEY.

May 12-3t