¹⁶See 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)

¹⁷Dredge, op. cit. (footnote 15), p. 912

¹⁸Bessemer'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."

¹⁹Bessemer, op. cit. (footnote 7), p. 164

²⁰The Times, London, August 14, 1856

²¹David 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)

²²See 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."

²³Mining Journal, 1856, vol. 26, p. 567

²⁴Ibid., 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

²⁵Mining 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

²⁶Ibid., 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)

²⁷One 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

²⁸Mining Journal, 1857, vol. 27, p. 764

²⁹Ibid., p. 764

³⁰Ibid., p.791

³¹Ibid., p. 770 (italics supplied)

³²Ibid., p. 770

³³Ibid., p. 823

³⁴Bessemer, op. cit. (footnote 7), p. 169

³⁵Mining Journal, 1856, vol. 26, p. 631

³⁶James 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)

³⁷Mining Journal, 1857, vol. 27, p. 193

³⁸British patent 2219, September 22, 1856

³⁹Joseph 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

⁴⁰U.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

⁴¹U.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

⁴²J. 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

⁴³Mining Journal, 1856, vol. 26, p. 707

⁴⁴Bessemer, op. cit. (footnote 7), p. 290

⁴⁵The 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

⁴⁶Robert Mushet, The Bessemer-Mushet process, Cheltenham, 1883, p. 24; The Engineer, 1861, vol. 12, pp. 177 and 189

⁴⁷The Engineer, 1862, vol. 14, p. 3. Bessemer, op. cit. (footnote 7), p. 296

⁴⁸Mining Journal, 1864, vol. 34, p. 478

⁴⁹The Engineer, 1861, vol. 12, p. 189

⁵⁰Ibid., p. 78

⁵¹Mushet, op. cit. (footnote 46), p. 9

⁵²Ibid., p. 25

⁵³Mining Journal, 1857, vol. 27, p. 755

⁵⁴Mushet, op. cit. (footnote 46), p. 28. The Uchatius process became the "You-cheat-us" process to Mushet (Mining Journal, 1858, vol. 28, p. 34)

⁵⁵Mining Journal, 1857, vol. 27, p. 755 (italics supplied)

⁵⁶See footnote 22

⁵⁷Mining Journal, 1856, vol. 26, pp. 583, 631

⁵⁸October 17, 1857, writing as "Sideros" (Mining Journal, 1857, vol. 27, p. 723)

⁵⁹Mining Journal, 1857, vol. 27, p. 871, and 1858, vol. 28, p. 12

⁶⁰Ibid. (1858), p. 34

⁶¹Mushet, op. cit. (footnote 46), p. 12. The phrase quoted is typical of Mushet's style

⁶²Bessemer, op. cit. (footnote 7), pp. 161 ff. and 256 ff

⁶³Ibid., p. 171

⁶⁴This 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)

⁶⁵Mining Journal, 1858, vol. 28, p. 696. Mushet commented (p. 713) that he had done the same thing "eighteen months ago."

⁶⁶Swank, op. cit. (footnote 42), p. 405

⁶⁷The Engineer, 1859, vol. 7, p. 350

⁶⁸Mining Journal, 1859, vol. 29, pp. 396 and 401. The price quotation was continued until April 1865

⁶⁹The Engineer, 1859, vol. 7, p. 437

⁷⁰Jeans, 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)

⁷¹The Engineer, 1859, vol. 7, p. 314. Bessemer's intention to present his paper had been announced in April

⁷²Mining 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

⁷³See Jeans, op. cit. (footnote 5), p. 532

⁷⁴The 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."

⁷⁵The Engineer, 1860, vol. 9, pp. 366, 416, and passim

⁷⁶The Engineer, 1861, vol. 11, pp. 189, 202, 290, 304

⁷⁷The Engineer, 1861, vol. 12, p. 10

⁷⁸Ibid., p. 63

⁷⁹Ibid., pp. 78 and 177

⁸⁰Ibid., 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

⁸¹Ibid., p. 254

⁸²U.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)

⁸³See below, p. 45. The exact date of the purchase of Mushet's patent is not known

⁸⁴Engineering, 1882, vol. 33, p. 114. The deal was completed in 1863

⁸⁵The Engineer, 1864, vol. 18, pp. 405, 406

⁸⁶Mining 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

⁸⁷Mining Engineer, 1865, vol. 35, p. 86

⁸⁸The Engineer, 1865, vol. 20, p. 174

⁸⁹Mechanics' Magazine, 1866, vol. 16, p. 147

⁹⁰Bessemer, op. cit. (footnote 7), p. 294

⁹¹Ibid.

⁹²See Fred M. Osborn, The story of the Mushets, London, 1852

⁹³Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, 1876, p. 3

⁹⁴Robert Mushet, The Bessemer-Mushet process, Cheltenham, 1883

⁹⁵Scientific American, 1856, vol. 12, p. 6

⁹⁶U.S. patent 17389, dated May 26, 1857. Martien's U.S. patent was granted as 16690, dated February 24, 1857

⁹⁷Scientific 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

⁹⁸Ibid., 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

⁹⁹Bessemer, op. cit. (footnote 7), p. 144

¹⁰⁰Scientific American, 1857, vol. 12, p. 341

¹⁰¹Boucher, op. cit. (footnote 97)

¹⁰²U.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

¹⁰³Ibid., 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

¹⁰⁴J. 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

¹⁰⁵Economist (London), 1857, vol. 15, pp. 1129, 1209

¹⁰⁶Swank, 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

¹⁰⁷U.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)

¹⁰⁸Scientific American, 1861, new ser., vol. 5, pp. 148-153

¹⁰⁹Ibid., p. 310

¹¹⁰Ibid., p. 343

¹¹¹His 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)

¹¹²W. 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

¹¹³Research 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)

¹¹⁴Swank, op. cit. (footnote 42), p. 409

¹¹⁵Johnstown Daily Democrat, souvenir edition, autumn 1894 (italics supplied). Mr. Fry was at the Cambria Iron Works from 1858 until after 1882

¹¹⁶Engineering, 1896, vol. 61, p. 615

¹¹⁷See U.S. Patent Office, Decision of Commissioner of Patents, dated June 15, 1871

¹¹⁸U.S. Patent Office, Decision of Commissioner of Patents dated February 12, 1870

¹¹⁹William T. Jeans, The creators of the age of steel, London, 1884

¹²⁰Bessemer dealt with Kelly's claim to priority in a letter to Engineering, 1896, vol. 61, p. 367

¹²¹Louis C. Hunter, "The heavy industries since 1860," in H. F. Williamson (editor), The growth of the American economy, New York, 1944, p. 469

¹²²Later developed into a dramatic story by Boucher, op. cit. (footnote 97)