Letters patent were issued to Harvey Hubbell for seven inventions, five to Donald Noble, four each to Charles W. Abercrombie and David B. Crockett (trade-marks), four other individuals or firms three each, twelve others two each and the remaining sixty-seven one each. Applying the same rule to New Haven brings the result that seventy-one persons or firms were interested in the 106 inventions granted to its citizens. Wilson E. Porter is credited with ten, George H. Rhynedance seven (designs), Thomas C. Johnson and Caspar Mettler, five each, Frank P. Pfleghar four, three other persons three each, five others two each, the remaining fifty-eight one each. In the eighty-four inventions granted to citizens of New Britain, fifty-three corporations, firms or individuals were shown to be interested, there being two in which one or more persons were concerned. Of this number Henry G. Voight, Justus A. Traut and Ethelbert A. Moore were credited with five each, six other persons three each, nine others two each and the remaining thirty-five one each. The figures for Waterbury show that forty-one persons or firms were interested in the fifty-one inventions granted to citizens of that town. Theophilus R. Hyde, Jr., is credited with three patents, American Ring Company three (trademarks), eight other persons two each, and one invention is credited to each of the remaining thirty-one. To citizens of Meriden there were granted registrations for thirty-eight inventions, in which twenty-nine corporations, firms or individuals were interested. In one instance two individuals were concerned in the same invention. Letters patent were granted to Almeron M. Lane for four inventions, to Edmund A. Parker for three, George E. Savage three (designs), three other persons two each and the remaining twenty-three one each. In Middletown there were thirteen firms, corporations or individuals concerned in the thirty-six inventions shown. Of these Isaac E. Palmer is credited with fifteen patents and five trade-marks, William C. Fisher and Henry A. Bates three patents each and the remaining ten one invention each. Eighteen separate persons or firms were concerned in the twenty-seven inventions credited to the town of Stamford, in one of which two persons were interested. Six patents were granted to Albert H. Emery, to George W. Pierce, William F. Ellis, James R. Fletcher and George A. Weber two each and to the remaining thirteen one each. To residents of Bristol there were issued letters patent for sixteen patents, three designs and one trade-mark, thirteen separate individuals or firms being concerned. Letters were issued to Thomas B. Stephenson for one patent and three designs, to James H. Jones, Charles H. Terry, James W. Moshier and Percy L. Clark for two patents each while the remaining eight are credited with one invention each. In Wallingford eleven individuals were concerned in the eight patents and twelve designs invented by its citizens. Letters were issued to Ezra L. Post for four patents, four designs were registered in the name of Henrik Hillborn. Henry L. Wallace took out registration for three designs, George A. Glahn for two and the remaining seven persons are credited with one invention each. Fourteen patents were issued to citizens of the town of Windham, eight persons being concerned. Of these Robert Binns is credited with five, William Vanderman three and the remaining six had one patent each issued in their names. The twelve patents granted to residents of the town of Derby were issued to nine separate individuals. Four patents were issued to Jerome B. Secor and one invention to each of the remaining eight persons. Nine patents were issued to and one design registered by citizens of Southington, nine persons being concerned. William S. Thompson is credited with two patents and the remaining eight persons with one invention each. There were letters issued for three patents and seven designs to citizens of the town of Huntington. George H. Berry is credited with the seven designs and three other persons with one patent each. The remainder of the sixty-six towns in which citizens had been granted letters patent for inventions, showing a lesser number than ten, it was not deemed wise to include them in this analysis. To summarize, assuming that Connecticut holds first place in 1905, in ratio of population to each patent issued, it is found that during the thirty years 1876-1905 inclusive, the state has maintained its supremacy in respect of the inventive genius of its citizens among the aggregation of states and territories for twenty-four of the thirty years, comparisons with which are made in this chapter. Moreover, it should be added that in each of the six years when first place as to ratio of population to patents issued was taken from Connecticut, its place was second. In 1876 and 1878 the District of Columbia supplanted Connecticut and took first place, in 1879 Massachusetts assumed the leading position, in 1881 Kansas took first place, from 1882 to 1890 inclusive, Connecticut was first in the comparison but in 1900 and again in 1902 the District of Columbia wrested the honor and, as before stated, at no time during the thirty-year period considered was Connecticut's position lower than second in comparison with all the states and territories, as regards patents issued to its citizens with the ratio of population to each patent granted. Civic Federation, The National. (See immigration.) Connecticut Citizens, Inventions by. (See inventions.) Connecticut Labor Laws. (Following blue insert leaf.) Contents 3 Directory of Labor Organizations. (See Labor Organizations in Employment Bureaus. (See Free Public Employment Bureaus.) Factory Construction. (See New Construction.) Free Public Employment Bureaus. Benefits of .... Bridgeport Bureau, report of 197 201 |