Newspaper cuttings from The Iron County register, 1900-1920. The following are undated and unsorted. At the end of the page are Otto's letters to the Iron County Register, and responses.
-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-
During the First World War years, Otto wrote several letters to the local newspaper. These are included below, as they were considered rather too ponderous for the biography page. Decide for yourself. This first was just after the outbreak of war in Europe, in August, 1914.
The Foreign War.
Why these editors (and, perhaps, many of their readers) would rather side with the medieval governmeet of the Russian knout, and the murderers of Belgrade and Serajewo, both Slav races, against enlightened Germany and Austria, both of their own Teutonic stock, is almost incomprehensible.
Now as to the real and immediate causes of this war, there are three main ones. And human greed underlying them all.
"Made in Germany." This is the hated term that arraigns perfidious Albion on the side of Russia and France. Germany's progress in the industries has been so rapid under the fostering care of William, the Second, that England is alarmed for the future. Her navy, too, is a thorn for her British neighbors. Therefore, Germany must be downed before it is too late.
The second main cause is what is known as "The Testament of Peter the Great." This is, in short, the policy of Russia to acquire Constantinople, in order to give Russia a harbor that is open the year round. If you look at the map of Russia you see the only practical harbor for Russia's fleet is at Kronstadt and, perhaps, Riga. But both are for several months in the year closed by ice. The harbor of Archangel is in the northern On and still less available. But give Russia Constantinople and Europe would have to tremble before the Cossack. All European statesmen for two hundred years have opposed Russia in this desire. Napoleon, when he was offered Russia's assistance at the price of Constantinople, said, "What, give you the key to the world? Never!"
England and France combined in 1852-55 to thwart Russia's object, and in the Crimean war at Sebastapol sacrificed 75,000 lives to 90,000 Russians to keep the Dardanelles Turkish. England, in her greed, and France for revenge for 1870, seem to have forgotten the real intention of Russia in joining the Triple Entente.
The third cause also may be said to date back more than two hundred years. In 1681, Louis, XIV., while France was at peace with Germany, marched in and took forcible possession of Alsace and Lorraine, two German provinces. Germany was then at war, fighting the invading Turks in what is now Servia and Hungary. As the house of Hapsburg was then unable to defend its territories in western Germany, Louis simply kept it. When Napoleon III. sought "Revenge for Sadowa," in the year 1870, and wantonly attacked the North German Federation, the German people, with one accord, cried: "Now, we want Alsace and Lorraine back." And mind, during all those two hundred years the people in these provinces had kept their German speech; the newspapers, even, were printed in both the German and French languages.
It is now forty-three years since Bismarck re-annexed the two prov-inces to Germany. Count Moltke then said that in fifty years the Germans would have to fight for them again. Well, here they are at it, even seven years sooner.
The outcome of this war is impossible to tell; its cost will impoverish all Europe. But those who think that Emperor William has not the support of every living German heart are badly mistaken. This war will decide whether Europe is going to be Cossack, one of the alternatives Napoleon I predicted, or whether the Germanic races, which include those "Britishers," shall have the ascendancy in Europe. With my wishes for German success,
Yours, respectfully, OTTO LUEDDECKE. Pilot Knob, Mo., Aug. 10, 1914.
[It is left to the reader to interpret Otto's views.]
Otto wrote a long letter on 3rd March 1917 speaking out strongly against Bismarck which appeared in the Iron County Register, on 8th March 1917.
From Mr. Lueddecke.
Dear Mr. Ake [R. D. Ake was the editor] - I wish to say regarding your repeated very bad remarks, concerning the "Kaiser" that you would certainly never have made them, if you knew this man as I know him, or as he is known all over Germany.
As for myself I DESPISE him, and always did so, on account of his over-zeal in religious matters, for under his reign the so called "New Course" began, of which Prof. Ernest Haekel the great German Naturalist, when he left the church says:
"With the deepest regret It must be confessed that this reaction has found its strongest support in the much bewondered person of our highly gifted Emperor, William II., who, since the beginning of his reign, has placed himself in opposition to the so-called "Old Course" of his Grandfather William I."
I grew up under the "Old Course" in Germany, when Bismark was the man of the day, a man who never bowed to church authority, Buchner, Haeckel, Virchow and many other Germans led Germany to an era of freedom in spiritual matters, in fact dogmas were lousing their hold on the German mind. But with the ascension of this present Emperor all was reversed, and the hypocrites are gaining power again more and more. That's what I hate him for. But to his honor I must admit that he has made Germany rich, after Bismark and the great William I. had united it and made it great.
Will send you a small book by Ernest Haeckel, in which you can find page 30 and 31 more of Haeckel's objections to Willy.
Very truly, yours, Otto Lueddecke. Pilot Knob, Mo., March 3, 1917.
4th June, 1917, Otto was on the front page of the the Iron County Register, column one.
James A. Finch, Jr., of Cape Girardeau, Mo. (James A. Finch, of Cape Girardeau, Mo., and Floyd E. Jacobs, M. J. Henderson, and Thomas E. Deacy, all of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellant.
David A. Murphy, of Kansas City, Mo. (John T. Harding and R. Carter Tucker, both of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellees.
Before GARDNER and WOODROUGH, Circuit Judges, and MARTINEAU, District Judge.
WOODROUGH, Circuit Judge.
Mr. H. W. Lueddecke brought this action at law, as plaintiff, against Chevrolet Motor Company and other corporations (all referred to herein as companies), as defendants, to recover on an alleged implied contract on the part of the defendant companies to pay plaintiff the reasonable value of an idea and suggestion which he alleges he furnished to them. Demurrers were interposed to the petition and were sustained Plaintiff having declined to plead further, the case was dismissed, and the plaintiff appeals.
The petition alleges that the plaintiff sent the following letter to the companies:
"Dear Sirs: As the proud owner of a Chevrolet Sedan, and also with the knowledge of a man who knows automobiles, I am asking you a few questions and then making you a proposition.
"Do you know that a very serious error has been made in the general location of several of the individual units or mechanisms of the Chevrolet car? Do you also know that within another year or so this very error (unless corrected) will reduce Chevrolet sales by possibly a million or even several million dollars? And again, while I, as well as many others, have had and will still have this error of your designers overcome at considerable expense, it will within a short space of time possibly cause some other low-priced car to become more popular than the Chevrolet.
"While many car owners have gone to the trouble of correcting this defect, I have found neither an owner nor a mechanic who was able to discover the cause of the defect. And. unless corrected, the defect will mean considerable annual expense to the owner of the car, for which there is really no excuse at all.
"The cost of overcoming this defect in a car should not be over 20¢ to 30¢ to you as you build the car if you take the easiest and shortest way out of the difficulty. To the owner who has purchased his car the cost will vary from $3.00 to $7.00 depending on where he lives, in city or country.
"The best way out of the difficulty, however, would necessitate a change of design as suggested above, and that can be done without great expense or without sacrificing the essential features of the design of the car.
"Now, I shall not ask you for a one-eighth royalty on $500,000 or $1,000,000 of sales, but I would like to have you make me an offer stating what such information would be worth to you or how much you could offer and would pay for the same. Upon receipt *346 of your reply, if your offer is satisfactory, I will give you complete information of the above mentioned changes for the Chevrolet car.
"An early reply will be appreciated. "Yours truly,"
That reply was made as follows:
"Dear Sir: Your letter of June 27, to the Chevrolet Motor Company, regarding your suggestion to change the design of Chevrolet cars, has been forwarded to the New Devices Committee for attention.
"We have this Committee in General Motors, composed of some of our most important executives and engineers, to review all new inventions submitted direct to the Corporation or through any of its divisions or executives.
"It is against the policy of the Corporation to make any agreement for inventions until we know exactly what they are and have sufficient information to place them before the New Devices Committee for consideration.
"If you care to send us drawings and a description of your ideas, the Committee will be very glad to examine them and let you know whether or not General Motors is interested.
"We always insist, however, that everything submitted to us be protected in some way and would suggest, if you have not applied for patents, that you establish legal evidence of ownership and priority of your idea by having your original drawing signed, dated and witnessed by two or more competent persons or notarized.
"We assure you that, if we find the design of sufficient interest to warrant further investigation, some mutually satisfactory agreement will be made.
"Yours very truly, "New Devices Committee."
That plaintiff then answered:
"Dear Sirs: I have Mr. T. O. Richards' reply (dated July 15th) to my letter of June 27th. Referring to my previous letter you will find that I said that your designers of the Chevrolet car had made a very serious blunder in the location of several of the individual units of the car. I also stated that many car owners have gone to the trouble of correcting the defect, either temporarily or permanently, at considerable expense to themselves. But I have never found either a mechanic or a car owner who knew the cause of the trouble drivers were having with their cars. Because of this fact I thought it expedient and profitable to take the matter up directly with your company.
"Now the matter that I have to present is this: You will find that the body of all Chevrolet cars that have been driven 200 miles or more is from one inch to three inches lower on the left side of the driver than on his right side. Because of this the left rear fender especially, in driving over fairly rough or wavy streets or in rounding corners to the right, will quite often strike against the tires. This has been the cause of tearing up tires or of suddenly slowing down the car thereby making accidents likely. The experience is also annoying to the driver and occupants of the car.
"Many drivers seem to think that the springs on the left side were naturally weak and not so good; others seem to think that they struck a bad place in the road and that the springs lost their elasticity as a result. But the fact of the case is that the car is not properly balanced right side against left side. On the left side you have the steering mechanism, the starter, the generator, and the storage battery. This, together with a one hundred fifty pound (150#) driver, when one drives by himself, throws approximately three hundred pounds (300#) more weight on the left side than on the right side of the car.
"After I had driven my car about 2,800 miles the body was exactly two and three-quarters inches lower on the left side than on the right side. In order to level the body of the car I had an extra spring leaf put into both the front and rear springs on the left side, and that straightened the body up perfectly. My plan is that you either put in this extra spring leaf in both front and rear springs on the left side of the car when you build the car, or else you should change the location of some of the individual units shifting those units which could be most conveniently moved to the right side of the car or motor. It is my idea that the battery should be moved from the left side to the right side. This would take about fifty pounds from the heavy side and add it to the light side. Then either or both the starter and generator should be moved to the right side of the motor they would just about balance the weight of the steering unit and the usual excess weight of the driver over his front seat mate.
"The facts given above cannot be denied, and the remedy is simple and clear. I hope you will find them of profit to your firm. I *347 would appreciate a reply at your earliest convenience.
"Respectfully submitted."
To which the New Devices Committee replied:
"Dear Sir: This will acknowledge your letter of July 22 regarding a system for balancing the weight of cars.
"The Committee, at its last meeting, thoroly discussed your suggestion but decided, unfortunately, that it would not be advisable to redesign our springs in this manner at the present time. We cannot therefore, see our way clear to go into the matter with you further.
"We appreciate your interest in General Motors and regret that we cannot reply to you more favorably.
"Yours very truly, "New Devices Committee."
It is then alleged in the petition that the plaintiff, by and through these letters, did sell and convey to the defendants ideas as to how to balance a Chevrolet car so that the fenders would not strike the wheels, and more particularly to balance the car so that the weight would be more evenly divided on both sides, and that he forwarded his ideas in the form that defendants had requested, and that thereafter the defendants had put into force and effect the ideas so submitted by the plaintiff, or a portion thereof, and that the defendants had, since the plaintiff's ideas were presented to them, used the same or substantial portions thereof on all Chevrolet motorcars manufactured by the defendants, and by the defendants' request that the plaintiff forward his ideas to them, and by using the same, or portions thereof, there was an implied contract on the part of the defendants to pay to the plaintiff the reasonable value of said ideas, which said reasonable value it is alleged was $2,500,000.
We are of the opinion that the demurrers were properly sustained by the trial court. In the first place we are not persuaded that the idea communicated in the letters of the plaintiff was a novel and useful idea in which plaintiff could successfully assert a property right. In the second place, the correspondence and alleged conduct of the companies controvert the claim that there was a promise to pay plaintiff for the ideas or suggestions which he transmitted, and there are no circumstances presented from which the law implies such a promise.
It appears from plaintiff's first letter to the companies that it was then known to many others besides the plaintiff that there was a defect in the Chevrolet car as it was being manufactured and sold. Plaintiff did not claim to be the discoverer of this defect in the car. He says: "I, as well as many others, have had and will still have this error of your designers overcome at considerable expense." "Many car owners have gone to the trouble of correcting this defect." The plaintiff's second letter discloses that the defect he had in mind was that the body of the car was not held suspended in balance by the springs with sufficient strength to maintain a constant equilibrium, but that when the car was used the body would sag down on the left side. The remedy availed of by himself and others was to reinforce the springs on the side where the body sagged. This much of the idea being generally known and common property, the only other idea which the plaintiff conveyed to the defendants is in the suggestion that the defendants relocate some of the individual units contained in the body of the car with reference to the center of gravity of the car, "Shift those units which could be most conveniently moved to the right side of the car or motor." Plaintiff says: "It is my idea that the battery should be moved from the left side to the right side. This would take about fifty pounds from the heavy side and add it to the light side. Then either or both the starter and generator should be moved to the right side of the motor they would just about balance the weight of the steering unit and the usual excess weight of the driver over his front seat mate."
From these statements it is apparent that the plaintiff did not claim to know just what shifting of individual units from one side of the car to the other would be necessary or practicable to effect the proper balance of the car in use. He recognizes cases when "one is driving by himself and thereby puts the weight of his body on one side of the car." He reflects the thought that there is a "usual excess weight of the driver over his front seat mate." In other words, that, when several passengers are riding in a car, the weight may not bear evenly on both sides of the center of gravity of the body of the vehicle. Plaintiff's suggestion really was that the companies should make experiments in redisposing some of the readily movable units mounted on the car body and in shifting them from the left to the right side of the car until a balance was effected which would turn out to be enduring in use. The plaintiff said, in effect: It is known that your car body sags *348 lopsidedly to the left when it is being used. I suggest that you try shifting the units which can be most conveniently moved until you get a better balance.
Plaintiff did not say that he had made any such experiments himself or that he knew through experiments what the effect of the suggested shifting of units would be upon a car when the car was used. Plaintiff alleges that what the companies did after they got this letter was to shift the battery from the left side to the right side of the car and also other equipment as set out in the letter "or a portion thereof." That is, the defendants, knowing as others knew that the body of their car when the car was used sagged lopsidedly to the left, transposed fifty pounds of batteries to the opposite side and such other movable equipment as they found from experiment (or engineering calculations) sufficed to produce a more effective balance of the car body when the car was in use. The matter would be no clearer or simpler if we had to do with spring wagons or buggies rather than Chevrolet automobiles. The springs of either vehicle have to be strong enough to offset some uneven disposal of weights on the body. The mere idea of experimenting with the disposal of the weights was not novel and useful, and plaintiff had no property right therein. Soule v. Bon Ami Co., 201 App. Div. 794, 195 N.Y.S. 574.
In Masline v. New York, etc., R. Co., 95 Conn. 702, 112 A. 639, 641, the court stated: "An idea may undoubtedly be protected by contract. Haskins v. Ryan, 75 N. J. Eq. 332, 78 A. 566. But it must be the plaintiff's idea. Upon communication to the defendant it at once did appear that the idea was not original with the plaintiff, but was a matter of common knowledge, well known to the world at large. He had thought of nothing new, and had therefore no property right to protect which would make his idea a basis of consideration for anything. His valuable information was a mere idea, worthless so far as suggesting anything new was concerned, known to every one, to the use of which the defendant had an equal right with himself."
In the second place, the letter of the New Devices Committee of the companies to the plaintiff contains no promise to pay for any mere suggestion or idea which the plaintiff might choose to send them. They said it was against the policy of the companies to make any agreement for inventions until they knew exactly what they were. They suggested that plaintiff establish legal evidence of his ownership of his ideas by having his original drawing notarized. In the first letter plaintiff said: "I, as well as many others, have had and will still have this error of your designers overcome at considerable expense." "The best way out of the difficulty would necessitate a change of design." And, therefore, the committee suggested that plaintiff send drawings and a description of his ideas, and that he establish legal evidence of ownership and priority of his ideas by having his original drawing signed or notarized, and that, if they found the design of sufficient interest to warrant further investigation, some mutually satisfactory agreement would be made.
The clear implication is that the companies did not make any agreement to pay for merely pointing out some defect in the Chevrolet car or for any mere suggestion that they perfect the car by experimentation or improvement of their own working out, but if the plaintiff should submit a design with drawings and descriptions of his ideas, then, if the design was of sufficient interest to warrant investigation, an agreement would be made. As the plaintiff did not submit any "design" or "drawings and description of his ideas" or bring himself within the committee's proposal or offer, he cannot successfully claim a contract, even if he had an idea in which he had a property right and which he could make a subject of barter and sale. The correspondence shows that the minds of the parties never met on any proposed sale of plaintiff's ideas. The law will not imply a promise on the part of any person against his own express declaration. Municipal Waterworks Co. v. City of Ft. Smith (D. C.) 216 F. 431; Landon v. Kansas City Gas Co., 300 F. 351 (D. C.); Boston Ice Co. v. Potter, 123 Mass. 28, 25 Am. Rep. 9; Earle v. Coburn, 130 Mass. 596. In the latter case it is stated: "As the law will not imply a promise, where there was an express promise, so the law will not imply a promise of any person against his own express declaration; because such declaration is repugnant to any implication of a promise."
If, in fact, the defendants did derive benefit from the plaintiff's ideas that the units on their Chevrolet car should be shifted, and if their subsequent redisposal of some of the units to the other side of the car body was in any wise inspired by the plaintiff's idea, nevertheless, they are not indebted to the plaintiff, because they did not offer to make any agreement to pay for such mere suggestion as the plaintiff made, and their correspondence did not invite such a suggestion. *349 When plaintiff voluntarily divulged his mere idea and suggestion, whatever interest he had in it became common property, and, as such, was available to the defendants. Moore v. Ford Motor Co. (D. C.) 28 F.(2d) 529, affirmed (C. C. A.) 43 F.(2d) 685, 686; Larkin v. Penn. R. Co., 125 Misc. 238, 210 N.Y.S. 374; Bristol v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 132 N.Y. 264, 30 N.E. 506, 507, 28 Am. St. Rep. 568; Haskins v. Ryan, 71 N. J. Eq. 575, 64 A. 436; Id., 75 N. J. Eq. 330, 78 A. 566; Peabody v. Norfolk, 98 Mass. 452, 96 Am. Dec. 664; International News Service v. Assoc. Press, 248 U.S. 255, 39 S. Ct. 68, 63 L. Ed. 211, 2 A. L. R. 293; Hamilton Mfg. Co. v. Tubbs Mfg. Co. (D. C.) 216 F. 401, 404. In Bristol v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., supra, the court stated: "Without denying that there may be property in an idea or trade secret or system, it is obvious that its originator or proprietor must himself protect it from escape or disclosure. If it cannot be sold or negotiated or used without a disclosure, it would seem proper that some contract should guard or regulate the disclosure; otherwise, it must follow the law of ideas, and become the acquisition of whoever receives it."
The judgment is affirmed.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/70/345/1492061/
Editor Register - have always been wondering what Captain von Papen, the former military attache of Germany in Washington, meant when he wrote to his wife "these idiotic Americans," but since I saw what purports to be a poem, entitled "Kaiser Wilhelm and Fieldmarshal von Hindenburg," I believe I have found the clue to his remark. May our country be delivered of authors of this kind. I should say, wherever the Stars and Stripes are floating our sacred emblems of Freedom and Justice, there people should also be free from, injustice, falsehood; hatred and vituperation. We may not be able to "love our enemies," but as gentlemen we can afford to be fair to them.
In your editorial, addressed to the Potosi Journal, you use the following: "Germany hates us as a free people, and has hated us ever since she has been Prussianized. Her hatred was shown in Manila Bay when Dewey fought the Spanish fleet there. The Imperial cad, Prince Henri, in command of a German cruiser, wanted to interfere, but desisted when Dewey told him to keep out of his way or he would blow him out. An English war ship was there, too, and its Captain counseled the Prince to abstain."
We, as Americans enjoy self-glorification, and these words I just quoted from last week's REGISTER sound very inspiring to us. In fact, they make my heart beat faster; the only trouble about the whole business is there is not a word true about it. In the first place, "Imperial Cad, Henri," was not in charge of that "German cruiser." in Manila Bay, but Contre-Admiral von Ditrichs was the commander. Prince Henri never in his life was in Manila. And in the second place, the story about any German interference on that memorable first of May in Manila Bay was only a lie, made up and sent out over the wires by that very English warship (I am not prepared to say whether Captain or who) that was there. Our great and venerated Admiral made the mistake of his life when he failed to promptly contradict this charge, and it was not until he was called before the Congress to explain, when he was forced to admit of its falsehood, and then stated that the German commander had in no way interfered with operations, but acted perfectly correct.
Besides, Mr. Dewey would have known better than to try "to blow him out," for the simple reason that he actually had barely enough ammunition to handle that decrepit Spanish fleet. Who did not smile at the dispatches telling how Admiral Dewey broke off the fight and retired some distance, "to let his crews have coffee and lunch"? and then resumed the fight. Think of a commander stopping a battle for life to let his men lunch. No,tho facts are that from the magazines the warning had come that the ammunition stores were running low. There had not been any perceptible impression made on the Spanish, and the possibility of instead of being the hunter Dewey's fleet might become the bunted," as one of the Admiral's captains afterwards put it, stared him in the face. So he retired from the light to have stock taken of all the ammunition that was left, and he severely censured his gunners for not hitting any better. The gunners, however, had done better work than had been so far detected; for presently, or soon after, fire broke out on several Spanish ships, and, resuming the fight, Dewey completed his victory.
But, unfortunately, this British lie has passed into history and is apt to create hatred toward Germany for a long time to come. But that belongs to British diplomacy, to create enmity amongst her competitors. And, though that was nineteen years ago, see how well they are repaid for it now - at the rate of $500,000,000 a month.
Yours, for peace and good will to all, Otto Lueddecke.
Pilot Knob, Mo., June 4 1917.
[The battle of Manila Bay on May 1, 1898, during the Spanish-American War remains one of the most significant naval battles in American maritime history. Further discussion of it, and Admiral of the Navy George Dewey is not included here.]
14th June, 1917,
28th June, 1917, Dr Patton answers:
DR. PATTON ANSWERS.
CAPE GIRARDEAU, MO.,Jine 18, 1917
Editor Register - Your paper Of issue June 14th, contained an article from Mr. Otto Lueddecke, of Pilot Knob, Missouri, and from what he had to say in defense of the Kaiser, it is natural to believe that your correspondent looks upon Captain von Papen as one of the Apostles, and upon the Emperor as God.
If Mr. Leuddeeke were a bona fide American, he would condemn rather than approve the insulting reference to the American people made by Dynamiter von Papen.
What von Papen did as a German official in Washington is a part of the propaganda which has caused the civilized world to look upon the Kaiser and his band as outlaws and as a menace to the world.
By inference Mr. Lueddecke brands the "purported poem," or Kaiser von Hindenburg verses, as false, idiotic, unfair, ungentlemanly, unjust, and prompted by hatred. As I understand it, poetry in its widest sense is that which is the product of the imaginative powers and fancy. The verses, then, can not be regarded as a poem, but as a plain statement of facts, with a weak effort at rhyme, said facts having been gleaned from reading many of the leading newspapers, and magazines published in America. No part of these verses was the result of the imagination on the part of the writer thereof; and if falsehood has in anyway been indulged in, then von Lueddecke is the offending party.
There is right or reason why this gentleman (?) should charge untruth and idiocy in those verses. Here is the milk in the cocoanut: He is so saturated with pro-Germanism, it is so paramount in his composition that he cannot believe - or will not see any evil in the people who boast so freely of "kultur."
Judging from what Maximillian Harden, the noted German editor, said in a recent issue of his paper,and which was reproduced In the metropolitan newspapers in the United States, the masses of Germany do not approve of the criminal course being pursued by the German Kaiser. There may be people living in the United States who sanction the German program, but they are not here to help build a greater United States than we now have, but they are here because they are here. It may be true that there are people living in this country who earn more money, and are more respected than they would be on their native heath, and yet some of them despise the name America, and pray that as a nation it will soon perish from the earth.
But if there are such people, they are no worse than some of the German Kaiser's official representatives to this country were. But as Missouri survives the James boys, this nation can forget the diplomats who came from Berlin, supposedly to represent a nation, but who were found sneaking in our official pantry, and fomenting sedition. They have gone, of course, and the feeling left behind is similar to that of the Good Samaritan who took in the stranger and later found that the doormat, bearing the word, "welcome," had been stolen.
Many of the exponents of pro-Germanism, as it was set out in the propaganda maintained In this country by the Kaiser's Government for many months, are timidly showing their faces. This gang has been cowardly but discreetly silent, and sometimes they were mildly patriotic, at least in word; even going so far at times in their hypocrisy as to wear a flag on the lapel, or pasted on the shirt collar. But now they are growing somewhat more bold; they are beginning to lift their voices in discussion at the corner grocery, or by writing to the newspapers, criticising, censuring our Government for its active work in war preparation; croaking about taxes, or the high cost of living, and gradually working around to the original position of pronounced and unyielding opposition to everything favorable to America, and unfavorable to Germany. Under the pretence of neutrality they have disseminated among the people traitorous ideas, which are calculated to incite and stimulate trouble of the most serious nature; and which are generally mischievous in their effects, to say the least.
The attempts of the unpatriotic and disloyal to deter or prevent the work of preparation by the administration, no matter under what pretext their efforts may put forth, should be sat on now, and for all time.
We should have no respect for any man who lives in this country, and who enjoys the freedom and protection symbolized by the Stars and Stripes, who claims to be neutral in these unsettled and distressing times, when it the same time he breathes and cherishes the most bitter hatred for everything American, save, perhaps, the food he eats and the clothes he wears. There can be no middle ground; there is no neutral station; we are either Americans or we are not Americans. To be a good American we must be loyal to the precepts of the nation. When a traitor is found among us there are two alternatives: either confine him or banish him for all time.
[The battle of Manila Bay on May 1, 1898, during the Spanish-American War remains one of the most significant naval battles in American maritime history. Further discussion of it, and Admiral of the Navy George Dewey is not included here.]
14th June, 1917,
28th June, 1917, Dr Patton answers:
DR. PATTON ANSWERS.
CAPE GIRARDEAU, MO.,Jine 18, 1917
Editor Register - Your paper Of issue June 14th, contained an article from Mr. Otto Lueddecke, of Pilot Knob, Missouri, and from what he had to say in defense of the Kaiser, it is natural to believe that your correspondent looks upon Captain von Papen as one of the Apostles, and upon the Emperor as God.
If Mr. Leuddeeke were a bona fide American, he would condemn rather than approve the insulting reference to the American people made by Dynamiter von Papen.
What von Papen did as a German official in Washington is a part of the propaganda which has caused the civilized world to look upon the Kaiser and his band as outlaws and as a menace to the world.
By inference Mr. Lueddecke brands the "purported poem," or Kaiser von Hindenburg verses, as false, idiotic, unfair, ungentlemanly, unjust, and prompted by hatred. As I understand it, poetry in its widest sense is that which is the product of the imaginative powers and fancy. The verses, then, can not be regarded as a poem, but as a plain statement of facts, with a weak effort at rhyme, said facts having been gleaned from reading many of the leading newspapers, and magazines published in America. No part of these verses was the result of the imagination on the part of the writer thereof; and if falsehood has in anyway been indulged in, then von Lueddecke is the offending party.
There is right or reason why this gentleman (?) should charge untruth and idiocy in those verses. Here is the milk in the cocoanut: He is so saturated with pro-Germanism, it is so paramount in his composition that he cannot believe - or will not see any evil in the people who boast so freely of "kultur."
But if there are such people, they are no worse than some of the German Kaiser's official representatives to this country were. But as Missouri survives the James boys, this nation can forget the diplomats who came from Berlin, supposedly to represent a nation, but who were found sneaking in our official pantry, and fomenting sedition. They have gone, of course, and the feeling left behind is similar to that of the Good Samaritan who took in the stranger and later found that the doormat, bearing the word, "welcome," had been stolen.
Many of the exponents of pro-Germanism, as it was set out in the propaganda maintained In this country by the Kaiser's Government for many months, are timidly showing their faces. This gang has been cowardly but discreetly silent, and sometimes they were mildly patriotic, at least in word; even going so far at times in their hypocrisy as to wear a flag on the lapel, or pasted on the shirt collar. But now they are growing somewhat more bold; they are beginning to lift their voices in discussion at the corner grocery, or by writing to the newspapers, criticising, censuring our Government for its active work in war preparation; croaking about taxes, or the high cost of living, and gradually working around to the original position of pronounced and unyielding opposition to everything favorable to America, and unfavorable to Germany. Under the pretence of neutrality they have disseminated among the people traitorous ideas, which are calculated to incite and stimulate trouble of the most serious nature; and which are generally mischievous in their effects, to say the least.
The attempts of the unpatriotic and disloyal to deter or prevent the work of preparation by the administration, no matter under what pretext their efforts may put forth, should be sat on now, and for all time.
We should have no respect for any man who lives in this country, and who enjoys the freedom and protection symbolized by the Stars and Stripes, who claims to be neutral in these unsettled and distressing times, when it the same time he breathes and cherishes the most bitter hatred for everything American, save, perhaps, the food he eats and the clothes he wears. There can be no middle ground; there is no neutral station; we are either Americans or we are not Americans. To be a good American we must be loyal to the precepts of the nation. When a traitor is found among us there are two alternatives: either confine him or banish him for all time.
What Mr. Luddecke had to say about Admiral Dewey being forced to apologize for not refuting the story that a German Admiral at Manila Bay attempted to interfere with the American fleet, is amusing. The story is contained in "Dewey's Memoirs," which were written by the late Admiral. Instead of being forced to repudiate it, every utterance made by Dewey was substantiated by the son of the famous German admiral, all of which was published at that time, and which Mr. Lueddecke knows to be true, if he is at all familiar with the story. Von Lueddecke of Pilot Knob shows what tyjie of an American he is when he sneers at Admiral Dewey and his fleet. The life of Dewey needs no apologies. He was typical of true Americans, and the fact that even as far back as Manila Bay he resented an inspired affront from "Me and Gott" stamps him as a typical red-blooded American. If von Lueddecke has so little respect for the United States, and so much for Germany, why does he not say good bye?
His hope that "our country may be delivered of authors of this kind," in referring to the Hindenburg verses, will not be realized. Before this little unpleasantness across the pond has reached a finality this gentleman (?) will probably have many thing to read, and perhaps many things happen him, that will tend to disturb his equilibriam [sic] much more than those verses about the arch-butchers, Billy and Von. There is no doubt the Kaiser soon will lose the last of the very strong conserving influences that have so wonderfully maintained him in his vicious and inhuman assaults upon civilization. He has already passed the maximum of his greatness, success, and power. He will not realize his fond hope of "Deutschland uber alles." W. C. Patton, M. D.
His hope that "our country may be delivered of authors of this kind," in referring to the Hindenburg verses, will not be realized. Before this little unpleasantness across the pond has reached a finality this gentleman (?) will probably have many thing to read, and perhaps many things happen him, that will tend to disturb his equilibriam [sic] much more than those verses about the arch-butchers, Billy and Von. There is no doubt the Kaiser soon will lose the last of the very strong conserving influences that have so wonderfully maintained him in his vicious and inhuman assaults upon civilization. He has already passed the maximum of his greatness, success, and power. He will not realize his fond hope of "Deutschland uber alles." W. C. Patton, M. D.
-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-
In spring 1934 Herman Lueddecke heard that he had lost his case against the Chevrolet Motor Company.
Lueddecke v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 70 F.2d 345 (8th Cir. 1934)Annotate this CaseUS Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - 70 F.2d 345 (8th Cir. 1934)March 16, 1934
70 F.2d 345 (1934)
LUEDDECKE
v.
CHEVROLET MOTOR CO. et al.
No. 9811.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
March 16, 1934.
David A. Murphy, of Kansas City, Mo. (John T. Harding and R. Carter Tucker, both of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellees.
Before GARDNER and WOODROUGH, Circuit Judges, and MARTINEAU, District Judge.
WOODROUGH, Circuit Judge.
Mr. H. W. Lueddecke brought this action at law, as plaintiff, against Chevrolet Motor Company and other corporations (all referred to herein as companies), as defendants, to recover on an alleged implied contract on the part of the defendant companies to pay plaintiff the reasonable value of an idea and suggestion which he alleges he furnished to them. Demurrers were interposed to the petition and were sustained Plaintiff having declined to plead further, the case was dismissed, and the plaintiff appeals.
The petition alleges that the plaintiff sent the following letter to the companies:
"Dear Sirs: As the proud owner of a Chevrolet Sedan, and also with the knowledge of a man who knows automobiles, I am asking you a few questions and then making you a proposition.
"Do you know that a very serious error has been made in the general location of several of the individual units or mechanisms of the Chevrolet car? Do you also know that within another year or so this very error (unless corrected) will reduce Chevrolet sales by possibly a million or even several million dollars? And again, while I, as well as many others, have had and will still have this error of your designers overcome at considerable expense, it will within a short space of time possibly cause some other low-priced car to become more popular than the Chevrolet.
"While many car owners have gone to the trouble of correcting this defect, I have found neither an owner nor a mechanic who was able to discover the cause of the defect. And. unless corrected, the defect will mean considerable annual expense to the owner of the car, for which there is really no excuse at all.
"The cost of overcoming this defect in a car should not be over 20¢ to 30¢ to you as you build the car if you take the easiest and shortest way out of the difficulty. To the owner who has purchased his car the cost will vary from $3.00 to $7.00 depending on where he lives, in city or country.
"The best way out of the difficulty, however, would necessitate a change of design as suggested above, and that can be done without great expense or without sacrificing the essential features of the design of the car.
"Now, I shall not ask you for a one-eighth royalty on $500,000 or $1,000,000 of sales, but I would like to have you make me an offer stating what such information would be worth to you or how much you could offer and would pay for the same. Upon receipt *346 of your reply, if your offer is satisfactory, I will give you complete information of the above mentioned changes for the Chevrolet car.
"An early reply will be appreciated. "Yours truly,"
That reply was made as follows:
"Dear Sir: Your letter of June 27, to the Chevrolet Motor Company, regarding your suggestion to change the design of Chevrolet cars, has been forwarded to the New Devices Committee for attention.
"We have this Committee in General Motors, composed of some of our most important executives and engineers, to review all new inventions submitted direct to the Corporation or through any of its divisions or executives.
"It is against the policy of the Corporation to make any agreement for inventions until we know exactly what they are and have sufficient information to place them before the New Devices Committee for consideration.
"If you care to send us drawings and a description of your ideas, the Committee will be very glad to examine them and let you know whether or not General Motors is interested.
"We always insist, however, that everything submitted to us be protected in some way and would suggest, if you have not applied for patents, that you establish legal evidence of ownership and priority of your idea by having your original drawing signed, dated and witnessed by two or more competent persons or notarized.
"We assure you that, if we find the design of sufficient interest to warrant further investigation, some mutually satisfactory agreement will be made.
"Yours very truly, "New Devices Committee."
That plaintiff then answered:
"Dear Sirs: I have Mr. T. O. Richards' reply (dated July 15th) to my letter of June 27th. Referring to my previous letter you will find that I said that your designers of the Chevrolet car had made a very serious blunder in the location of several of the individual units of the car. I also stated that many car owners have gone to the trouble of correcting the defect, either temporarily or permanently, at considerable expense to themselves. But I have never found either a mechanic or a car owner who knew the cause of the trouble drivers were having with their cars. Because of this fact I thought it expedient and profitable to take the matter up directly with your company.
"Now the matter that I have to present is this: You will find that the body of all Chevrolet cars that have been driven 200 miles or more is from one inch to three inches lower on the left side of the driver than on his right side. Because of this the left rear fender especially, in driving over fairly rough or wavy streets or in rounding corners to the right, will quite often strike against the tires. This has been the cause of tearing up tires or of suddenly slowing down the car thereby making accidents likely. The experience is also annoying to the driver and occupants of the car.
"Many drivers seem to think that the springs on the left side were naturally weak and not so good; others seem to think that they struck a bad place in the road and that the springs lost their elasticity as a result. But the fact of the case is that the car is not properly balanced right side against left side. On the left side you have the steering mechanism, the starter, the generator, and the storage battery. This, together with a one hundred fifty pound (150#) driver, when one drives by himself, throws approximately three hundred pounds (300#) more weight on the left side than on the right side of the car.
"After I had driven my car about 2,800 miles the body was exactly two and three-quarters inches lower on the left side than on the right side. In order to level the body of the car I had an extra spring leaf put into both the front and rear springs on the left side, and that straightened the body up perfectly. My plan is that you either put in this extra spring leaf in both front and rear springs on the left side of the car when you build the car, or else you should change the location of some of the individual units shifting those units which could be most conveniently moved to the right side of the car or motor. It is my idea that the battery should be moved from the left side to the right side. This would take about fifty pounds from the heavy side and add it to the light side. Then either or both the starter and generator should be moved to the right side of the motor they would just about balance the weight of the steering unit and the usual excess weight of the driver over his front seat mate.
"The facts given above cannot be denied, and the remedy is simple and clear. I hope you will find them of profit to your firm. I *347 would appreciate a reply at your earliest convenience.
"Respectfully submitted."
To which the New Devices Committee replied:
"Dear Sir: This will acknowledge your letter of July 22 regarding a system for balancing the weight of cars.
"The Committee, at its last meeting, thoroly discussed your suggestion but decided, unfortunately, that it would not be advisable to redesign our springs in this manner at the present time. We cannot therefore, see our way clear to go into the matter with you further.
"We appreciate your interest in General Motors and regret that we cannot reply to you more favorably.
"Yours very truly, "New Devices Committee."
It is then alleged in the petition that the plaintiff, by and through these letters, did sell and convey to the defendants ideas as to how to balance a Chevrolet car so that the fenders would not strike the wheels, and more particularly to balance the car so that the weight would be more evenly divided on both sides, and that he forwarded his ideas in the form that defendants had requested, and that thereafter the defendants had put into force and effect the ideas so submitted by the plaintiff, or a portion thereof, and that the defendants had, since the plaintiff's ideas were presented to them, used the same or substantial portions thereof on all Chevrolet motorcars manufactured by the defendants, and by the defendants' request that the plaintiff forward his ideas to them, and by using the same, or portions thereof, there was an implied contract on the part of the defendants to pay to the plaintiff the reasonable value of said ideas, which said reasonable value it is alleged was $2,500,000.
We are of the opinion that the demurrers were properly sustained by the trial court. In the first place we are not persuaded that the idea communicated in the letters of the plaintiff was a novel and useful idea in which plaintiff could successfully assert a property right. In the second place, the correspondence and alleged conduct of the companies controvert the claim that there was a promise to pay plaintiff for the ideas or suggestions which he transmitted, and there are no circumstances presented from which the law implies such a promise.
It appears from plaintiff's first letter to the companies that it was then known to many others besides the plaintiff that there was a defect in the Chevrolet car as it was being manufactured and sold. Plaintiff did not claim to be the discoverer of this defect in the car. He says: "I, as well as many others, have had and will still have this error of your designers overcome at considerable expense." "Many car owners have gone to the trouble of correcting this defect." The plaintiff's second letter discloses that the defect he had in mind was that the body of the car was not held suspended in balance by the springs with sufficient strength to maintain a constant equilibrium, but that when the car was used the body would sag down on the left side. The remedy availed of by himself and others was to reinforce the springs on the side where the body sagged. This much of the idea being generally known and common property, the only other idea which the plaintiff conveyed to the defendants is in the suggestion that the defendants relocate some of the individual units contained in the body of the car with reference to the center of gravity of the car, "Shift those units which could be most conveniently moved to the right side of the car or motor." Plaintiff says: "It is my idea that the battery should be moved from the left side to the right side. This would take about fifty pounds from the heavy side and add it to the light side. Then either or both the starter and generator should be moved to the right side of the motor they would just about balance the weight of the steering unit and the usual excess weight of the driver over his front seat mate."
From these statements it is apparent that the plaintiff did not claim to know just what shifting of individual units from one side of the car to the other would be necessary or practicable to effect the proper balance of the car in use. He recognizes cases when "one is driving by himself and thereby puts the weight of his body on one side of the car." He reflects the thought that there is a "usual excess weight of the driver over his front seat mate." In other words, that, when several passengers are riding in a car, the weight may not bear evenly on both sides of the center of gravity of the body of the vehicle. Plaintiff's suggestion really was that the companies should make experiments in redisposing some of the readily movable units mounted on the car body and in shifting them from the left to the right side of the car until a balance was effected which would turn out to be enduring in use. The plaintiff said, in effect: It is known that your car body sags *348 lopsidedly to the left when it is being used. I suggest that you try shifting the units which can be most conveniently moved until you get a better balance.
Plaintiff did not say that he had made any such experiments himself or that he knew through experiments what the effect of the suggested shifting of units would be upon a car when the car was used. Plaintiff alleges that what the companies did after they got this letter was to shift the battery from the left side to the right side of the car and also other equipment as set out in the letter "or a portion thereof." That is, the defendants, knowing as others knew that the body of their car when the car was used sagged lopsidedly to the left, transposed fifty pounds of batteries to the opposite side and such other movable equipment as they found from experiment (or engineering calculations) sufficed to produce a more effective balance of the car body when the car was in use. The matter would be no clearer or simpler if we had to do with spring wagons or buggies rather than Chevrolet automobiles. The springs of either vehicle have to be strong enough to offset some uneven disposal of weights on the body. The mere idea of experimenting with the disposal of the weights was not novel and useful, and plaintiff had no property right therein. Soule v. Bon Ami Co., 201 App. Div. 794, 195 N.Y.S. 574.
In Masline v. New York, etc., R. Co., 95 Conn. 702, 112 A. 639, 641, the court stated: "An idea may undoubtedly be protected by contract. Haskins v. Ryan, 75 N. J. Eq. 332, 78 A. 566. But it must be the plaintiff's idea. Upon communication to the defendant it at once did appear that the idea was not original with the plaintiff, but was a matter of common knowledge, well known to the world at large. He had thought of nothing new, and had therefore no property right to protect which would make his idea a basis of consideration for anything. His valuable information was a mere idea, worthless so far as suggesting anything new was concerned, known to every one, to the use of which the defendant had an equal right with himself."
In the second place, the letter of the New Devices Committee of the companies to the plaintiff contains no promise to pay for any mere suggestion or idea which the plaintiff might choose to send them. They said it was against the policy of the companies to make any agreement for inventions until they knew exactly what they were. They suggested that plaintiff establish legal evidence of his ownership of his ideas by having his original drawing notarized. In the first letter plaintiff said: "I, as well as many others, have had and will still have this error of your designers overcome at considerable expense." "The best way out of the difficulty would necessitate a change of design." And, therefore, the committee suggested that plaintiff send drawings and a description of his ideas, and that he establish legal evidence of ownership and priority of his ideas by having his original drawing signed or notarized, and that, if they found the design of sufficient interest to warrant further investigation, some mutually satisfactory agreement would be made.
The clear implication is that the companies did not make any agreement to pay for merely pointing out some defect in the Chevrolet car or for any mere suggestion that they perfect the car by experimentation or improvement of their own working out, but if the plaintiff should submit a design with drawings and descriptions of his ideas, then, if the design was of sufficient interest to warrant investigation, an agreement would be made. As the plaintiff did not submit any "design" or "drawings and description of his ideas" or bring himself within the committee's proposal or offer, he cannot successfully claim a contract, even if he had an idea in which he had a property right and which he could make a subject of barter and sale. The correspondence shows that the minds of the parties never met on any proposed sale of plaintiff's ideas. The law will not imply a promise on the part of any person against his own express declaration. Municipal Waterworks Co. v. City of Ft. Smith (D. C.) 216 F. 431; Landon v. Kansas City Gas Co., 300 F. 351 (D. C.); Boston Ice Co. v. Potter, 123 Mass. 28, 25 Am. Rep. 9; Earle v. Coburn, 130 Mass. 596. In the latter case it is stated: "As the law will not imply a promise, where there was an express promise, so the law will not imply a promise of any person against his own express declaration; because such declaration is repugnant to any implication of a promise."
If, in fact, the defendants did derive benefit from the plaintiff's ideas that the units on their Chevrolet car should be shifted, and if their subsequent redisposal of some of the units to the other side of the car body was in any wise inspired by the plaintiff's idea, nevertheless, they are not indebted to the plaintiff, because they did not offer to make any agreement to pay for such mere suggestion as the plaintiff made, and their correspondence did not invite such a suggestion. *349 When plaintiff voluntarily divulged his mere idea and suggestion, whatever interest he had in it became common property, and, as such, was available to the defendants. Moore v. Ford Motor Co. (D. C.) 28 F.(2d) 529, affirmed (C. C. A.) 43 F.(2d) 685, 686; Larkin v. Penn. R. Co., 125 Misc. 238, 210 N.Y.S. 374; Bristol v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 132 N.Y. 264, 30 N.E. 506, 507, 28 Am. St. Rep. 568; Haskins v. Ryan, 71 N. J. Eq. 575, 64 A. 436; Id., 75 N. J. Eq. 330, 78 A. 566; Peabody v. Norfolk, 98 Mass. 452, 96 Am. Dec. 664; International News Service v. Assoc. Press, 248 U.S. 255, 39 S. Ct. 68, 63 L. Ed. 211, 2 A. L. R. 293; Hamilton Mfg. Co. v. Tubbs Mfg. Co. (D. C.) 216 F. 401, 404. In Bristol v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., supra, the court stated: "Without denying that there may be property in an idea or trade secret or system, it is obvious that its originator or proprietor must himself protect it from escape or disclosure. If it cannot be sold or negotiated or used without a disclosure, it would seem proper that some contract should guard or regulate the disclosure; otherwise, it must follow the law of ideas, and become the acquisition of whoever receives it."
The judgment is affirmed.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/70/345/1492061/
