you ask what i know about these matters.

(1)Ⓐemendation the first agreement gave me ten per cent royalty on all books.

(2) several months afterward, slopteⒶemendation wanted that agreement revised saying that at usual rates for scrap-booksⒶemendation, i should get all the profit, the firm none; and that it would not do to raise the price much above other books. i said i was far from wanting all the profits; only wanted a third of them; perfectly willing that slote & woodman, the then firm, should have two thirds. where-upon a contract was drawn up and conveyed to me for signature which named .06 .03 &c., as royalties most distinctly professing to represent one third of the profits over and above the manufacture of the books.

(3) that contract was procured from me by fraudulent means. this is perfectly plain. slote took advantage of my utter confidence in his honesty to cheat me. he knew he was lying when he said that those figures represented one third of the profits, and also knew i was ass enough to believe him.

(4) slote was always asking my consent to something or other—something calculated to benefit himself. he knew me well enough to know that i would not reflect, and would consent to the thing proposed, in the full confidence that it was a fair and honest proceeding. it seems that “our mr. bowman” knew me pretty well too; for he sailed ahead with the new book with outⒶemendation waiting to hear from me, satisfied that i would “consent toⒶemendation a proportionate royalty”. that seems to be a royalty on just one book. its no is distinctⒶemendation it is succinctly Ⓐemendation describable as a book which is sold to the trade at $8.50 a hundred books. i wonder if the real object in view was not to get my consent to this one book, and then bring in other and higher priced books under the same understanding. i would like to know about that.

(5) i notice another thing, they seem to have paid me in the end $1.00 a hundred on these books. on no Ⓐemendationbody can read the contract without perceiving that the intent and purpose of it is, that the profit on all books wereⒶemendation to be one third to each of us three. then those books apparently cost $5.00 a hundred to make. that is about what they would cost i suppose.

(6) i am supposing for the sake of argument, that there was an understanding about that small book; i do not know that there was, neither does mr. bowman.

(7) mr. bowman says page 3d. that he had “deemed three quarters of a cent a fair basis”. if it truthfully represents one third of the profits on that book, it was a fair basis; if it represents anything less, it was an intended swindle.

(8) mr. bowman says page 4th. that my letter marked “f” shows that i was satisfied with the export royalty. and so i was. what was that royalty? i named it myself in that letter. it was ten per cent. what does the firm make of it? they call it one tenth of the profit and say nothing about ten per cent, as per their letter marked “e”. it is in strict accordance with their custom; which was to agree to do a certain thing, and then to twist it around in such a way as to mean something very different and more to their advantage.

(9) mr. bowman observes page one, that the first real success of the book occurs in 1876. did he wait for this? if the success had occurred earlier would he have infringed the patent earlier?

(10) patent infringers who deduce facts from reported conversations not reported under oath and not reiterated anew under oath, are poor witnesses i think. what i say and swear to is, that my contract with slote was made upon the distinct understanding that the royalties named should represent to me one third of the profits on all books, and that if they fell short of doing that they were to be raised accordingly; and that if they transcended that, they were to be reduced accordingly. mr. slote put in a clause to cover his end of that part of the agreement, and in doing so tacitly confesses the basis upon which the contract was drawn.

(11) letter marked “e” shows that the firm kept the royalties due me jan. 12. 1878, and were to pay interest. i suppose they still keep it.