DEVULCANZATION OF RUBBER

NZ Truth, Issue 772, 21 August 1920, Page 5

DEVULCANZATION OF RUBBER

STODDART V. SKEIIERUP V Each Man's £1000 Cheqie Still Safe • , DEMONSTRATION TO GOVERNMENT TO BE ARRANGED

Sir,— l must say that I consider Mr. Skelierup's .letter Of the 14th inst. a weird and wonderful effort, and, without any reply from me, will prove to anyone 'capable of reading between the lines; what the true position of affairs really is. First, he opens up by Saying, "Mr. Stoddart has now climbed down, badly -with his challenge. It was wide enough for anyone at first." Now, •as a simple test of his veracity, please refer to my original challenge and then compare it with my repeated challenge, and- you will find it practically word for word. If it was as he says "wide enough -, for anyone at first," why did he not accept it without substituting conditions which were quite unnecessary and which he knew perfectly well could not be agreed to? The Government Analyst's report on the result of the test would have been quite sufficient proof of what we claim, yet Mr. Skellerup found it necessary to have a party of the opposition rubber trade to witness our process, knowing full well that our agreements with the New Zealand company would not permit this. He now says all we undertake to do is to produce "practical commercial devulcanized rubber." Surely that is what he has been arguing abbut, is it not? He asks, what I mean by. the term, which I think will have been obvious to any ordinary person. "Practical" means carried out by actual operation as distinguished from theoretical; "commercial" means by a commercial process, and ( not merely a laboratory test. Surely if we can produce practical commercial devulcanized rubber m this way WE HAVE DONE WHAT WE CLAIM. Mr. Skellerup then proceeds to say, "if we can carry out this test we have a very valuable patent and should lose no time m having it patented, as the process is much too valuable to entrust to anyone to operate secretly without the protection of duly registered letters patent." Now, do you suppose I would put up' the £1000 without knowing beyond doubt that we can do it? You can take it that we can and will do it. Yet we are asked by Mr. Skellerup to invite his friends to witness a process which he says himself Is too valuable to entrust to anyone to operate secretly. We are perfectly well aware of its value, and that is why I said m my previous .letter that he is trying to make his "'hobby" a lucrative one. As to whether a process is more adequately protected by patents than by secrecy is . a matter of opinion and depends on the peculiar circumstances of the particular case.

In the meantime suffice it to say that , we know our business m this respect ( without his advice. . , He next says that "if the process will - do what is claimed we would have , found our way either Home or to the States, where many of the large rubber : works would gladly pay a substantial- (