Elmira Sept 6
Dear Frank:1
His claim is a distinction without a difference. If the English idea had been already known to our Patent officers, he never would have been granted a patent. The English plan is worth two of it anyway.
Ordinarily I would be willing to chance something maybe, on this thing but I can’t, this year, for our house is costing three times as much as we had intended it should, [& ] so I naturally don’t feel able to speculate in anything. Your idea is the only sound one—to get it adopted by the government. If he would give the refusal for a year at a stipulated price, it would be worth while to tackle the government—but to buy it & then do the tackling would be bad wisdom.
I could suggest an improvement on this invention that would make Mr Fletcher feel mighty bad. But we’ll be in New York from the 10th to the 15th (at the St Nicholas doubtless) & then we’ll talk.
Warm regards to you & yours
Ys Ever
Mark
Frank Fuller Esq
55 Liberty st.
New York [postmarked:] elmira n. y.[sep 7 ]
[docketed by Fuller:] Mark Twain
Explanatory Notes | Textual Commentary
Clemens was “a member of the Govment” briefly in late 1867, when he acted as secretary for
Senator Stewart of Nevada. In “The Facts Concerning the Recent Resignation,” published in the New York Tribune on 27 December 1867, he claimed that the secretary of the treasury had called him an ass for suggesting
that “a few conundrums distributed around through his Treasury report would help the sale of it” (SLC 1867; L2, 109–10 n. 2, 112, 139 n. 4). The creator of Fuller’s “letter envelope,” Addison
C. Fletcher of New York City, had received United States patent number 127,330 on 28 May 1872 for his invention, a
“letter-sheet blank, having its inner fold cut away or punctured at its end so that mucilage or other adhesive material
applied to the corners of the outer fold or flap will seal both folds and the back together at one operation” (Official Gazette, 1:539). Fuller wanted Clemens to persuade his Hartford friend Marshall Jewell, former
three-term governor of Connecticut, minister to Russia, and since 3 July the United States postmaster general appointee, to
officially adopt it (L4, 396 n. 1; “The Postmaster Generalship,” New York Times, 4 July 74, 4). Clemens declined the offer, in a letter not known to survive, before 3 September, when
Fuller wrote again. This time Fuller used one of Fletcher’s blanks and enclosed a letter, now lost, in which Fletcher,
who was not coming easily to terms, apparently claimed his invention’s distinction from its English counterpart (CU-MARK): The “certain Brooklyn party” has not been identified.
Source text(s):
Previous publication:
L6, 228–230.
Provenance:see Brownell Collection in Description of Provenance. The Ayer transcription was copied by a typist, and this typed transcription is
also at WU. CLjC purchased the envelope in July 1966 as part of a Fuller collection; at that time it was paired with the MS for 24
Sept 68 to Fuller (UCCL
02753).
Emendations and textual notes:
& • and [here and hereafter]
sep 7 • [sp] 7 [] [badly inked; number of characters doubtful]