MESSES. EDITORS :—In your issue of the 14th inst,, it is stated, in commenting on the decision of the Commissioner of Patents in the appeal case of Darnel D. Badger, that the report of Mr. Baldwin, as one of the Board of Appeal, was set aside. This is a mistake, as will appear by reference to the report of Mr. Baldwin. Both of the Examiners constituting the Board reported adversely, and their decisions were both confirmed by the Commissioner's decision. In the report of Mr. Baldwin, however, he stated his understanding of the contraction of the law, and the general practice of the Office under it, and requested the Commissioner to express his opinion respecting the propriety and correctness of such a construction and practice, "with the hope," as he remarks, " of establishing a more uniform rule of action than has heretofore prevailed in the Office in regard to this class of inventions," namely, "a new article of manufacture." F. F. Washington, D. C, Nov. 24, 1857. [In justice to Examiner Baldwin, it is proper to say that there was a technical error in our remarks above alluded to. We stated that his report was set aside; but we should have qualified our remark. That portion of his report which denied the prayer of the applicant was confirmed by the Commissioner. But the opinions of Examiner Baldwin upon the general subject involved, and which occupied the main portion of his report, were not confirmed. —EDS.