Manufacturer Notes: Hiram Codd & CompanyNew York City Directories
1880 No entry
1881 No entry
1882 Not searched
1883 Codd Hiram & Co. bottles, 23 Park row
1884 *Codd Hiram & Co. bottles, 23 Park row
1885 Codd Hiram, bottles, 23 Park row
1885 *Codd Hiram & Co. bottles, 23 Park row
1886 Codd Hiram, bottles, 22 Commerce
1886 Codd Hiram & Co. bottles, 22 Commerce
1886 Rylands Daniel, bottles 22 Commerce
1886 Rylands Thos. bottles, 22 Commerce, h 24 W. 26th
1887 *Codd Hiram & Co. bottles, 22 Commerce
1887 Rylands Daniel, bottles, 22 Commerce
1887 Rylands Thomas bottles, 22 Commerce
1888 Codd Hiram & Co. bottles, 22 Commerce
1888 Rylands Daniel, bottles 22 Commerce, h Eng
1888 Rylands Thomas bottles, 22 Commerce, h 135 W. 34th
1889 Codd Hiram, bottles. 19 Park pl.
1889 *Codd Hiram & Co. bottles, 19 Park pl.
1889 Rylands Thomas, bottles, 19 Park pl. & 22 Commerce, h Nutley, N. J.
1890 *Codd Hiram & Co. bottles, 19 Park pl.
1890 Rylands Thomas, bottles, 19 Park pl. & 22 Commerce, h Nutley, N. J.
1891 No entry
H. Codd & Company Marked Bottles with License Numbers
No 7 (with License only)
No 75 (with and without License)
No 82 (with and without License)
No 83 (with License only)
..Codd, Hiram, Patentee and Mineral Water Manufacturer, 50, Grore Lane, Camberwell, London, S.E. (912)
Philadelphia International Exhibition, 1876. Official Catalogue of the British Section Part 1 (London, George E. Etre and William Spottiswoode, 1876)
H. CODD'S PATENTS
Patented in Great Britain, the colonies, Europe, and America,
THE ONLY PRIZE MEDALS AWARDED
For Patent Aerated Water Bottles at the following Exhibitions:
LONDON, Vienna, LEEDS, PHILADELPHIA,
1873. 1873. 1875. 1876.
HIGHEST MEDAL at the Paris Exhibition, 1878.
LICENSES HAVE BEEN GRANTED
TO UPWARDS OF
SODA WATER MAKERS
IN THE UNITED KINGDOM ALONE,
not to speak of the large quantities of Bottles that are being
EXPORTED TO ALL PARTS OF THE WORLD.
CODD & BARRETT,
58, King William Street, London, E. C.
Dunn, Russell and Jane; Codd The Man and the Bottles (England, 1987)
PARK-ROW PROPERTY OWNERS.
A PROTEST AGAINST CHANGING THE NAME OF THE STREET
The following petition by citizens carrying on business in Park-row will be presented to the Board of Aldermen at their meeting to-day. The petitioners protest strongly against any change being made in the name of the street referred to:
To the Board of Aldermen of the City of New-York:
We, the undersigned, businessmen and property holders of Park-row, New-York City, do petition you that you allow the street known as Park-row to retain its said name, and that it would be an irreparable injury to the said businessmen, causing them great inconvenience in their business.........George B. Brown, N. Jones & Co., No 23 Park-row; Hiram Codd & Co., (per H. T. C.,) No. 23 Park-row;....
New York Times (New York, New York) December 28, 1880
GLOBE STOPPERED BOTTLES
A statement having been circulating in Brooklyn that we have granted an exclusive license or monopoly to one firm to use our patent bottles in Brooklyn, we beg to state that such is not the fact. We are prepared to give to any and every respectable bottler in Brooklyn and New York the benefit of our patent bottles, on the same terms to call.
HIRAM CODD & CO., 23 Park row., New York
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle (Brooklyn, New York) November 18, 1883
BOY WANTED--ONE WITH SOME KNOWLEDGE OF machinery preferred. Address by letter stating qualifications and wages required, HIRAM CODD & CO., 23 Park row.
New York Herald (New York, New York) July 20, 1884
Hon. Chas. J. Folger,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C:
London, Eng., April 13, 1883.
Sir: Under date of the 3d instant, I addressed a communication to the supervising special agent, informing him that I had received direct and positive information to the effect that the revenues had been largely defrauded in the importation of certain patent bottles for aerated waters, and which are known as " Codd's patent globe stoppered bottles.
This information was communicated to me verbally by a gentleman well informed in the bottle trade in England and who has had close business relations with the patentee, the manufacturers and shippers of the bottles in question for a number of years.
Mr. Hiram Codd is the inventor of these bottles, and those shipped to the United States have been consigned to his own house, Hiram Codd & Co., New York.
The manufacturers of these bottles are Codd & Rylands, of Baverly, Yorkshire, Mr. Hiram Codd, the patentee, being the senior member of the firm. Heretofore the bottles shipped to the United States were shipped by Mr. Hiram Codd, who has been doing business in this city in the name-of Hiram Codd; it appears, however, that an arrangement has been made within the past week or so between Mr. Codd and his manufacturing partner, whereby the bottles are now being, and are hereafter to be, invoiced by Codd and Rylands. The invoices on file at the consulate-general here, of date since May, 1882, show that the bottles shipped by Hiram Codd to his house in New York have been invoiced at a uniform price of 12s. per gross. It is understood that this price was exclusive of rubber rings, which are fitted in the bottles' necks, and which have been invoiced at 1s. per gross. These bottles were of the size known as 7-ounce "Gingers." It is understood that prior to May, 1882, some of the bottles shipped to New York were of larger size and were invoiced at somewhat higher prices, but in no case within 50 per cent, of their true market value.
My information is not definite respecting the business arrangement between Mr. Hiram Codd and his manufacturing partner at Barnsley, but it seems that for some time past at least, the 7-ounce bottles shipped to the New York house, invoiced at 12s. per gross, were, charged to Mr. Codd by the manufacturing firm at as much as twenty shillings per gross, and were charged, by Mr. Codd to his New York house, at the latter price (20s. per gross). It appears, from proofs shown me by my informant, that ever since the patent bottles in question were first introduced to the public (some eight or nine years since) their uniform market prices, to the trade in this country, have been as follows for those made of common green glass, viz:
Lemons and seltzers, 10-ounce (full size), 36s. per gross.
Lemons and seltzers, 5-ounce (splits), 33s. per gross.
Sodas, 10-ounce (full size;, 38s. per gross.
Sodas, 5-ounce (splits), 33s. 6d. per gross.
Gingers, 7-ounce, 35s. per gross.
Including rubber rings, less 5 per cent, for cash, or less 2-1/2 per cent, cash within two months.
In addition to "such prices all purchasers, in the United Kingdom, were required to pay as much as twelve guineas (£12 12s.) per annum for a license to use the same. Mr. Codd being the sole patentee, and having a complete monopoly of these bottles, has, of course, been enabled to exact his own price and command his own terms for the same.
An interview was had at the United States consulate-general here on the 9th inst., between Consul-General Merritt and Mr. Hiram Codd, at which I was present. The interview resulted in Mr. Codd addressing General Merritt a letter, copy of which I enclose marked K, and in General Merritt addressing a letter to the collector of customs at New York, a copy of which I enclose marked L, both of which fully explain themselves.
GEO. C. TICHENOR,
Executive Documents of the House of Representatives for the First Session of the Forty-Eighth Congress, 1883-'84 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1884)
Dutiable Value — Royalty upon Patented Article not an element of.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 14, 1883.
SlR : This Department has had under consideration a question arising on the importation of certain patent bottles at your port by Messrs. Hiram Codd & Co., under invoices to them from Messrs. Codd & Rylands, of England. The bottles in question are specially distinguished by a spherical glass ball which operates as a stopper, and can be so held within the neck of the bottle as to allow the escape of the contents without falling from the neck which holds it, They are used for carbonic-acid water and similar fluids, which by their pressure against the lower surface of the glass ball keep it in firm position at the top of the bottle, with the added assistance of the rubber band inserted within the mouth of of the bottle, against which the glass ball is pressed.
The mechanism is patented in Great Britain by a company which makes its arrangements with Codd & Rylands, through whom it receives a satisfactory royalty for the patent, Codd & Rylands, in selling the bottle in Great Britain, therefore, not only reimburse themselves at the cost of manufacture and the profit added thereto, which they consider sufficient, but also demand a price for the bottle which will cover the amount of royalty they have to pay to the patentees.
The same bottle is also patented in the United States, but by a different house, viz., the house of Hiram Codd & Co. Thus, it will be seen, in connection with the present inquiry, that Codd & Rylands, in Great Britain, who, by virtue of the general character of patent laws, may manufacture the patent bottles referred to and export them for sale to the United States at a price which would simply satisfy them in respect to the cost of manufacture and manufacturer's profit, regardless of royalty, (there being none to be paid in such case,) sell the goods to Hiram Codd & Co., the only men in the United States who, by virtue of our patent laws and the patent which they have taken out there under, may freely sell the same within the United States.
The question is whether "the true and actual market value and wholesale price of the merchandise at the time of exportation, &c., in the principal markets of" Great Britain, should include the royalty on the patent as an element of dutiable value.
The right to use the article in Great Britain is not bought or sold in the contract for this merchandise, nor is such right an incident in any way to the transaction. The bottles are not intended to be used in Great Britain, and there seems to be no reason why the purchaser should pay for the right to use them in Great Britain, which neither he nor the seller contemplates. The right to use the bottles in the United States, if purchased before from the original inventor in England, was purchased prior to and independently of this transaction. On the sale of such right under the patent no duty accrued to the United States, a patent-right in the abstract not being a dutiable commodity.
Having the right to use the patent bottles in the United States, the importers did not buy that right with the present importation, and that right was in no sense an element of value in the transaction. In Synopsis 3196 the Department held that although the publisher of books is compelled to pay royalty to the author upon works sold for consumption in the country of export, but not on books exported, the dutiable value does not include such royalty. The price of the books when sold for consumption in England was 42 s. 6 d. per set, but when sold for the American market the price was reduced to 30s. per set, the difference being the value of the royalty.
The principle in that case appears to govern the present case. In Synopsis 3490, where certain patented machinery was sold for use in this country, the royalty upon the patent was included in the dutiable value, but this was because the royalties so added "were actually paid or to be paid to the patentees of the machinery after the machinery was set up and put in working order, thus showing that they entered into and formed a part of the cost of the machinery to the purchaser." This was in accordance with Decision 1913, that "royalty paid on patented articles imported into the United States, being part of the cost price, must be considered as an element of dutiable value." The distinction is manifest, Where the royalty or copyright is in fact a part of the price actually paid for the merchandise, it is an element of dutiable value. Where, as in the present case, the royalty is no part of the price, it is not to be added as an element of dutiable value.
In the present case the attention of the appraiser is called to the reports of the special agent abroad, who insists that, irrespective of royalty, the bottles are very much undervalued. As to the actual market value in the markets of Great Britain the appraiser, and not the Department, is the judge.
Inasmuch as the patent upon the bottles prevented any fair competition in open market as to price, and as nobody except this importer had a right to use the bottles in the United States, the price fixed in the invoice can have very little bearing upon the true value of the article, and the appraiser will "by all reasonable ways and means in his power," under the statute, "appraise the true and actual market value and wholesale price," as the law provides.
The only point which the Department decides is, that under the circumstances the royalty for the use of the patent is not an element of the dutiable value.
I will thank you to furnish the appraiser with a copy of these instructions.
H. F. FRENCH,