National Republican., 1884-04-15
The TELEPHONE WAR.
Mr.. President Forbes, Of the Bell Company
Has Caught a Tartar.
His Interview Provokes a Reply From
Mr. George c, Gorham,
The Latter Tells What He Knows About th
Drawbaugh and Bell Inventions.
Mr.. Forbes Charged with Gross Igno-
rance or wnlfuI Misrepresentation.

THE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN, sent a re-
porter yesterday to call upon George G.
Gorhom, agent of the Drawbaugh telephone
syndicate, who is here from New York for a
few days, and see what he had to say about
the statements Of President Forbes, of the
Bell company, which appeared in yesterdays
REPUBLICAN, concerning the Drawbaugh
claims.
Mr.. Gorham said he had no objection to
answering any question that might be asked,
aud being requested to state what reply he
had to make to the several assertions in Mr..
Forbes's interview. he made tho following
statement:
Mr.. Forbes says that it is simply stock
jobbing talk" to claim that "a decision in
favor OF the Drawbaugh invention would
wipe the Bell company out of existence and
render Its property worthless" Here is the
case: The Bell company seeks a perpetual
injunction saainst the Drawbaugh company
on the ground that the instruments Of tho
latter are an Infringement on the patents
owned by the former. Tho Drawbaugh
company says In answer that Drawbaugh
invented the telephone years before
any experiments had been made by Bell or
company has purchased, The suit will GER
tainly decide who is the prior inventor, and
no patent can be valid II found to have been
issued to any other than the first inventor.
If tho court decides that Drawbaugh invented
the telephone. that will be decision that
Bells patent is invalid. Others can judge as
well as Mr.. Forbes as to whether that will bo
of any consequence to the Bell company.
Mr.. Forbes somewhat hippantly informed
your reporter that 'even II the Drawbaugh
people get decision in their favor on every
point, the result will be simply to throw the
business open to the world, so that anybody
can engage in it," In support of this he says
that " Mr.. Drawbaugh has no patents, and
has made no application for any except upon
some improvements" and that "a man, even
If he is the inventor of au instrument, cannot
take out patent upon II unless he does so
within two years after IL has been in public
use"
Mr.. Forbes is mistaken both as to his facts
and his law. Mr.. Drawbaugh's applications,
covering the whole telephone field of inven-
tion, have been on file In the patent Office for
nearly four years. His invention of tho car
bon telephone, first made in 1867, was
brought to high state of perfection in the
summer Of 1876. two years in advance of the
Blake transmitter, which 10 based on tho
which are only for minor details
Drawbaugh's application for that was
made July 26 1880, less than two
years after tho first appearance Of the Blake
transmitter. Mr. Forbes will do we'll to ask
his lawyers few questions before he in
structs the public. The magnet telephone
was brought to its present state of perfection
by Drawbaugh as early as February, 1875.
Bells earliest experiment was June 2, 1875,
four months after Drawbaugh had finished
in that direction. Drawbaugh did not apply
for his patent for the magnetic invention
within the two years, but the law, as laid
down by tho supreme court Is that he does
not lose his rights unless he voluntarily
nbandons them. In tho New York suit II large
portion of the evidence is devoted to
establishing tho fact that he was wretchedly
poor and unable to move in the direction of
securing patent until 1880. He is shown to
have made constant efforts in that direction,
and the United States supreme court has said
that no injury can ordinarily occur to the
first inventor which is not in some sort tho
result of his own ldches or voluntary mac
tion. AS DrawbauRh moved as soon as
it was possible for him to secure
the means it is clear that his inaction was not
voluntary, and therefore, rs the highest
tribunal of the land assures us, no injury can
occur to him. The fact that this question of
his delay in applying for patent cuts so
large figure in the testimony would seem to
indicate that it is an issue in tho case in the
circuit court. If So its decision in our favor
would certainly be conclusive upon the ques-
tion of our right to o patent.
To recapitulate: Drawbaugh invented the
carbon telephone in 1857, and improved it
until, in 1876, 1t was as perfect as it ia now.
in 1878 Prof. Hughes made similar inven-
tion. In August, 1879, Blake made, from the
latter, his transmtter (the only one in use)
In July, 1880 Qess than two years afterward), J,
Drswbaugh applied for q patent, and his
application Is now pending. Bake's patents
were not issued until November, 1881, and
cover only details of construction. The
invention of the carbon telephone is Draw.
baugh's and no patent has yet been issued
for it to anybody. He did not allow the two
years OF its use to run out before applying
for patent
The magnetic telephone, which now only
does duty as receiver, was invented by
Drawbaugh long in advance of Bell, but ht
did not apply for patent until more thar
two years after Bells had been in use. Thi.
would be fatal to him if his inaction wal
voluntary, but If he was unable to prosecut,
his rights, then the two years limit does mo-
run against him. There is no pretense tina
he consented to the use of his inventions
Mr.. Forbes's statement that our peopl,
claim that they can get congress to give then
patent If they win the suit looks like {
gratuItous one; but Mr. Forbes may hav,
heard such talk from our enemies. There il
no truth in 1t. We stand upon the law as il
is and tho facts proven in our case, AS the
courts can set aside patents, We have no feal
that the patont office will be disposed to sci
aside judicial decision. For this reason
think that decision in our favor of the sui
in New York would soon be followed by the
disappearance of the Bell patent and all il
represents.
The Drawbaugh people are represented by
Mr.. Forbes as pretending that they can unit(
with the Bell people after getting patent
That is to say that after We have stripped
the Boil company Of its rights wo hope to g
into copartnership with Ii in the right
which would then be exclusively ours. II,
show that do not misrepresent the gentle
man l will quote his exact words IL,
says: "The Drawbaugh people, for tn,
purpose of selling stock, pretend tina
they can get this patent, and tina
by uniting with the Bell company, which
has the plant, great money making
institution can be formed, and that thei
stock will be valuable" The Bell company
has but small fraction Of "the plant" mos
OF IL being the property of local companies
not controlled by the Bell company, SOM
of these are already opening UP communica
tions with "the Drawbaugh people" Tht
Bell company, with neither patent no
plant, would have nothing to sell bu
It's stock. Let us hope that Mr.
Forbes will not take advantage of thu
ignorance Of the public" at such time ant
sell his stock on tho false pretense that hi
company is about to 90 to the matrimonial
altar with tho Drawbaugh company.
The question as to whether tho Drawbaugl
people will prevail in their suit will dcpenC
upon the evidence and not upon the wishe
Of Mr.. Forbes or the pooh pooling OF counsel
who are paid $4,000 q year TO comfort hin