The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1884-09-26
The Telephone Suit.
MIR. DrawbauRh in Court Conclusion of
MIR. StOrrOw's Argument-lIr Hills
BEGINNING.
Boston Advertiser

(boSton Adyertiser.)
One would hardly have thought from Mr..
Sorrows clear and unwearied voice that he
had already been talking two days when he re-
newed his arguments in the suit of the Bell VS.,
Peoples Telephone Company in the United
States Circuit Court, New York, Wednesday
morning. Perhaps it is his easy converse
tional tone, without weary attempts at ora.
tory, which relieves the burden. DesOite tbe
removal to larger court room, the crowd of
auditors filed every part. One of the incidents
of the day was the appearance of Daniel
Drawbaugh, at whom the crowd craped its
many necks as though he was natural Gu
riosity. From time to time Mr.. Bell glanced
at him over his counsel's shoulder. Mr.. Draw.
baugh is of medium size, has gray hair a
thick, white moustache, blue eyes and a ruddy
complexion. His fingers are thick and broad
at the tips, plainly showing the results of a
lifetime OF manual labor. His head il we'll
rounded but not large, and phrenologist who
studied 1t closely for half an hour said nraw-
baugh could not help being an inventor If he
had tried. In general contour, and in MANY
points OF local development, the heads of Mr..
Bell and Mr.. Drawbaugh are alike, Soon at
ter Mr.. Drawbaugh was seated Monsignor
Capel came In, and, taking q seat where he
could near scarcely anything that was said. and
see much less, divided his attention between
the argument and the persons ranged about
the room.
Mr.. Storrow said that for seven vears ba.
fore 1872, so the defence clsimed ,Drawbaugh's
Inventions had been town talk in Ehariv's
Mill; but Henry Drawbaugh, his brother. had
never heard of his brothers. invention until
July, 1877. Henry was q wealthy man and
would gladly have helped his brother in so
great an enterprise. The farmers who COM
posed majority Of the witnesses for tbe de.
fence might easily have been deceived in any,
thing shown them. Why was not Mrs. Draw
saugn called? Why were no sketches or
drawings of the invention presented? Storrow
referred to the witness Kahney, who had
written that he desired to change a part of his
testimony He had been called by the COM
plainants and the facts which he had recalled
after MS examination were damaging to that
SIDE. Mr.. Storrow said he had done all in his
power to set the matter right. HE was YOUR
Witness" interposed ex-Judge Hill. mHe ia
your liar" cried Storrow
Ex-Judge Hill began the argument for the
defence, from preliminary statement made
by Mr.. Bell. He argued to show that prior to
the summer OF 1874, Mr.. Bellshad formed no
conception OF any means for the transmission
OF speech; that in the summer of 1874, stimu.
lated by Helmohlz's experiments in the elec-
trical transmission of vocal sounds by means
OF series of tuning forks, Mr.. Bell conceived
the possibility of accomplishing the same re-
o~iUS Wy supe1ibublnB Settles OF V1DraLlnR reed
armatures in place of the tuning forks, but he
never tested such an apparatus, because he be-
lieved it impracticable. Improvements were
made in 1875, but it was not until March 10th,
1876, that he succeeded in producing intelligi-
BILE articulation.
All persons interested in the Peoples Tele-
phone and Telegraph Company are directed by
an order made by Judge Donohue, in the Su-
preme Court, to show cause before Albert FL.
Gleason as referee. on Nov. 10th next. why
that corporation should not be dissolved, as
ing business by an injunction granted against
1t by the United States Circuit Court, and as it
has transferred its property to the United
States Telephone and Telegraph Company A
majority of its directors wish it to be dissolved.
5000 shares of unissued capital stock and some
books.