The Portland daily press., 1884-09-25
Fighting for the Telephone.
(New York Times.)

NGNoW 1Olh llu6SD
Nothing daunted by the failure Of the eoun-
sci in the suit of the Bell Telephone Company
to create that oratorical breezlness which ex-
Senator Conkling's presence in a suit inyaria-
bly, leads people to expect, another crowd
surged into the United States Circuit Court
room Tuesday, and instead Of diminishing in
creased as Mr.. Storrow held up to public gaze
the history Of Mr.. Ora wbaugh's experiments
with the telephone. As Mr.. Conkling sat in
differently in his chair or moved slowly about
the room, his unnatural silence became op-
pressive, and even Senator Edmunds spoke
only word or two during the entire day. Mr..
Dickerson shifted uneasly in his chair from
time to time, and told one funny story to Mr..
Conkling while Mr.. Bell, whose inventions
are in dispute, sat squarely facing Judge Wal
lace until the fading afternoon sun made his
big blue necktie glimmer like a square OF
luminous silver
Mr.. Storrow had the floor, and for FIVE hours
he held the attention of the Judge, and when
the court adjourned he said that he would
want only two hours more in which to finish
his argument Wednesday. He began By saw
ing that the invention by Bell differed from
the Ress invention, which could not be made
TO talk. Then he took up the testimony taken
at Eberly's Mills before United States Com
Baltimore American visited Drawbaugh's
shop, he said, Bells telephone had been in use
ten years. Drawbaugh had constructed a tele-
phone that was never expected to transmit arr-
culate sounds, but to send sort of alphabet,like
musical scale. This was not contradicted BY
Drawbaugh until after the suit was begun and
then he claimed that he had been misunder-
stood. Drawbaugh's telephone was said to be
ike the ten-cent "lovers' telegraph" Wit
nesses had testified that Drawbaugh had been
experimenting with the telephone long after
Bells instruments were patented. He even
borrowed Bells instruments, and did not an
ply for patent until several years afterward.
Concerning the plea that Drawbaugh did
not patent his invention because Of his poverty
Mr.. Storrow claimed that at that Time Draw
baugh was spending his time and money In
suit about molasses spigot. For six wears
succeeding 1873 Drawbaugh had been a master
mechanic for company which wished to in
vest money in his Inventions but nothing was
said of a telephone. The company put $50 900
capital into his other inventions, but did not
spend even S15 for eaveat for telephone
Dra@baugh spent time and money on all sorts
OF things but the telephone. He had received
large sums of money for his other inventions.
and various persons owed him money, vet he
never used anything for a telephone patent.
The contradictions of some of the witnesses
were pointed out in a practical way. One wit
ness had fixed the time of his seeing Draw
baugh's telephone by publication in newn-
paper, when the article in question had not
been printed at that time. Another carried
home neighbor who was not in the country;
another by the birth Of child which had not
been born until much later, and another by a
visit to mill which had been blown np with
gunpowder long before. Mr. Storrow claimed
that no intelligent witness had identified any
telephone that had been seen at work in Drew
baugh's shop.