National Republican., 1884-04-14
Hts Opinion About DrawbauRh and
Other Persistent Persons.

guest at Wormley's. A reporter of THE Ma
TIoNAL REPUBLICAN called upon him yester-
day to make some inquiries concerning the
company and its various pending lawsuits
with the companies claiming tho right to do
telephone business under the inventions of
Mr.. Daniel Drawbaugh. Mr.. Forbes is we'll
built gentleman of medium size, with light
hair and mustache, slightly touched with
gray. He looks like an energetic and sue
cessful New England business man, and talks
with tho decision and directness of busy
man accustomed to clothe his ideas in the
fewest and plainest words.
In answer to an inquiry Mr.. Forbes stated
that the suit now pending in the United
States circuit court in New York was begun
in 1880. At that time the Bell company OBJ
tanned temporary injunction restraining
the Peoples company, operating under Draw
baugh's alleged invention, from doing busi-
ness The suit will probably come to final
hearing next sumper, and the decision will
be to dissolve tho injunction or mako it per-
petual.
The reporter suggested that it was claimed
that decision in favor of the Drawbaugh
invention would wipe the Boil company out
of ofexistence and render its property worthless.
ANY such claim as that" replied Mr..
made solely for the purpose of enabling the
Drawbaugh people to sell their stock. There
is nothing in It. Even If the Drawbaugh
people get decision in their favor on every
point the result will simply be TO throw the
business open to the world so that any body
can engage in it. Mr.. Drawbaugh has no
patents and has made no application for any
except upon some improvements. There Is q
misapprehension upon this subject, think,
in the minds of most people. man, even If
he is the inventor of IN instrument, cannot
take out patent upon 1t unless he does SO
within two years after it has been in public
use. The telephone was in general use in
1876, four years before Drawbaugh made any
claim. They are taking advantage, pre-
sumo, of this ignorance on the part of the
public to sell their stock"
Then there is no way in which they can
get patent?"
II understand that they claim that they
they win the suit but anybody who lives in
Washington knows that congress would
never dare to issue special patent upon an
article after it had once come into public
use 1t would be too unpopular a measure.
Nevertheless, the Drawbaugh people, for the
purpose of selling stock, pretend that they
can get this patent and that by uniting with
the Bell company, which has the plant,
q great money-making institution can be
formed and that their stock will be valuable.
The fact is that II they win they can get no
patent and they will only be able to go into
the field in competition with any others who
may choose to enter it, They will find that
there are other men and stronger men all
ready and waiting for the opportunity. Mr..
Garrett of the Baltimore and Ohio. is one of
them. But suspect when he comes to look
into the business, sees the enormous cost of
the plant and the small profits that there
will be when there is no exclusion OF rights,
that none of them will care to try it,"
when did you first hear Of Mr.. Draw
baugh?
Il think it was in 1880. shortly before this
suit was begun"
What does he claim?"
"He claims, or rather tho people who are
using him, claim that he invented the tele-
phone at some indefinite period long ago. l
think his testimony is to the effect that
people saw and used his instruments as early
as 1869. They claim therefore that the Bell
patents granted in 1876 and 1877 are invalid
"Isn't it rather strange that he said moth
ing about. his discoveries for so long time
and not until four years after the instru.
ments. under another mans patent, had been
in successful operation, as the Bell people
claim?'
1t isn't at all strange, because he didn't
mako the inventions. He has got some in
strumeuts through which you can talk.
expect that he heard of the Bell instrument
read description of it in the papers, or pos
sibly saw description of 1t from the patent
Office, and then made these for himself Ac
cording to his claim, he made the improve
ments, the necessity for which could moi
possibly have been known without consider
able use of the instrument, at the time he
made the first instrument. presume that is the
why he got his instruments Then in 1851
these people in New York, who had need o
him for their own purposes, took hold O
him. The evidence as to his dates rests solely
on the testimony of neighbors of his, farmers
who had some way been mixed up as to time
That class of people are not usually accurate
about dates, but that is all he has to rel,
upon" -,
"These people must have spent considerable
money fighting you and it isn't to be presumed
that they have done it solely for the publ
benefit or without expectation of getting a re
ward for themselves. How do you accoun
for it9'
"Well the syndicate has sold some stock
and have no doubt but that they expected
to sell out to us. OF course, they say tina
they have never made any proposition to us
and that is literally true. They have neve
made any official proposition, but we hav
received intimations enough in an indirec
way that We could buy the controlling interes
q in their company. The fact is, however, tina
there is nothing for us to buy. They hav
no patents. We have always been willing T.
buy their patents, they had any which wer
of any value, but they have none. We could no
buy their evidence. Their afidavits are oil
record, and could be used by any other com
pany which might spring up, and we coult
never go before court again to fight success
fully If we were to buy these men off, w
should simply be going into the perpetua
business of buying evidence. That show
the weakness of the advisers of these men
They ought to have seen that they hat
nothing to sell which we could safely buy
Yet have no doubt but that their origina
idea was that they could negotiate with u
or that they still have that idea.n
"How does the decision of the Philadelphi
court affect youp
"The Philadelphia court has made n
decision There the Overland company bega,
business, and we applied for an injunction
After hearing arguments the court said tina
as the similar case in New York was so nea
a final hearing it would await that decision
giving either party the right to bring tn
case up again on motion If tho New York de
cison was not given within reasonabl
time. That leaves tho Drawbaugh conpan.
in a peculiar position. 1t is under injunc
tion, and can do nothing while other com
panies, if they care to take the risk, ca
go on and do business all over tn
country and so get ahead of the Drawbaug
company. | think that position is havin
the effect to change the policy of delay, whic
has seemed to characterize the Drawbaug
company heretofore with regard to that Me-
York case. expect we shall got a decisio
this summer"
as not this Philadelphia company the onl
opposition one which has done business in til
cOuntryp