The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-11-13
Testimony for the Bell Company.

To the Western associated Press.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 12.-In the telephone
cases, before the Secretary of the Interior, this
morning, Mr., Starrow continued the presentation
of the case for the Bell company He read a
letter written by Professor Bell to his parents,
from Salem. Mass, March IS, 1875 containing
report OF the telephone tests made by himself
and Professor Henry. He then wrote that
Professor Henry advised him to proceed and try
to work out the idea himself. Professor Bell
explained that he did not have the necessary
knowlede of electricity and Professor Henry's
answer was: 'Get it." He was encouraged and
upheld in his investigations by those words, and
in one year secured his patent. Mr.. Starrow
read the complaint in the Dowd case, TO show
that it was fair test of the merits of the claims
Of the different inventors Heproceeded to read
a letter that was written by W.D. Baldwin, Prof
Gray's counsel, to Dr.. White Gray's partner
notifying him that Grays caveat conflicted with
Bells application, and that as the application
had been filed earlier in the day than the caveat
the Commissioner of Patents had decided that
Bells patent should issue; that was confdentia
but II Gray would come down to Washington
the next day, an interference could still be had
A second letter to DR.. White informed him that
Bell was willing to compromise on the harmonic
telegraph system. Gray replied that he would
come to Washington. Referring to the Pitts
burg case, Mir. Starrow said it was brought by a
branch of the National Improved Telephone
Company, of Louisiana, one of the promoters of
this case. The Bell company then got prelim
mary injunction; the evidence had now closed
and the case would come up for final hearing as
soon as the judge returned-probably in three
weeks time 1t had been arranged that they
should appeal the case at once to the
Supreme Court, and that court
would hear it at the same time with
the Dolbear case, which would probably
be reached next spring. Most of the evidence
produced here in behalf of the Pan-eectri and
Meucci petitions consisted of sample sheets from
the printed record used by the defense in the
motion for preliminary Injunction, and found
by the court to be insufficient to defeat that
motion; therefore this case was, in fact, but an
appeal from the decision of the court. Touch.
ing the affidavit made by experts that the Reiss
instruments have been operative in their hands.
MT Starrow said: They have introduced, in
those instruments, the mechanical contrivances
OF belIs instruments for the express purpose of
producing the effect produced by the Bell, and
they obtained those successful results not by
carrying out the effects arrived at and described
by Reiss. but by avoiding those very effects"
In answer to Mr.. Eaton's affidavit, to the eff
feet that he had been betrayed by his own
counsel IN the Spencer case, Mr. Starrow pro-
duced the record to show that his counsel-Mr
Baldwln-had used every effort to secure a de-
onded by Professor Morton, who had failed to
get audible speech transmitted through the
Reiss instrument. He also read from Judge
Lowells decision, where the court declared that
Professor Dolbear's effort to transmit speech
through the Reiss instruments had resulted in
signal failure. Referring to the demand made by
the other side for the production of contracts
alleged to have been made between the Bell
company and various other companies and indi-
viduas, Mr.. Starrow said it was little singular
that they called upon him to produce a contract
made by Gray with company in which he
Gray was one of the largest stockholders and
contract made with Dolbear that busy witness
who could find time to collect affidavits from so
many persons, but could not find time to produce
contracts which concerned himself.
Secretary Lamar inquired if Mr.. Starrow had
those contracts.
He replied that he had not. for he had not
brought them from Boston. Some of the papers
called for were already in the printed reports of
former suits.
With this statement Mr.. Starrow closed the
presentation of his case, and further hearing was
adjourned until to morrow.