The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-11-10
THE TELEPHONE CASES.

airy. 1 am one of the few exceptions, however"
THE TELEPHONE CASES.
Beginning of the Hearing of the Petitions
Against the Bell Patents.
WASHINGTON, Nov 9-To- day was set down
for the hearing of the telephone cases, before
the Secretary of the Interior and the large room
of the Assistant Attorney general Of the depart
ment was crowded with counsel and persons in
terested in these cases. Secretary Lamar opened
the proceedings by stating that nine petitions
had been filed in this case. Inasmuch as there
seemed to be concurrence of sentiment and
wishes by all of the parties concerned in this
controversy, that the whole case should be taken
up at once and considered as whole, he (Secre-
tary LAMAR preferred that there should be no
discussion to-day the question of the power
of the government to institute suit to vacate
patent, aud that the respective applicants who
are movers in this matter should begin with
their evidence, and submit their cases.
The first case called was that of the Globe
Telephone Company. Mr.. Humphreys, the at
torney for the company, proceeded to read the
petitions filed in his behalf. In brief. the petit
tions set forth that the patent examiner who
passed Bells patent was under
system of multiplex biography that Bells orig
inal telephone was inoperative: that TINS was
admitted by himself that he could not truth
fully claim priority Of invention of the telephone
because it was commonly known that Relss.
Meucc Gray, and Others had made and used
telephones before Bells application; that it
could be shown that Meucci had used tele
phone in 1849, and that he had not abandoned
his inventions; that the Western Union Telegraph
Company. controlling certain telephone patents,
had entered into contract with the Bell COM
pany to compromise their difficulties, by which
the Western Union company received 20 per
cent Or the profits of the telephone company,
and that these great corporations had united to
compel the people to pay tribute to them; there
fore the Globe Telephone Company prayed the
Department of Justice to begin suit to vacate
the Bell patent.
The remainder of the petitions were read in
the order of their presentation and included
substantially the same matter set out in
the foregoing petition. During the read
ing of the petition. of the Cushman
company Mr.. HUMPHREYS stated that there
was a contract In existence made between Cush-
man and the Bell company, by the terms of
which Cushman agreed to remain quiet, and
avoid interference with the Bell patents. That
document was in the hands OF the attorney for
the Bell company. and, later on, they would be
called upon to produce it.
In the petition of the Pan-electric company,
it is set out that Gray filed caveat for tee-
phone on the day of Bells application. and that,
contrary to the law, the contents of Gray's
caveat were made known to Bell by an official
of the Patent Office, and that within a few days
Bell made an important amendment to his APP
plcation, covering the matter described in
Gray's caveat
Mr. CAN'T stated that Solcitor-general Goode
had acted upon that petition after an examina-
ton of the authorities upon telephony, and the
Reiss and other instruments, by beginning the
suit at Memphis.
Mr. Sterrow stated that the Bell company had
no desire to submit written answer to the petit
ton; it was sufficient to deny, generally, every
thing that had been set out. He asserted that
oil of the allegations material to this investigation
were disproved Dy the papers which the petit
TONERS themselves had presented and referred
to, with, perhaps few other records from the
Patent Office.
Mr. Humphrey then preceded to read the
afidavits submitted in support of the petition,
beginning with the affidavit of Zenas Wilbur an
exexaminer of the Patent Office who in
charge of the electrical division at the time the
Bell patent was passed. The afiant states that,
after examination of Gray's caveat and Bells
application, he suspended Bells application and
i.otifed Gray to complete his caveat within three
months. Those orders had been revoked and the
patent issued to Bell. In all his experience, in
eleven years practice. the afiant had not known
of similar ruling Had the usual course been
followed after the suspensory ORDER Bell could
not have received a patent and had Meuccis
caveat been renewed in 1875, no patent could
have been issued to Bell. Affiant did not sus-
pecb cfOokeuueSS at the tlIue. he Qlu nOL DeI6v6
that Bells application was for talking tele-
phone, but for multiplex telegraphy, and was con-
WINGED that his device, described in his original
application. is imperative.
A. K Eaton, an electrical expert and inventor
of Brooklyn, in his affidavit deposes that the
Reiss apparatus is capable of transmitting
speech. He also describes Meucci's invention,
and says that, in his opinion Reiss was the in
ventor of the telephone
Prof. Amos l.. Dolbear, of Tufts College,
Mass. makes an affidavit that he was told by
Bell. in the fall of 1876, that he tBell) had
patented the magnetic telephone two or three
years before, and that it did not amount to any,
thing. This statement had discouraged affiant
and he did not carry out his intention of apply
ing for patent on his own invention. Atlantis
instrument had, through the Gold and Stock
Company, come under the control
of lthe Western Union Telegraph Com
pany. and affiant was not represented at the
interference proceedings before the Patent Office
because of the fact that the Bell company con-
trolled his inventions. Attached TO Professor
Dolbear's affidavit are number of exhibits in
the shape of letters from a number of college
professors, testfying TO the merits and practica-
bility of the Reiss instrument
Mr. Beckwith, representing the Globe COM
pany, read the affidavit of Antonio Meucc de-
describing his inventions and exhibits, which
were laid before the Secretary to support his
allegation. Meucci recounts his struggles against
from taking out a patent for telephone con-
ceived by him in 1875 while in Havana, and for
which he made a caveat in 1871.
Further hearing was adjourned until to. NOR
row.