Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1885-11-12
THE TELEPHONE CONTROVERSY.
Hearing in the Telephone Case Resumed
Before the Secretary Of the Interior,
WASuIHcroN Nov

WASHINGTON, Nov. III.
The hearing IN the telephone case vas re.
ssmed before the Secretary of the Interior
to-day.
As supporting the allegations of the irregu-
lar practices In the Patent office, another
affidavit by ex-examiner Wilbur was read.
reciting the circumstances attending the pres
entation of Gray's caveat on the same dsy.
Bells application was read, also an endorse
nent by WILDER. On the wrapper of Gray's
caveat, filed February -, 1876, stating that
Bells application had been suspended be-
cause it had been the practice of the Office to
recognize only the difference in the date of
nline such papers. The endorsement of
Commissioner Ellis Speare, directing a rev.
ocation OF the suspensory order for the reason
that it appeared that Bells application had
been filed two hours before .Grays caveat,
was also read. Extracts from the testimony
gwen in the Dowd suit was presented as
bearing on the alleged unlawf full disclosure of
the nature Of Gray's caveat.
Mr.. Young read an affidavit made by Prof
Elisha Gray of Chicago. on the 9th inst
Prot. Gray begins the affidavit with the history
OF the transfer of his patents to the Harmonic
Telegraph Co., and by them to the American
Speaking Telephone Co., and of the suit of
the American Co known as the Dowd case
Prof. Case had no control over this case at
any time, he Gays, and his interest was repre-
sented by combination in which he was in
terested. He filed caveat for a telephone
on February IA, 1876, and afterwards learned
that Prof Bell, on the same day, filed an ap-
plication for an Improvement in ''multiple
telegraphy." He learned. but not until after
Bells patent had been issued, that in it he
claimed to have invented the telephone. The
tho nir n
tending the dismissal of the interference be-
tween himself and Bell, and the issue of the
patent to the latter.
Continuing, he saws he is informed and be-
lieves that in few days after the issuance of
that patent Bell made an instrument with
which he transmitted speech. Long after
ward he learned that Bell first transmitted
articulate speech through liquid transmit
ter, substantially as described in his (Gray's)
caveat, and unlike anything described in
Bells application.
For long time he believed that
Bell actually invented that instrument inde-
pendently of his (Gray's) device. He (Gray)
informed his counsel that Bell had exhibited
at the Centennial an operative telephone using
areceiver very nearly resembling his (Gray's)
instrument. Counsel informed him that his
claim was practically defeated, aad that Bell,
having operative instruments, would undoubt-
edly succeed. He didn't suspect anything
wrong, but supposed in the eye of the law
Bell had the advantage, and every oral state
ment and every letter coming from the afiant
at this period was made or written under the
belief that he had been fairly dealt with in
this matter of his caveat. Recently facts
came to his knowledge that convinced him he
was wrong in assuming that Bell had fairly
made his invention. He now knew that Bell,
on the contrary, had learned in some way of
his caveat and its contents, and he made use
of that knowledge in constructing the instru-
ment with which he first successfully trans
mitted articulate speech. He (Gray) has
supposed that his discovery remained a secret
in the patent Office, as it should have done.
and was not known to Mr..
Bell. What he now stated on the subject
was stated in view of the information which
satisfied him that Mr.. Bell, having obtained
his secrets, claimed Gray's discovery as his
own, and by this means got the credit of his
(Gray's) invention. Acting, however, says
Prof. Gray, under the belief of Mr. Bells
fairness in the matter, and under the advice
of the counsel, as to his rights as before ex-
planned, he made such statements and gave
such depositions as would seem to acknowl-
edge it Prof Bells invention. Being under
take steps to file his application on his caveat
promptly, but the matter rested without any
application until 1878. Some time prior to
the filing of said application it was suggested
to him by the American Speaking Telephone
Co., under the impression that he was the
owner of the caveat, that an application had
better be filed upon it, and it was accordingly
filed. Before any further steps were taken
under the application, except to declare in
reference between the application and the
Bell patent, a compromise had been effected
between contestants in the Dowd case, and act
ing under the belief that by conveyance the
American Speaking Telephone Company and
caveat and rights therein mentioned, and
that whatever interest he had was only as a
stockholder iu the American company, and
that he had no longer any financial interest
in pressing the interference suit. Gray de-
clares that it was immaterial how the contest
was terminated provided it was done in such
a way as to subserve what was believed to be
the common interest of the combination.
The interference suit was again set in mo-
ton and conducted to a result He had no
counsel employed and took no interest in it,
only giving his deposition when called upon
by the combination. The whole apparent
controversy was, as he now believed, collu-
an array of opposing counsel, and those coun-
sci all understood each other and were work
for a common end agreed on before hand by
the combination. He had reposed under the
honest belief that Bell had the advantage.
Mr.. Storrow then opened the case for the
Bell Co. He said this proceeding was an
effort to reopen the suit discontinued at
Memphis. The afidavits read here were
merely copies of affidavits used in former
suits. One affidavit, that made by Mr. Will
son, who was associated with Bell in his re-
searches, described the public reception OF
the telephone as something unknown to man.
kind before that time.
Adjourned until tomorrow.
NEW YORK, Nov. 10.
A Washington special to the Evening Post
says: at is probable that the most sensa-
lonal feature of the telephone controversy
yet to be developed will be the affidavit of
Prof Elisha Gray, which will soon be pre-
sented. Prof Gray maintains that he filed
a caveat for a speaking telephone on the same
day that Prof Bell filed an application for a
patent. which was the basis of the patent
which he now holds; that the application of
Prof. Bell was not for a speaking telephone,
but for what he called multiple telegraph, -
and that the instrument which he then sought
to patent was not adapted to the tranmssion
of speech by electrical currents, and that the
invention, set forth in Prof. Bells specifica-
ton, never has been used and never can be
for the transmission of speech; that Prof.
Gray's caveat, on the other hand did specif-
Il.