Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-05-11
THE TELEPHONE TROUBLE.
Interesting Facts Regarding 'e
MOIecuIar.Bell Dispute

The recent establishment OF Utah
branch of the Molecular Telephone Com
pany, and the trouble in which the rival
companies are involved, will make the
following facts of interest to those who
use the "wire," as we'll as the public IN
general. Since the Utah branch OF the
Molecular has been established, nothing
of importance has been done on account
of the question OF the patent right claimed
by the Bell Company. The following
letter will explain the state OF affairs up
to present developments:
OGDEN, Utah, May 4th, 1885.
C. J. Smith, Esq, Salt Lake:
Yours of the I'd instant just at hand
Have heard nothing from the home COM
pany, only this quotation, Even If the
decision is against us in this court, it will
not hamper us any" [ enclose you cut
ting from paper read by Theo. f. Tay-
lor. a f. RS. and Professor of Electricity
of several institutes and societies OF the
United States. You will notice how posi-
tive he is that Refs was the inventor OF
the telephone, and also, as | have re-
peatedly claimed and as further proof OF
his invention, the inventor OF the word
telephone" Judge Wallace has lately
held in his decision in favor of the Bell,
in the case of the Western Electric CO.
VS. the LaClouche Battery Co.: "When
an article is made that was heretofore I'M
known, it must be christened with
h1r11 oh no nd
dealt in, and the name thus given to it
becomes public property"
Why, if Bell invented the principle of
the telephone, did he not invent the
name. | am far more positive of fav-
orable decision to our interests from the
Supreme Court than / am of this deci-
sion of Wallace being in favor of the Bell.
l will again cite you to enclosed cutting
from statement of Thomas n Vail in his
report to the Massachusetts, State Com
''The Bell was in contest with the
Drawbough four years, and the expense
of this one suit has been nearly half
million, and is still undetermined except |
so far as a decision of q circuit court
goes" The Drawbough company were
beaten and had the costs of the suit to |
pay; all the Bell had to pay was for their /
attournies. They had only about fifty /
while Drawbougb had over |
800, yet the Drawbough's whole expense, /
costs, were less than $75 900. /
The Bell claims that $4,000 was paid
Dickinson as attorneys fees-where was
he other $425, 900 expended?
All these decisions can be obtained
rom one judge, but the Supreme Court
S not very easily approached. The facts
n no wise justify Bells claim, and we
ire absolutely positive of final justice.
I'm looking for Judge Wallaces decision
very minute. If in Bells favor as | am
confident it will be, we Will soon receive
Instructions from the home company; if
n our favor, we must not lose dav and
[ the company, in case it is against US,
I'VE or make such arrangements that we
an proceed, time as more than mOney
Very respectfully yours,
4. w. Brown.
twill be seen by the above that the
lolecular has came to stay, and will do
IL IN its power to win share of the pub
C patronage. The following is the opin
IN of Professor T. F. Taylor, which was
eterred to In the letter. Speaking of
'eis' claim of having been the original Y
nventor OF the telephone, he says:
" The lectures and papers of Refs prove
i'm to be the original inventor of the
'iephone. He was not only the inventor
he fully understood the principles of
leir operation and construction. He
nparted his knowledge to others in the
laInest language. He invented a name
n his instruments. He called them
The Telephone" My feelings are
rong on this subject, because [ am not {
lily indebted to Refs for instruction in
lie art, but it was one of his transmits
RS that first made my receiver talk. It o
rs been the fashion to belittle the in
.ntlons OF Refs, for the reason that they n
lied to become of any commercial
llue under his hands He was looking :
scientific and not financial success. I
I'VE never heard the great discoveries of
ewton Delittled, for the reason that he
led to apply for a patent on gravita
1n."
What the outcome of the dispute will 2
1t is impossible to say, but it can be =
IN that the Molecular proposes to fight :
every inch Of the ground and will not
'e up without a desperate struggle.
rther Developments will be awaited m
tn interest. I,