Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-09-27
The New Telephone suit.

1t is the United States that now seeks
to show ~ suit in the federal courts
that Alexander Graham Bell was not the
original inventor OF the telephone, aud
that for this and other reasons the Bell
I patents, under which the telephone busi-
ness scarr Q / on, should be cane led. Mr.
( Bell aud the American Bell Telephone
company have been opposed heretofore M
all suits relating TO this subject by corpo-
ratiOns or rival inventors who had entered
I the field in competition. IL is an oppos-
/ ing company, in response TO whose appli-
eaton the government now proceeds, but
/ IL is the government that sues, Sin behalf
of itself and OF all the people ard inhabit-
ants OF the United States and territories, "
because the evidence offered by the APP
plicant is regarded by the department of
justice as n sufficient basis for such a
suit. This fact will probably make the
trial more Interesting and important than
any in which the Bell company has here
totore been party.
The petition or application was adj
dressed to the Hon. Henry w McCorcy,
United States attorney for the Western
district of Tennessee, on the 10Th ult., by
w. Van Benthuysen, president of the Ma
tional Improved Telephone company;
Charles +. Huntington of Mississippi; j
Il. Beckwith Of New Orleans, and George
Can't of Memphis With the evidence
attached it was laid before Attorney
General Garland, who permitted Mr.
McCorey TO begin and carry on the suit.
His bill OF complaint has been filed, the
defendants being the Bel company and
Mr. Bell, aud the case will be tried in the
United States circuit court at Memphis
While one of the grounds of complaint
is that Mr. Sell was not the original in
ycntOr, and that he knew Ne WAS not, the
suit is also based upon u new body of
evidence relating 10 the manner IN which
the Bell patents were Procured. The
statements OF the complainant with refer
encc TO the prior discoveries OF Refs and
Mr.. Bells knowledge concerning the
same have appeared in part, at least. and
have been used to some extent IN other
suits. The new evidence is important
and especially deserves attention.
The hin asserts that Mir. Bell was ena-
bled to secure his first patent BY means
of information unlawfully communicated
TO him or to his attorneys by an officer of
the patent Office. The information related
TO the contents OF caveat filed hy Elisha
Gray OF Chicago. Bells application,
Tor patent was He'd ON February "A,
1876, and on the same day Gray's caycat
was hled. The application was assigned
to 4. +. WILDER, an examiner in the Office
The law requires that a caye9t shall be
placed in the "contdential archives" ard
shall DC preserved N secrecy" Bat
WILDER informed Bell or his attorneys,
that Gray's cayeat had been Gled, aiiu
that three claims in Bells application
related 10 matters specified in the caveat.
lie also informed him that on this nc.
count the application had been SUSPENDED
Tor ninety days. Thereupon Bell, II is
alleged, convinced WILDER that although
the application and caveat had been filed
on the same day, the application autcda-
ted the caveat an hour or two. For this
reason the suspension was revoked.
Then Bell, It is said, amended his appli-
cation IN manner suggested hy the in
formation concerning GrayS cayeat.
which he had obtained from WI
Der. The amendments were allowed.
ana few weeks afterward the
hfSt Bell patent was issued. The court
Is asked to repeal, recall, or cancel the
patent because it was procured wrong
inlly and contrary to law. Among the
exhibits submitted by Mr.. Van. Benthny.
sen ana MS associates is the affidavit Of |
WILDER, the examiner.
Inc evidence concerning the inventions I
OF Res and others will undoubtedly be
iu.iy presented, but the most sensational 4
evidence, and perhaps that which will be Z
the moss effective, viii be the facts, what /
ever lhty may have been, about the adj I
yahtageS said 10 have been gained Nv
bell through the action OF the examiner
ana his superior officers