The semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1882-1886, 1885-11-14

VOLUME z.
and pedrahce tS OF an array of opposing counse,
o1her, and were ''ooo eacn
WORKING FOR A COMMON rNn
kseso Ha on before hand by the combination
ti le naa deposed under the honest hoI;ai
MT t' ms: s. beii had the advantage. ut is
..th.a Hs Iac5' continues Professor Grav.
reach.a v Ihe result in the Do case was
dao;a;e py tr!al upon the merits and a
ae aeelslon according to the merits, but bv an
agreement and understanding Of tho ~ ~ r+;as Ha
~ interest, nor isit fact, as / believe thai
~ .le interference suits were carried nnon
t1a Ineir merits, in real bona fde controversv. ".
Dut on the contrary believe that said IN.
Ser1erence litigation, although seemingly y
hostile, was really friendly, and the result
Feacned was not a decision upon the merits
OF hostile controversy, but on a collusive
controversy on which only the parties in.
MTeresseo were parties in interest in the
tn uowo ntigatlon: In the correspondence
Inat passed between Professor Bell and
him in 1877, Professor Gray saws he
accorded to the former credit as an SctnaI
ulscoverer and inventor. under the belief,
however, that he was entitled to priority.
ana that without any knowledge of his
tt9raye) caveat, he had resily been enabled
to appear to be
DlscOvERER AND INVENTOR.
when such as he Gray now truly believes
was not the TACT. Gray saws further that
he wrote then under the belief and bv the
advice of counsel that by reason OF Mr..
Bells claim to have filed his application
Defore his (Gray's) caveat etc., and there
lore Bells claim would take rank over his,
He says that letter he wrote to PROBES
sor Bell, giving him credit as the original
inventor, was written long before he knew
that his first Transmission of speech was
with a liquid transmitter like that described
In his (Gray's) caveat, and that when he
wrote the letter and also when he exhibited
the instrument in Chicago as Professor
beIl 8 invention ne only knew OF the trans
mission of speech at the Cen ennial with
the instrument made like his receiver, which
he had never used as TRANSMITTED. The
opening and concluding arguments of coun-
sci, who nominally represented Gray in the
interference case. but who he says really
THE COMBINATION REPRESENTED
in that suit conceded the discovery of the
board art to Mr.. Bell and claimed for Prof.
art. Mr.. Gray says he did not know until a
long time after that such vas the case. The
arguments in the case. he says, are in har-
mony with the main intention, and were
made to carry out its purpose. The com.
bination claimed Mr.. Gray's caveat and all
rights hereunder by virtue of his convey.
ance to the Harmonic Telegraph Company.
Mr.. Gray says he did not intend to convey
it, as he was Of the opinion he had beon
overreached or had by Il mistake conveyed
more than he had intended. When the
trade was made. Mr.. Gray says, after he
had been informed that he had been wronged
in the Patent Office, touching his caveat,
either by design, or in disclosing his secrets,
or by remissness, or accident, and that
IT WAS HIS DISCOVERY
with which Professor Bell first transmitted
speech. Soon after his (Gray's) caveat
was filed he had the CONVEYANCE examined
by counsel and was advised that said con-
veyance did not cover the caveat, but only
certain specific patents then granted and
which it was supposed by the purchasers
to relate among other things to telephony,
which patents they believed. although not
granted EXPIRE ssly in reference to that arti-
Gle, embraced the principles that might be
controlling in the contests touching it..
Mr.. Gray says, in conclusion, that he was
misled by the assumption on the part OF
the said company and its assignees that
his contract covered said caveat, and that
he labored lnder this mistake until he had
the contract examined as already stated.
Young also read letter from himself to
the counsel of the Bell Company, calling
for the production of the contracts alleged
to have been made between the Bell Com
pany. and Gray, the Gold and Stock and
Western Union Companies, Blake, Berliner
and Others. In his letter Mr.. Young ex-
plained that he wished to establish, by the
second contracts, that the alleged
TELEPHONE INVENTIONS OF BELL
we're involved; that the Dowd suit was in
elusive and was only brought to obtain a
judicial decree sustaining the patents; that
Bell and his associates entered into an un.
lawful combination to control all the tele-
phonic discoveries. In answer to COmmis
sioner Montgomery, Mr.. Young said he ex-
pected the counsel for the Bell Company to
produce it's papers tomorrow. Ii they
failed to do so he would endeavor to intro
duce testimony showing the nature OF the
papers required.
Mr.. Starrow then opened the case for the
Bell company. He said this proceedings
was an effort to reopen suit discontinued
at Memphis. The affidavits read here
were merely copies of afidavits used in the
former SUITS Mr.. Starrow summarized the
voluminous evidence that had been taken
in the suit pending in Baltimore, brought
bv the Bell Company against the Washing
ton Company. One of the affidavits (that
made by Mr.. WILSON, who was associated
with Mr.. Bell in his researches, described
the public reception OF the telephone as
something
UNKNOWN TO MANKIND
before that time. Bells instruments eA.
hibited at the Centennial were explained al
LENGTH and the assertion made that Gray
was one of the persons who examined those
;ntruments in his testimony in the Dowd
trial. said Starrow, Gray stated that II
was the first time in his life that ne nao
ever listened at telephone receiver. Star
row. reading from the record OF tne DalIl
more trial, took up the affidavit OF George
Clifford. chief counsel for the Western Union
Tslegranh Company in the Dowd trial.
wherein he admitted that the Western
Union Telegraph Company acknowledge
the validity OF Bells patent. Then ne re
forrod tn the aftidavits OF Mr.. Bell ana MS
attorney, Bailey Pollock, as fully mee'lhs
THE ALLEGATIONS OF IRREGULARITIES
:, the issue OF the Bell patent, in answering
examiner Wilburs affidavit, put IN ev'
donce nv the petitioners, Starrow reau ITO"
the record of the Baltimore trlaI a seeont sec, ~;
affidavit made by Wilbur after the aihdaH, iaatn'
,..s mt in by the petitioners: and denyInl
| that there had been any coins'on oetweei ts
himself and Prof. Bell. An amoav,' ,!on ua -,
T;entenann Guye of the district ponce @ hea, ~a
to that ASinss wnsf or hns Sss
t;"v ar.; and at least on two occasions % &c pe
cao.ut on The making OF the two afhdavl.s Us ~ ~.
tween Wv citizens. The affidavit Dy eA
deearss that all R Of tasenes shs %sss reg
amending the issue ,'a ot pe,, read' At this pon
aar hsariaa IN ,Easu, was adjourned unilto'morro"
| c,,.dstone's Welcome
r,,vnuso, November 11.-G'adstotne lost mean, an,
a. ;s;ssss ss;ssiss sS% to Il
through sa@bIv 1ne bHI Hail. Crowds OF peopl
Free Asselnu and great enthusiasm w wa ,