The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-11-12
BELLS TELEPHONE PATENTS
Further Testimony Showing Irregular
Practices in the Patent Office.
An Affidavit from Prof. Gray, Claiming the
Invention and Telling How He was De-
priyed of 1t by Conspiracy.

citizens of Memphis, read long list of the aft
davits and authorities that he intended to put in
evidence as tending to show that Bell was not
the original inventor of the telephone Among
the papers was a communication from Acting
Attorney general Goode expressing the opinion
that Reiss was the inventor of the telephone,
and that Bells patent had been irregularly
issued, justifying, in his opinion. the beginning
of suit by the United States to set it aside.
A number of telephone models-originals and
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES next produced, and their
mode of operation described by an expert
A number of affdavits made by inventors and
experts were read at length, including one by
Edison, wherein he states that his carbon tele-
phone is now used altogether by the Bell; that
he had not heard of Bells experiments when he
(Edlson) invented his telephone, but had read
an account of Reiss Investigations.
AS supporting the allegations of irregular
practices in the Patent Office, another affidavit
by ex-examiner Wilbur was read, reciting the
circumstances attending the presentation of
Gray's caveat on the same day that Bells appli-
cation was received; also the Endorsement re-
ceived by Wilbur on the wrapper of Gray's ca
Shear, directing the revocation of the suspeL-
sary order for the reason that it appeared that
Bells application had been filed two hours be-
fore Gray's caveat was also read. Extracts
from testimony given in the Dowd suit were
presented, as bearing on the alleged unlawful
disclosure of the nature of Gray's caveat.
Mr.. Young read ar affidavit made by Prof
Elisha Gray, of Chicago, on the 9th inst. Prof
Gray begins his affidavit with the statement
his patents, supposed, among other things, to
relate to telephony. to the Harmonic Telegraph
Company, in consideration of stock interest in
that company. These patents were then con-
veyed to the American Speaking Telephone
Company by the Harmonic company, for the
consideration of one third of the stock of the
American company. Mr.. Gray states that the
American Telephone, the Gold and Stock, the
Harmonic and the Western Union Telegraph
companies were the real defendants in the suit
of the American company known as the Dowd
case Some time after the institution of that
suit. says Professor Gray, these compan les COM
bined in joint ownership of all the patents in
VOWED, the American company receiving in the
compromise 20 per cent. of the royalties received
and to share in the expenses of litigation and
purchase of other patents. before the combina-
ton was effected and when it was understood
that the compromise would be made Professor
Gray now says that he believes that the litga-
ton was not CARRIED on in good faith, with
view of settlement by the court. Professor
Gray had no control over this case at any time,
he says. and his interest was represented by
the com bination in which he was interested He
filed a caveat for telephone Feb. ID, 1876,
and afterward learned that Professor Bell, on
the same day. filed application for improve
ment in multiple telegraphy. He learned, but
not until after Bells patent had been issued.
That In 1t he claimed to have inverted tele-
phone The af1ant then reviews the circum-
stances attending the dismissal of the interfer
ence between himself and Bell, and the issue
of patent ito the latter. Continuing, he says
he is informed and believes that
in few days after the issuance of that patent
Bell made an instrument with which he trans
mitted speech. Long afterward he learned that
Bell first transmitted articulate speech through
liquid transmitter. substantially as described
in his (Grays) caveat, and unlike anything de
scribed in Bells application" For long time
he believed that Bell actually invented that in
strument, Independently of his tGrays) device
He Gray informed his counsel that Bell had
exhibited at the Centennial an operative tee-
phone. using receiver very nearly resembling
his (Gray's) instrument. Counsel informed him
that his claim WINS practically defeated, and that
Bell. having an operative instrument. would I'M
doubtedly succeed. He did not suspect anything
wrong, but supposed that, in the eye of the law,
Bell had the advantage as his counsel stated, and
every oral statement and every letter coming
from affant at that period was made or written
under the belief that he had been fairly dealt
with in the matter of his caveat. Recently, and
long since the oral statements were made, and
the letters referred to were written. says Pro
lessor Gray, facts came to his knowledge that
convinced him that, he was wrong in assuming
ald believing that Professor Bell had fairly
made his invention. He now believed that Pro
fessor Bell, on the contrary, had learned of his
caveat and its contents, and he made use of that
knowledge in constructing the instrument with
which he first transmitted articulate speech. He
Gray had supposed that his discovery
remained a secret in the patent office,
and was not known to Mr.. Bell. What
stated in view of information that
satisfied him that Mr.. Bell, hav-
ing obtained his secrets, claimed his discoveries
as his own and by this means, got the credit of
his (Grays) invention. Acting, however, says
Professor Gray, under the belief of Mr. Bells
fairness in the matter, and under advice of coun-
sci as to his rights, as before explained ne made
such statements and gave said dispositions as
would seem to acknowledge Professor Bells in
vention Being under this belief continues Mr..
Gray he did not take steps to file his application
on his caveat promptly, but the matter rested
without any application until November, 1878.
Some time prior to the filing of said application
it was suggested to him by the American Speak
ing Telephone Company, under the impression
that it was the owner of the caveat, that an
application had better be filed on it, and the ap-
plcation was accordingly filed. Before any
further steps were taken under the application,
except to declare an interference between the ap-
pile alton and the Bell patent, the compromise
had been effected between the contestants in the
Dowd case, and. acting under the belief that, by
conveyance, the American Speaking Telephone
Company was the owner of the application and
caveat and the rights therein mentioned, and
that whatever interest he had was only as a
stakeholder in the American Speaking Telephone
Company, and that he had no longer any fnan
cial interest in pressing the interference suit.
Mr.. Gray declares that it was immaterial how
the contest was determined, provided it was done
in such way as to subserve what was believed
to be the common interest of the combination.
The whole apparent controversy was.
as he now believes collusive, and
carried with the appearance
of an array of opposing counsel, and those coun-
sci all understood each other and were working