Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1885-11-15
Arguments By the Hon. Casey Young
and Col. George CAN'T on Be-
half of the
Citizens of Memphis-Mr. StOrrOw's
Opening Address for the Bell
Company.

Gray's consent and approval, and after
having been shown 20 him beforehand.
He would also show that the alleged i'm
proper concession and compromise had
been made with Mr.. Gray's approval after
having been thoroughly convinced by the
proceedings in the Dowd case that Bells
claim was superior to his own. Mr.. Stor-
row also produced a number of the con-
tracts called for by the other side.
Secretary Lamar announced that he had
decided to allow each side five hours in
which TO make their arguments. The
hearing would be continued until 10 or
IL o'clock tonight, and run over perhaps
until Monday morning. In the argument
there were one or two points on which he
(the Secretary would invoke some discus
sion at as early stage in the argument
as they could be brought forward. He
wished to put the counsel in possession of
| some points upon which he himself need
ed edifcation. He would like to have
some definition of what constituted an in
vention which had the effect of anticipa-
tlon-that is, an effect to preclude third
parties from getting patent. He was not
familiar with the present condition of the
telephone and its relation 10 the past.
There was another point. After the q1es-
ton of power was settled, he would Ike
well formulated theory OF what constituted
ii
patent that had been issued by the gov
ernment. Iu other words, supposing the
question of power to be out of the way,
and assuming the existence OF that power,
what circumstances would warrant the
government in the exercise of its sovereign
| power recalling franchise which it had
once consttutionally granted?
Mr.. Humphrey, for the Globe Company,
| then opened the argument. Mr.. Humphrey
charged boldly that in the interference
case before the Patent Office every one of
the persons there represented was pur-
| chased by the Bell Company, every one
| of the counsel, including Mr.. Baldwin, q
highly respectable gentleman, counsel for
Prof. Gray, he said, was paid by the Bell
Company, and every sentence of that
voluminous record was paid for by the
| same company. In conclusion, Mr.. Hum
phTey appealed for an order to institute
the suit prayed for, an order to go to the
very bottom of all claims and mete out
exact justice to all persons.
Recess was taken at this point.
After recess Mr.. BeckYith followed for
the Globe Company in support Of the
claims OF Antonio Meucci. he said the
| government had been petitioned in vain
| to inquire into Meucci's claim. If they
| could establish the fact that Meucci in-
vented and used speaking telephone that
would dispose of the claims of Bell and
| all other investors. and quoted authorities
in support of his position.
Mr.. Young followed in an argument for
| the petitioners. The reviewed the facts
! leading up TO the present proceedings, and
/ said it was but fair TO the other side to
| fully open their case, therefore he laid
down the following propositions: That the
| government has the power and legal
! To Ia h fr,o & iE1
own judicial tribunals having jurisdiction
J in such matters to recall and declare void
a patent; that it had the power inherently
and independently of any express statute;
! that whenever it is shown to the proper
| officers OF the government by citizens that
| a patent has been frAudulently issued that
power should be exercised; that the evil
dence OF the record in this case shows such
a state of facts as would warrant the
government in exercising that power; that
( there Is abundant precedents in the his
! tory of the government for such action;
! that the Bell patent is invalid for the yea
son tnat it ia too broad in iSs terms and
violstive of the principles OF law that uu-
derlies the whole patent system by giving
| the patentee the control, not OF 9 process
| but of an element of nature, q current OF
! electricity. It was void fer want of util-
! ity. 1t had never yet spoken into human
ear single word, Il was voidable be-
| cause in its progress through the Patent
Office there were such irregularities, such
disregard f0r the law, as to divest it Of
the sanctity that otherwise attached TO the
issue of a patent. Mr.. Young cited at
! length the barbad wire case and others as
precedents whsre the government had gone
| inpo court to test patents Ia the lace OF nu-
merous judicial decisions upholding those
patents. "Why were the other side so
alarmed" inquired Mr.. Young, "now
when it was proposed to proceed against
them through the government? They
had already triumphed in eighteen suits,
and expressed themselves as secure in
their rights. Was il not clear that the
legal mind OF the country as well as the
public mind was not satisfied with the
correctness of former decisions 2" Mr.
Young referred to what he termed the
lsiiroad speed With which the Bell patent
had been put through the Patent Office,
snd contrssted it with the interference
proceedings dragging along for nve years.
He inquired who 1t was that paid MIR.
Baldwin prof. Gray's oounsell for his
i've years work; il Prof Bell or his asso-
eiates had not paid him. A collusive or
friendly litigation could not be urged as q
Judicial determination that estopped fur
, ther inquiry.
: AT ihH ".. "Sso of Mr.. Youngs argument,
! Mr.. CAN'T presented long list of authori-
/ ties relied upon by the petitioners to sup.
I port their motion.
! Mr.. Storrow then began his reply TO the
opening arguments. He explained at
| length the matter OF the law to which the
| Secretary has directed the attention of
! counsel. He said a decree favorable to
| the Bell Company obtained at Memphis
would bind no one, because it was brought
| by the people, all of them. His opponents
were in the position OF men lying in wait
| behind a wall to shoot man who passed
unarmed. A decree against the Bell
| Company would end them. A decree
in their favor would be OF no
service to it and would bind no one. Was
! it the intention to bind the Bell Company
! to refrain from prosecutions in other caees
until the long litigation in the United
| States courts had dragged itself along to q
| close? He suspected that was an object
sought, and although he had his own view
about the ability of his opponents to do
so, yet he would point out the dangerous
! weapon they sought to control through
i the results of this proceeding.
! Mr.. Storrow gave a sketch of the Pam
{ Electric Company. 1t originated among a
[ few gentlemen in Congress in 1888, he
said, when the Bell patent was seven years
old. They acquired certain patents of one
Rodgers, amounting to no more than a
few trivial changes in form of their exist
! ing instruments. To sell stock, they saw
the necessity of guaranteeing protection
from litigation, and they orgsniz I'D num-
Der of branch companies. In the Pitts
burg case. Mr.. Storrow said, the Pan-Ele
tric had deserted its offspring,
| DefauitiDg Postmaster Captured