Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1885-11-09
THE GREAT TELEPHONE CASE.
The Hearing Resumed BEFORE the Sec
rotary Of the Interior,

The hearing in the great telephone case was
resumed to-day before the Secretary Of the In.
terror. The proceedings are based upon the
petitions of the Pan Electric Globe and Wash
ington Telephone companies, asking that the
Secretary OF the Interior advise the Attorney
General to institute suit to set aside the patent
granted to Bell. There was q large array of
counsel present
Secretary Lamar stated at the outset that he
preferred that there should be no discussion at
present on the question of the power of the gov
eminent to institute a suit to set aside patent,
but that the respective applicants named in the
petition which had been filed in the department
should begin with their evidence and submit
the case. Under this order Mr. Humph-
reys, the attorney OF the Globe COM
I any, read the petition filed in its behalf,
Bell patent was under the impression that il
related to system OF multipeX biography;
that Bells original telephone was noperative
truthfully claim priority of invention of the
telephone, because it was commonly known
and used telephones before Bells application;
that it could be shown that Meuccia had used
telephone in 1S49, and that he had not
abandoned his inventions; that the Western
Union Telegraph company. controlling certain
telephone patent, had entered into a contract
difficulties by when the western Union re-
ceived twenty per cent of the profits of the Tel
ephone company, and that these great corpora
tribute to them Therefore the Globe company
| asked that the Attorney General begin suit
to vacate the Bell patent.
The other petitions were read, making sub
stantially the same allegations.
Mr.. Humphreys stated in connection with
the petition OF the Cnshman company that the
possession a contract made with the Cushman
company, by which the latter agreed to re-
main quiet and avoid interference with the
Bell company. Later on they would ask that
this contract be produced.
The petition of the Pan Electric Co. stated
hot Lad fnln ,hr,,
day of Bells application, and that contrary to
the law, the contents of Gray's caveat were
oee ana Rb bell BY SaHs
amendment to his application covering the
matter described.
The counsel for the Bell company stated that
| they had no wish to submit written answer
to the petition, but they denied everything
that had been set forth. All of the allegations
by the papers which the petitioners themselves
had presented.
M Mr. humphreys then proceeded to read the
with the affidavit of z. Wilbur, former exam,
liner in the Patent office, who was In charge of
the electrical division Of the office when the
Bell patent was passed.
Mir. Wilbur stated that after an examination
of Grays caveat and Bells application he sus-
pended Bells application and notified Gray to
complete his caveat within three months
These orders were revoked and a patent was
issued to Bell an unheard OF ruling. If the
| usual order had been followed no patent would
have been issued to Bell.
An affidavit of A. X. Eaton, an electrical ex-
pert, from Brooklyn, was read, which affirmed
that the Reiss telephone was capable of trans
uniting speech, and that in his opinion Reiss
was the inventor of the telephone.
S. S. Pratt, of the editorial staff of the New
York World, corroborates Mr.. Eaton's state
ment, and declares that the latter, in 1875, in
vented a speaking telephone.
Prof A. E. DOlbear, OF Tufts college, Mass, in
an affidavit, states that in 1875 he was told
by Bell that he had invented two three
years before telephone, but that it amounted
TO nothing.