The semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1882-1886, 1885-11-14
GRAY'S CAVEAT.
How the Bell Patent came to
Be Granted.
ALL I'M OOLLUS1onJ
A Full Description as to How tha
Parties Interested Made q
Test Case.

~
Test Case.
WASHINGTON, November 1.-THE hear
ing In the telephone cases was resumed be-
fore the Secretary OF the Interior to-day
Mr.. Giants, for the citizens of Memnh;s
read a long list OF affidavits and the an.
thorities that he intended to put in eyi
dence to show that Bell was not the ORIG.
inal inventor of the telephone. Among the
papers was communication from Acti:a
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 a suit by the United States
to set aside. A number OF telephone
models, originals and reproductions were
next produced, and their mode of operat.
ing described by experts A number oi
attidavlts made by inventors and experts
were read at length, including one by Edi.
son, wherein he states that his carbon tele.
phone is now used altogether by the Bell
Company; that he had not heard of Bells
experiments when he (Edison) invented
his telephone, but had read an account OF
Reiss' invention.
WASHINGTON November II. As support.
ing 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 application was received; also the
endorsement by Wilbur on the wrapper oi
Gray's caveat, filed February "a, 1875,
stating that Bells application had been
suspended because it had been the practice
OF the Office to recognize only a difference
in the date Of the filing of such papers, The
endorsement Of Commissioner Ellis Speare,
directing the revocation of the suspensory
order for the reason that it appeared that
Bells application had been filed two hours
before Gray's caveat was also read. Ex-
tracts from testimony given in the Dowd
suit were presented as bearing on the al
legged unlawful disclosure of the nature OF
Gray 8 caveat
Mr.. Young read an affidavit made by
Professor Elisha Gray, OF Chicago, on the
9th inst. Professor Gray begins his affida-
Wit with the statement that in the year
1875, he conveyed.
NUMBER OF HIS PATENTS
supposed among other things to relate to
telephony to the Harmonic Telegraph
Company in consideration of an interest in
that company. These patents were then
conveyed to the American Speaking Com
pany by the Harmonic Company for the
consideration Of one-third OF the stock OF
the American Company. Mr.. Gray states
that the American Company, the Gold and
Stock, Harmonic and Western Union Tele-
graph Companies were the real defendan nts
IN the suit OF the American Compa ny, known
as the Dowd case. Some time after the in
stitution OF that suit, SAYS Professor Gray,
these companies combined in the joint
ownership of all the patents involved, the
American Company receiving in compro-
mise 20 per cent. OF the royalties received
and to share in the expenses OF the litiga-
ton and the purchase Of other patents.
Before the combination was effected, and
when it was underst ,od that a comprom mise
would be made, Professor Gray says he
now believes that the litigation was not
carried on in good faith, with view tc the
final settlement by the court. This, he
says, resulted from the expectation of the
compromise. and after it had been effected
everything was done
FOR THE COMMON BENEFIT
OF parties, and such a decree as they desired
was entered in the case. Prof. Gray had not
the control over this case at any time, he
says, and his interest was represented by a
combination in which he was interested.
He filed caveat for his telephone on Feb
ruary IA, 1876, and afterwards learned
that Prof. Bell on the same day filed an
applcatio for an Improvement in multiplex
telegraphy. He learned, but not until after
Bells patent had been issued, that in it he
claimed to have invented a telephone. The
atfiant then reviews the circumstances at
tending the dismissal of the interference be-
tween himself and Bell and the issue OF a
patent to the latter. Continuing, he says
he is informed and believes that in lew
days after the issuance OF that patent ne
made an instrument with when ne trans,
mitted speech. Long afterward he learned
that Bell first transmitted articulate
speech through q liquid transmitter, sub
stautially as described in his (Gray's)
caveat, and unlike anything described IN
Bells application. For a long time he be-
Ieved that Bell actually invented that in
strument independently OF his (Gray 81
device. He Gray informed his counsel
that Bell had exhibited at the Centennial
AN OPERATIVE TELEPHONE.
using a receiver nearly resembling his
(Grav's). His counsel informed him thai
his claim was practically defeated, ano
that Bell. having an operative Instrument
would succeed. He did not suspect any
thing wrong, but supposed that In the eyt
of the law He'll had the advantage, as hls
counsel stated, and every oral statemen,
and every letter coming from the atflant a.
that period was made or written unuer :4t
belief that he had been larry oealo WIZ
long since the oral statements were ni"u,
and the letters referred to written, say
Professor GRAY facts came to his KNOW
edge that con onyinced him that he was wrohl
in assuming and believing that proless9
Bell had fairly made his inventloh. -
now believes that Professor Bell, on Tn tn
contrary, had learned in some way u ~
caveat and it's contents and thai
He MADE USE OF THAT KNowLEDSA
in ., nstructing the instrument with whlc'
he frat successfully transmitted artlcu'a; a.;
speech. He Gray had supposed 'n"t nstan -,
discovery remained secret IN tne ao.l
Office. as it should have done, and was ~ ~,
knnwn to Bell. What he now stated on VI
subject was stated in view OF the ini', ~ 8 ~" -
tinn which satisfied him that Mr.. pen, na ~
ing obtained his secrets, clai!heu uis an
covery as his own, and by TINS :n. A.,
the credit OF his (Gray's) inveG.,o md.
ing, however, says Professor .,s in tn
matter and under the advice OF couhse.
to his rights az before explained, ne s;t;',n @
-uch statements and gave such oePoes Psossn
as yould seem to acknowledge lie
Bells invention. Being under tn's -, 81.
continues Mr.. Gray, he did not take s.Hr IS
40 file his anDlication on his cavea. p,UI 'nI
ntlv hnt the latter rested witno"0 g. c,,
cation until November -. rnlicatio
time prior to the filing OF sa't the arpi America
it was suggested to him py .ne nnder th
mprss ras ion that it was the owner owns he e' fIe ia
sareat that on application should o' "''
upon it and the
APPLICATION WAS ACCORDINGLY FILED
Before any further steps were sae,sr. .n an inte
the applicatio except to dec!aIe and tn
Bell patent, the COMPROMISE mptn.tsnts ha in II
effected between the aSs eoaS the belief ths
Y the oSsse sss ri
application and the caveaI . au uhatever il
therein mentioned. and that wnad wcISoIder
,rs,t he had Sas sassSiSs SG,y 4 telephone
nyand N.Y. I that he had no longer nsnce any ne'ui sui
interest rest in pressing the interference f;%en%steri
Mr.. Gray declares that it was waavidsd, it wi