Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1885-09-29
COMMISSIONER ATKINS.

"rhe suit brought by the United States
against the Bell Telephone Company is
not in tie interest OF the Pan Electric
Telephone Company. 1t is q suit in the
interest of the public against an unjust
monopoly. The Bell Company claim to
have patent that gives them the exclu-
siye right 10 use the natural force-elec-
tricity-to carry sound across wire. IL
is against this principle, as l understand
it, that the government has brought suit.
The government claims that electricity is
a natural force, and no company has q
right TO the use of IL to the exclusion OF
the public, thus making monopoly OF
gift of the Creator. They claim that the
public have the right to use electricity rs
they have steam, fire or water, and it is 10
this question that the suit is addressed,
and not to any mechanical appliance, or
invention, or method, or manipulation.
"rhe Pan Company has nothing TO do
with this suit that know of. l am not L
| director of the company, as stated by the
| Tribune. l am a large stockholder, how
ever, and l knew nothing of the suit until
| it had actually been instituted. The COM
pany was formed in March, 1888, just after
| the close OF my tesm in Congress, and the
patents we're got out from New York, l
| think. There was very little money put
| in 1t, as many of the company were, like
| myself, impecunions politicians who
| haven't much money in their pockets.
| But what they had was their own, and the
| company was formed honestly
81 think l introduced Mr. Garland into
it myself. think ne held some consider
| a6le stock that ne acquired as private
| citizen, before he ever thought of being
At.orney-General. 1t was an honest in
vestment and no speculation. 1 do not
! know whether he ordered the suit to be
| brought, but l think the order was given
| when he was away. But, however that
| may be, mis- interest in the Pan Elect ic
Telephone Company had nothing to do
with the case. 1t became the duty OF
the government TO defend its citizens,
against an unjust monopoly that wants TO
patent the powers Of creation and sustain
their claim by the free use OF money. And
il took up the task that is imposed upon it
by law to protect the rights of its citizens.
The attack IN the Tribune is an appeal 10
political preiudices made by the BsIl Com
pany to protect their lettering monopoly.
The Pan Company is not the most power
ful opponent OF the Bell Company, unless
/ you concede that their instruments are
better. Financially it is the poorest oi
them ell, and it will gain no advantage
from this suit, unless their instruments
| prove to be the best.
'The insinuation that there is foI tune
in it for Mr.. Garland is absurd, and the
imputation against his motives is scandal
ous and without warrant"
az know nothing of the shit," said
GEN. JOSEPH E. JOHNSTON,
the president of the Pan Company. 81
| have beer sgey, as you know, and the
| first l knew of the government bringing
suit against the Bell Company was through
a newspaper clipping sent me- ! know
this however, that there is a law requiring
| ~ Ckai 60 hrin fNrf pS N
collation. OF patents improperly granted
The suit must be brought by tins pnitel
States, and can be brought by no one else
You or anybody else, if supported by thi
7 proper afIidav,ts, could demand such {
Z suit The question now at issue has neYe
| neen tried before, as no one but the uut
ted States government could bring the suit
and even il the government were tayors
bly, disposed toward the Bell Company
, would be its duty to bring the suit to tss
, the question"
THE FACTS,
as ascertained at the department, diselos,
that the application TO authorizs the sui
against the Bell Company ema0sted orig
D | inally from the United States District At
r torney for Western Tennessee. 1t Sc
forth that the letters patent to Bell haC
been improvidsntly issued and asked au
! ! thority to institute suit in the name o
of the Government to vacate tht
patents issued Bell in 1876. The paper
were referred to the SoliGitor-G eneral, wht
made q careful examination, and satisf &c
himself that the application Was proper
q | Accordingly, on September Sd, the Solici
, tor. General, then acting as Attorney-Gen
eraI. wrote II. w. Cory, District Attorne
of Western Tennessee, to the following Fl
D feet: "Yours of the 3lst ultimc, inclosin
8 certain papers with reference to le, ter
!. patent OF the United States, heTStofor
issued to A. g. Bell for Improvement il
o telegraphy, has been duly received; upo
= a careful examination OF the papers sut
Il mitted, I am of opinion they make
i. prima facie case, sufficient to justify sui
in the name of the United States TO vacatt
annul aud declare void the said lettsI
d | patent You are authorized to institut
is a chaneery suit in the name of the Unite
=, States, in the United States Circui
: | Court in West Tennessee, 10
u the purpose of vacating and capceling th
10 letters patent to Bell, of March Z, 1876
n and numbered la, ,455, upon the groun
" that the same was improvidently issued
and were obtained by false and frauduleI
l. suggestion and conceslmeut on the part {
% said Bell. Permission is also given at you
A. request 80 Casey Young, Geo. CAN'T, Lux
f. Wright end J. r. Beckwith to appea
as associate counsel, with the distinC
understanding that the conduct OF tn
q ! suit is to be absolutely controlled by you
X self, under direction of this department
and no liability is to be incurred by th
70 government for any fees to the gsntleme
le named for their services as associat
d counsel"
A This is a complete history of the cas-
from which il will be seen that nothin
b unusual has been done in the case Of til
'f Bell Telephone Company, nothing, il
it deed, that the department. could hav
.t ! avoided without making an exception
the rule.