The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1885-11-12

upon it, and the application was accord
i gly filed. Before any further steps were
taken under the application, except
to declare an interference between the
| application and the Bell patent. the
/ compromise had been effected between
the contestants in the Dowd case and
acting under the belief that, by convey
ance the American Speaking Telephone
| Company was the owner OF the appiica-
| ton and the cayeat and the rights
therein mentioned, and that whatever
interest ne b ID was only as q stock
holder in the American Speaking Tele-
phone Company, and that he had no
longer any financial interest in press
ing the interference suit. Mr.. Gray
declares tnat it was immaterial
bow the case WAS terminated
provided it was doue in such a way as
20 subserve what was believed to be the
common interest of the combination.
After the combination. and without
any action on his part, the interference
suit was again set in motion and con-
Quoted to result. He had no counsel
EN- DlOyed q I'd took no interest IN IL, only
! giving his deposition when called upon
Dy the combination. The whole apparent
! controversy was. as he believes. col
lusiVe, and arrived On with the appear
sncs Of an array of Opp6 sing counsel,
! and those counsel all understood each
other and were working for a common
| end, agreed on before hand by the COM
bination. He had deposed under the
honest belief that Mr. Bell had the
advantage. cit is not a fact, continues
Prof. Gray, that the result in the DOwd
case was reached by q trial upon the
merits and decision according to mer
| its, but by the agreement and under
standing of the parties in interest. Nor
! is it fact, as / believe, that the inter
ference suits were carried on upon their
merits in a real bona fde controversy;
! but. on the contrary, / believe that the
said interference litigation. although
seemingly hostile, was really
friendly and the result reached was
not decision upon the merits on a
hostile controversy, but in : collusive
controversy. in which only the parties
interested were parties in interest IN the
Dowd Irrigation"
In a correspondence that passed be-
tween Professor Bell and him in 1877,
Professor Gray said he accorded to the
former credit as an actual d; scOverer
and inventor, under the belief
however, that he was entitled |
TO the priority, and that without |
any knowledge of his (Gray's) caveat |
he had really been unable to appear t. !
be discoTerer and inventor. when such |
as he (Gray) now truly believ, 3, was |
not the fact. Gray says, further, that |
he wrote then under the belieT, and by |
the advice of counsel that by reason of |
Mr.. Bells claim TO have filed his APP |
plieation before his (Gray's) caveat. and |
that, therefore, Bells claim would take |
rank over his. He says that the letter |
he wrote to Prof. Bell, giving him credit |
as the original inventor, was written !
long before he knew that his first trans /
mission of speech was with a liquid |
transmitter. like that described in his |
Gray caveat, an6 that when he wrote |
the letter. and also when he exhibited |
the instrument in Chicago, as Prof. |
Bells invention, he only knew of the |
transmission of speech made at the |
Centennial with the instrument made
ike his receiver which he had never
used as a transmitter. The opening
and concluding arguments of counsel,
who nominally represented Gray in the
interference case, but who. be says,
really represented the combination IN
that suit. conceded the discovery of
the board art TO Mr.. Bell and claimed
for Professor Gray only the device or
IMPROVEMENT on that art.
Dir. Gray says he did not know. until
q long time after, that such was the
case. The arguments in the case, he
says, are in harmony with the man In
tenaon OF the combination and were
made TO carry out its purpose. The
combination claimed Mr.. Gray's
csveat and all rights hereunder by
virtue OF his conveyance to the Har-
monte Telegraph Company. Mr.. GRAY
says he did not intend to convey it, as
he was Of the opinion that he had been
oYerreached or had, by mistake, con-
Yeyed more than he had intended when
the trade was made. Mr.. GRAY
says after he was informed he had
been wronged In the patent
Office touching his csveat, either by
design in disclosing his secrets or big
renissness or accident, and that it " as
his discovery with which Prof Bell first
transmitted speech. soon after his
(Graysl caYeat was filed, he had said
conveyance examined by counsel and
was ad used that said conveyance did
not cover the caveat, but only certain
specific patents then granted, and to ,
which it WaS supposed by the pur-
ehasers TO relate, among other things,
to telephony, which patents they be-
lieved, although not granted expressly
in reference 10 that article, embraced ,
the principles that might be controlling
in the contest touching it. Mr.. Gray
says. III CONCLUSION, nc WAS mlSleU Dy
the assumption on the part of said COM /
paRy and its assignees that his contract ,
covered said caveat. and that he labored !.
under this mistake until he had the
contract examined, as already {
stated Young also read the letter
from himself 70 the ecu sci of the Bell
Company, calling for the production OF '
the contracts alleged 10 have been made =
between the Bell Companyand E Gray, 7
Gold Il Stock and Western Union Com
oanies, Blake, Berliner. aud others. In 5
bis letter, Mr.. Young explained that he
wished to establish by these contracts G
hat the alleged telephone inventions '
IF Bell were involved, that tie Dowd :
iuit was inconclusive and was )
,nly brought to obtain ju {
Itciai decree sustaining the patent; a
hat Bell snd his association entered TO
! law tue combination, and to control t
m the 1eRhone discoveries. In an s
wer to Commf ssioner Montgomery. O
fr. Young said be expected counsel for !
he Bell Company 60 produce papers q
5 lnorrow. II they failed - DO so, he =
7oaid endeavOr TO intr0auee testimony t
howing the nature OF the papers re-
-uired.