St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-11-10
FIGHTING THE MONOPoLIEs.
Testimony Being Taken to Test the
Validity of Telephone Patents.
Hints at Fraud Concerning the Bell
Patent--The Cases Reviewed.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9.-To-day was set
uoWh 1or the hearing of the telephone cases
pelore Ihe secretary of the Interior Secre-
tary Lamar opened the proceedings by stat
Ing tilaC nlne citations had been filed in this
case. lhaSmuch as there seemed to be a
concurrence OF sentiment and wishes by all
the parties concerned in this controversy
| DilaC the WhOle case should be taken I'M at
once and considered as a whole he (Sncra-
tary Lamar preferred that there sh0uId ha
no discussion to-day On the ouestion of
power OF the government to institute a sniff
to vacate patent, and that the respective
applicants who are movers in this matter
should begin with their evidence and sun
nit their cases. The Globe telephone case
was then called. Mr.. Humphreys. the at
torney for the company, proceeded to read
the petitions filed in its behalf. In brief
the petitions set forth that the patent ex-
aminer who passed Bells patent was under
the impression that it related to a system of
multpleX biography; that Bells original
telephone was Imperative; that this was
admitted by himself; that he could not
truthfully claim priority of invention Of the
telephone, because it was commonly known
that Ress Meucei, Gray and others had
made others, and had telephones
BEFORE BELLS APPLICATION:
that it could be shown that Meucci had used
a telephone in 1S49, and that he had not
abandoned his invention; that the Western
Union Telegraph company, controlling Ger
| taln telephone patents, had entered into q
contract with the Bell company to compro-
mise their difficulties by which the Western
Union company received 20 per cent of the
prohts OF the telephone company, and that
these great corporations had united to COM
pei the people to pay tribute to them.
Therefore the Globe Telephone cOmnany
prayed the department of Justice to begin
suit to yacate the Bell patent The re-
nalnder Of the petitions We're read in the
order OF their presentation, and included
substantially the same matter set out in the
foregoing petitions. During the reading %
the petition of the Cushman company. Mr.
Humphrey stated that there was a contract
i'll existence made between Cushman and
the Bell company, by the terms of which
Cushman agreed to remain quiet and avoid
interference with the Bell patents. That
document was in the hands OF the attor-
neys for the Bell company, and later on
they would be called upon to produce it.
In the petition OF the Pan Electric company
| it is set out that Gray filed a caveat for a
telephone on the day of Bells appli-
cation, and that, contrary to the Law,
the contents of Gray's caveat were made
known to Bell by an official of the patent
office, and that within a few days Bell
made an important amendment to his appli-
| cation, covering the matter described in
| Gray's caYeat Mr.. Ganty stated that So
licitor General Goode had acted upon that
petition, after an examination of the au-
thorities upon telephones of the Reiss and
other Instruments, by
BEGINNING THE SUIT
at Memphis. Mr.. Sterrow stated that the
Bell company had no desire to submit
written answer to the petitions. 1t was
sufficient to deny generally everything that
had been set out. He asserted that all of
the allegations material to this investiga-
ton were dsproved by the papers which
the petitioners themselves had presented
and referred to with perhaps few other
records from the patent Office. Mr.. Hum
| phrey then proceeded to read the affidavits
| submitted in support of the petitions be-
ginning with the affidavit of Zenos Wilbar.
| an eX-eXaminer of the patent office, who
was in charge OF the electrical division at
the time the Bell patent was passed. The
af1iant states that after examination of
Grays cayeat and Bells application he sus-
pended Bells application and mott
fed Gray to complete his caveat
within three months. These orders
had been revoked and patent issued to Bell.
In all his experience in eleven years prac-
tlce at1lant had not known of a similar rul-
| ing. Had the usual course been followed
after the suspensOry order Bell could not
have received q patent and had Meucci's
caveat been renewed in 1875 no patent
could have been issued to Bell. Affiant did
not suspect croOkedness at the time He
did not believe that Bells application was
for talking telephone for mutiplex teleg-
| roThJr oDH ic ;;
described in his original application is inop-
| eTatlVe. a. *. Eaton, an electrical
EXPERT AND INVENTOR
of Brooklyn, in his affidavit deposes that
the Reiss apparatus is capable of transmit
ting speech. He also describes MeuccIs
invention, and states that in his opinion
| ReisS was the inventor of the telephone.
S. S. Pratt of the editorial staff of the New
York World in his affidavit corroborates the
statements of Mr.. Eaton, and declares that
Eaton, to his knowledge, in 1875 con-
structed an operative speaking telephone
Prof. Amos E. Dolbean of Tufts college,
Massachusetts,, makes an affidavit that he
was told by Bell in the fall of 1876 that
he (BelD had patented the magnetic
telephone two or three years before, and
that it did not amount to anything. This
statement discouraged the applicant and he
Gid not carry out his intention of applying
Ior patent for his own invention. Aft
ants instrument had, through the Gold and
Stock company, come under the control of
the Western Union Telegraph company,
and afliant was not represented at the inter
ference proceedings before the patent office,
because of the fact that the Bell company
controlled his inventions. Attached to
Prof. Dolbean's affidavit are a number of
exhibits in the shape Of letters from num-
Der of college professors, testifying to the
merits and practicblity of Reiss' instrument.
Mr.. Beckwith, representing the Globe COM
panY, read the affidavit of Antonio Meucci,
describing his invention, and exhibits were
laid before the secretary to support his al
legations. Meucci recounts his struggles
against extreme poverty, which, he says,
prevents him from taking out a
patent for telephone conceived
by him in 1915, while in Ha-
vana, and for which he made a caveat in
1871. a long transcription from his list of
experiments in telephOnng, antedating the
Bell patents, was read and a number of
corroborative atfidavits were submitted,
closing the case for the Globe and Washing
ton companies, and further hearing was adj
journed until tomorrow.
The Visible supply.
CuTcACO NV O -Sporn+1rv S+opa ~