New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-09-29
NO AUTHORITY IN THE STATUTES.

WHAT L. NJ DIcKERsoN SAYS ABOUT THE PRO-
CEEDINGs AGAINST THE BELL COMPANY.
The explanation of Mr.. Van Benthuysen of
the responsibility Of Attorney General Garland for the
suit OF the United States against the Bell Telephone
Company Published in yesterdays Times. shown to
T. ~ Dickerson, counsel FOR the Bell Company His
attention called also to the claim made by the At
torney Generals friends that the suit authorized by
statute. Mr.. Dickerson said:
There is statute whatever By which the proceed
ing Of the Attorney General against the Bell Company
Is authorized Under the original patent act Of 1898
the authorized annul patent upon proof
that the patentee not the first inventor. That
power revoked by the statute OF 1885, since which
time the courts have authority annu patent The
decisions OF the courts, however, chectual q
II they had such power, because when.
defendant satisfies the court
that the patentee is not the first inventor and any
court decides, that decision is followed by all tho
other until 1t is reversed by the Supreme Court of
the United States, and while the patent stands It is in
effect imperative. Thus In the Bell case, in which
dozen suits have been brought and maintained, all tho
defcnces which the Attorney General sets up in his
Memphis bill have been urged upon the different courts
II any of those detences had been maintained BY
any Of the courts. Bells patent would
have been imperative. unless the su-
preme Court OF the United states had
reversed that Judgment But one OF tn defences
has been maintained by ans court and therefore Bells
other persons in America had the Bell telephone In
before Bells invention; that it described and pub
shed in forty eight printed publications before Bell
six letters patent before Bell made his invention II any
one those statements is true, Bells patent Is inoper-
aye and all OF them have been set up In the various
led by the various defendants who have been
enoined n0twiths andng those defences
" In Mr.. Van Benthuysens publication In The Times,
The origin and maturity OF this scheme are fully set out
the eth OF July his company enJolned In Pitts
burg being present and setting up all the defences
which III this Memphis bill. On the 18TH as he says,
when the ATTORNEY General In WuslngtOn. lo
addressed petition To him 70 institute % suit IN tho
name OF tho United States for the protection OF
people he says, who wanted to tho Bell invention.
was under injunction In Philadelphia at that time and
preparations being made file bill against tho
Pan Electric Company ana Its licensees In Baltimore,
which done on the 10Th OF July or the Pan Com
pany the Attorney General Is large stockholder and
appears OF the Iecors Mr.. Van BenthuyseD 10
seems. Informed tue Attorney General that there was
requiring him 10 bring this suit bat dssoy cred
afterward that there not, and accounts for
remarkable deficiency by saying that 1t nad been stolen
In the Senate.
This was the condition OF the case In the Attorney
Generals office when Mr. Van Benhuysen reinforced his
application by the aid OF the DiJrict Attorney In
Memphis whom he says he convinced that Bell was not
conviction the Attorney Generals Office at Washing
ton, got authority TO file bill setting up these
taken from the answers In the defeated suits Upon that
application Mr.. Van Beuthuysen remarks, the order
was promI ty given from Washington TO proceed; aud
AGAINST the Attorney Generals company, met
by the Memphis bill and the District Attorney urged
upon the court that 1t ought not to hear our motion
because the Attorney General had taken this step.
IT is all that / know about the connection OF tho
Attorneyenerai with the business except that
It had done. The obvious object OF the bill
was TO interpose II as defence To oar motion for
Injunction the Pan Company having no dconce TO oer
except such as had been declared worthless by several
courts"