Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1885-07-25
THE TELEPHONE WAR.
A Case to Test the Claims of Reiss and
Bell as Inventors.
Econ "a RaItimora So.

EFc"t me CNtttNtDFe Gun.
The Pan Electric Telephone Company,
which is the owner OF the Rogers tele-
phone patents, and from which the Wash
ington Telephone Company derives its
rights, on July II filed its bill in the Cir
cult Court of the United States for the
Western district of Tennessee, at Mem
phis, against the American Bell Tee-
phone Company and the Cumberland
Telephone and Telegraph Company, to
enjOin them from interfering with the
business of the Pan company, and to have
BelPs patent declared void. The Wash
ingtOn people here say that they intended
to force the Bell people to sue them,
and on failure to do so they would
have filed similar bill here. The
bill Of tho Pan company charges
that BelPs patents are void for many
reasons, which it states with particular
ity. That telephone made after the Bell
patent Will not operate and cannot be
made to speak satisfactory. that Bel
does not now use telephones made under
his patent, but that they are or an en-
tirely different principle; that Philip
Relss, Of Germany, invented the speaking
telephone in 1862 63, and made many Of
them, which were described ia scientific
journals and exhibited to scientific
bodies in Europe and in this country
prior to 1870; that one OF his telephones
was placed in the Smithsonian lnstitu-
ton prior to 1870. with descriptive models.
drawings, and figures of the same, and
that telephones made now in Reiss' de-
scrption will talk better than any made
on BelPs patent.
Ress died in 1874, and "Bell seized the
art in the state the dead inventor left it,"
The bill charges that there is nothing new
or useful in BelPs discovery, he having
been anticipated by Reiss, McDOnough,
Drawbaugh, Gray, Edison, Dothear,
Wander Weyde, and twelve other invent
ors whose names and inventions are set
forth. That the alleged invention was
described and set forth in scientific jour
mails aud volumes, fOrty-eight in number,
in English, French, German, and Italian,
which are named, with date and page
given, prior to Bells alleged discovery.
1t also charges that twenty-seven differ
ent patents have been granted
by the United States, Great Britain,
and. Canada, which patents are described
as having been issued prior to the Bell
patent, covering all the material parts of
BelPs alleged discovery or invention. 1t
states that Bell claims to have patented
principle OF nature whereby sound may
be transmitted by electricity, which il is
alleged cannot be done. The bill then
goes on to set forth the numerous suits in
which the Bell company have been vic
tOrlOus and have succeeded in getting in
functions, and charges that many of these
suits were collusive, and that in other
cases the facts were kept back from the
court because both parties We're interested
in not having Reiss declared first inventor
OF the telephone.
The bill describes eighteen cases in ali
OF which there was no contest, or where
the contest was between the parties as to
prlorityOf inventions, and proof Of Reiss'
Invention would have been fatal to both.
The last case against the Molecular Tele-
phone Company is shown to have been de-
cided on the ground that the Reiss tele-
phone would not talk, because the specl-
men produced in court at the trial would
not transmit articulate speech, while, in
point of fact, an instrument properly con-
structed on Reiss' descriptions will talk
very well, as the complainant proposes to
show the court.
The suit in Tennessee is the Pan Elec-
trio Telephone Company against the
American Bell Telephone Company and
its local company. The suit IN the United
States Court here is by the American
Bell Telephone Company and its local
company against the Pan Telephone Com
pany and it's local companies, and the
litigation will probably be thorough and
secure full examination into the merits
OF the questions involved. The Washing
ton Telephone Company, of Maryland,
which is operating in this city, is in
the hands of a receiver, who is
prosecuting the work under the di-
rectiOn of the court. The court on
Tuesday passed an order authorizing the
receiver to borrow $4,000 on receivers
certificates, and apply the money to the
completion of the exchange. Wednes-
day morning at II o'clock eX-AttOr-
ney General Gwinn moved in the
Circuit Court of the United States for
preliminary injunction in behalf OK the
American Bell Telephone Company. Ap-
phcation has also been made to Attorney
General Garland to file bill in behalf of
the L nited States to declare BelPs patent
Void