Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1885-10-02
TELEPHONE SUIT.
President Van Benthuysen of the Ma
tienaI Improved Telephone Com
pany Writes the
President and Assures Him that Attor.
ney:General Garland Is to Be
Held Blameless.
Even If He Had Instituted the Suit He
WOuld Only Have Been Doing
His Duty.


son Van Benthuysen, president of the
National Improved Telephone Company,
who is the chief promoter of the suit to
cancel the original patent on the Bell tele-
phone, this evening cent. the following
dispatch from this city to President Cleve-
land:
..,s nxceIiency, Grover Cleveland, President OF
the United States, Washington, d. c.:
DEAR SRI had the honor of addressing to you
th SsPash
addressed to you is tissue Of lies with reference
S asa & ssa The hs Bs Bsf2a fs.Ssone $ s'
the ss Fo Po Eesar Tsebho t5S cSmpsng TIE s st
lug, and, owing to the extraordinary methods of
the Western Union Telegraph Company and the
Bell Telephone Company, is absolutely necessary
for the protection of the public. The commen-
dation of the press is almost universal, and the
Department of Justice is extolIed everywhere for
suit. He was absent from Washington, and per-
mission was Granted by the. Acting Attorney
General, which he was compelled to do in the in
'''s'' u '"' s'n'fS ". WAN van BENTHUYsEN.
Original Petitioner.
Now it is alleged that Gen. Garland owns
stock in a competing telephone company.
| have no personal knovledge OF this fact,
out if it is true, and he had been in WASH
ington and had refused permission to in
olitutC 1hlc culS oiuPIy OCCduoC VI LILO pei
sonsl relations to another telephone COM
pany, it would have been act of injustice
to the public that would have reflected
severely upon the present administration.
1t must be borne in mind that the courts
will not permit fraudulent issue OF patents
to be made defense in infringement suits,
and this question can only be taken up by
the government. The bill of complaint in
this suit shows that the Bell patents were
obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, false
suggestion, and deceit; that Bells discov-
cry of the art of Transmitting speech by
electricity is absolutely false that the de-
cisions obtained from the courts In favor
of the Bell patents were obtained by col
lusion and untruthful admissions. Philip
Reiss discovered the art and gave it to the
world in 1862, long before Bell was
ever heard of, as will be seen by
the accompanying extracts (which are
only a few out of many even more
posat;ve) cent by mail. The Reiss in
struments, as made in 1862, transmit ar
ticulate speech freely, and 1 hold myself
in readiness to exhibit them in full opera
ton TO the government. The original Bell
patent shows no instrument that transmits
speech, and no instrument therein men
| toned or SIS described by Bell ever di6
| transmit speech. have proof 10 show
| that the first instrument with which Bell
| transmitted speech was in no wise de-
| scribed in his patent, but was the fac.
| simIle of an inst ument described in q
| cav sat fled by Elisha Gray for speaking
| telephone on the same day that Bell filed
his application for an improvement in
multiple telegraphy, and which has been
distorted by decisions OF courts in collusive
suits to cover speaking telephone.
have an affidavit of the examiner who
passed Bells application to issue, showing
that by a violation of the law and rules o.
the patent effice, Gray was deprived o.
his risbts. l have an affidavit showing
that Fell or his attorneys were made &C
quainted with the contents Of Gray
caveat in violation OF law. The first sue
cessful transmission OF speech by electrici
ty by Bell was after his patent for an i'm
provement in multiple telegraphy hRC
been issued and was made with the FAC
simile O! one OF the instruments describe,
in Gray's caveat The tran missiop @
speech by Bell at the Centeruial wss b.
the fac-simile OF the other instrument de
scribed in Gray's cavest, and it is not a
all likely that Bell would have left out c
his application for patent all mention c
two instruments that would work success;
fully and mention in his patents instru
ments that will not transmit speech. Gray
under erroneous advice and in the belit
that Bell, having first publicly exhibited
successful telephone, entitled Bell
priority, wrote letters that have been cor
strued as an admission by Gray that Be
was the first inventor. This Gray woul
not have not done but for this erronsou
advice, as his (Gray's) caveat, its drawing
and clear description of a speaking tell
phone, gave him priority regardless {
what Bell did after this caveat was filed.
In conclusion, 1 beg leave to add thi
the remarkable fact is also shown IN th
interference cases that they we're ca RE
on without Gray's authority, and the e1
aminer's argument was all in favor
Gray, but the decision was in favor
Bell because Of the action of the courts
the collusive cases. No greater wrong hs
ever been perpetrated in any country tina
has been perpetrated under the so-calle
, "BelP' patents, and the strong arm of th
, | government should correct the wror
, done really through the wrongful acts
its own SCENTS. If the law had been ca
ried out Gray would have fled his appl
cation in pursuance of bis caveat, an
would have exhibited successful speakir
telephones. Bell could only show "mu
tiple telegraph" apparatus THAT cann
, | transmit speech), for which he wou
: have received his patent, while Grs
f would have received patent for a "spea
: ing telephone. Your earnest attention
8 necessary in this to prevent further wron
Very respectfully. W. VAN BENTHUYsEN.