Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1885-11-12

1- ~ vi 0SHt OF we roy AIfies re
oeived, and 20 share In the expenses o
litigation and the purchase of othe
patents before the combination va
effected, and vher II vas under.too,
that compfomise would be made
Professor Gray says be now believe
that the litigation vas Tot carried on i,
good faith with view 10 a final settle
ment by the Court. This. he saws. re
, suited from the expectation Of a com
promise, and after IL bad been effected
everything was done for the eous mo,
behetit Of the parties, and such a de
cree ss they desired xas entered in tn,
case. Professor Gray had no oon,ro
over this case at any time, he saws, anc
hrs interest WAS represented by com
binatlon in which he vas interested.
be hied a cavest for the telephone OF
February lfsh, 1876, and af.srssrdl
learned that Professor Bell. on tbs sam.
day, had filed an Application fer al im
provemeut in multiple telegraph. II.
learned. bat not until after Bali,
patent had been Issued, tina. in IL hs
claimed 10 have invented a telephone
Affiant then reviews the circumstance.
attending the dismissal IF the inter
ference between himself sRd Bell anc
the issue Of the patent to the latter
Continuing. he says be ID informed anc
believes thai within a few DAYS
after the issuance Of that patent
Bell made an instrument with
which be transmitted speech. Ions
sfservard be Termed that Bell first
transmitted artIcuiate speech through
a liquid traRsmister sabs, antially al
described In bis (Gray's) cayeat, and
aniike anything described in Belts ap.
plicatien. For long time he believed
that Bell actually invented that instru
ment independently Of bis {Grsy's) de
vice. He GRAY informed sis counsel
that Bell had exhibited at the Centen
NAL an operative telephone. using . re-
ceiver nearly resembling his (9ray's)
His counsel Informed him that his claim
was practically defeated. and that Bell,
having "a operative instrument, would
succeed. He did not suspect anything
wrong, but supposed that in the eye o.
the Law Ball bad the advantage, as his
coansel stated and every oral state
rnent and every letter coming from affi
ant at that period Was "a ads or write q
suder the belief that he bad been fairly
dealt With in the matter of his oaveat
Recently, and long since the oral state
ments were made and the letters re-
ferred to we're written, says Professor
Gray, facts came to his knowledge that
convinced him that he vas wrong in
assuming and believing that Bell had
fairly made his invention. He nov be-
lieves that Professor Bell, on the con-
trary, had learned in some way of his
caveat and its contents. and that be
made use of that knowledge in CON
struoting the instrument With which he
first successfully transmitted articulate
speech. he Gray had supposed that
his discovery remained q secret in the
Patent Office. as il should have done.
and vas not known to Bell. What he
nov stated on the subject was stated in
view OF Information which satisfied him
that Mr.. Bell, having obi iined his
secret. olaimei his discovery as his
own, and by these means got the credit
OF his (drsy's) invention.
Acting, however. says Professor Gray.
under belief In Mr.. Bells fairness in
this matter, and by advice of counsel as
70 his rights, as before explained, he
made such statements and gave such
depssitions as wsuid seem to aoknow
ledge Professor Bells invention. Being
under this belief, he continues, be did
not take steps to file an application on
his oaveat promptly. but the matter
rested without application until Novem-
Der. 1873. Some time prior to the fling
of said application, IL WAS suggested to
aim by the American Speaking Tele-
phose Company, under the impression
that it was the owner Of the csveat, that
an application had better be fled Gu it.
aud the application was accordingly
filed before any further steps we're taken
under the application. except to de
clare an Interference between the
application aod the Bell patent. The
compromise had been effected between
the Contestants 10 the Dowd case; and
acting und>r the belief that BY the CON
veyancs the AmsricAn Speaking Tsle-
phone Company was the owner of the
applisatson aud the caveat and the
rights therein mentioned. and that
whatever interest he had vas only ss q
stockholder in the Americ IN Speaking
Telephone Company. ami that he no
longer had any faaneial interes: in
pressing the interference. Mr.. Gray
deosred that it was immsterisl TO hin
hew the case terminated, provided il
was done in suoh q way rs to subserve
What vas believed to be the COM
mon interest of the combination.
After the combination, aud without
any action on his part, the inter
ference suit vas again set in mo.
ton and conducted 10 q result.
He had no counsel employed and took
no interest in it, oEiy giving his deposi-
ton when called upon by the Commits
sioner. The whole apparent controversy
Vas, as he believes, collusi We aud arrived
at With the appearance of an array Of
opposing counsel. and those counsel all
understood each other and we're work
ing for common end agreed on before
hand by the combination. He had de-
posed under the honest belief that Mr..
Bsll had she advantage.
lit 10 not fact" continues Prof.
Gray, "that the result In the Doud
case was reached by trial on the
merits aud q decision according to the
merits. but by an agreement and under
standing Of the parties In interest mel
Is 10 q fact, as believe, that the inter.
ference suits we're carried on upon theiI
merits in real bona hds controversy
bat, on the contrary, believe that said
interference litigation, although seem.
inely hostile. wss really friendly. and
the result reached vas not decision on
the merits In hostile controversy, but
IN a co!lusive controversy. in which the
only parties interested we're the PARTED
10 interest and in che Dovd litigation
TIE Catholic University.
BALTIMORE, Nov. 1.-THE Board oil
Trustees OF the Catholic University mel
at the Arch Episcopal residence today
Present, Archbishops Gibbons, Of Balti
more; Williams, OF Boston; Ryan. ol
Philadelphia. and Corrisan, Of New
York; Bishops Ireland, Of Sc. Paul
Keans, Of Richmond; Speldine. OF
Peoria, and Marty. of dakota; Monsie.
nor Farley, of New York: Rev. Drs. fs
lev, Of raltimsre, and Chappeil. oil
Washington. Messrs. Michael Jenkins
of Baltimore; Thos. Z. wsRerman. OF
Washington; and Eugene Kelly. Of New
York, we're also in attendance. Bish-
OPS Ireland. Keaee, Spsiding and Marty
we're authorized 10 visit the various
diocesss 10 coolest fuuds for the Uni
versitv. They agreed 10 raise 500 1000
which, With Mis Cald sells donation Of
$50, 600. will give the University u 900,
600 20 start With. Tomorrow the Uni
versity Board will visit Washington AND
qualify a. O corporation.