Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1885-09-13

one OF the counsel In the suit OF the
United States vs.. the American Bell
Telephone Company, and asked his views
concerning the case.
"The suit is one of the most important
of the time" said Col. Young, "and its
merits cannot be discussed in mere para
graph. can best do so by treating of it
under separate heads.
IT INVOLVES THE VALIDITY
of the Bell patent of March Z, 1876, under
which the American Bell Telephone
of telephony. The principal part Of the
stock in this giant corporation is owned
by three other great corporations. 1t is
stocked at between $50, 600, 900 and $780,
600, 700, and the stock is greatly above par.
The business of telephony is in its infancy,
yet the income of this monster concern
is even now estimated at over $10,000,009
annually.
SUCCESSFUL ATTACK
on the Bell patent will strike down this
monopoly and open the way to cheaper
and better telephone service, and at the
same time give value to many improve
ments on the art, now held under letters
patent from the government by the in
ventors or their assignees, but of no value
because Of the supremacy of the Bell pat
ent. The government has power to issue
Natents only for new and useful discover
les and inventions. II by concealmeut,
contrivanoe, fraud or
FALSE SUGGESTION,
a patent is obtained for something that
was before known, or is of no value, or
for thing non -patentable las, for am
pie, patent on a principe or force of nat
ure, and which belongs, as of right, to all
peIsons), and such patent is working in
jury to the public, or come part of the
public, the governue ent may and wi upon
application accompanied by prima facis
showing, order a bill to be filed to repeal,
recall and vscate the grant. 1t was in this
way this suit was set on foot. The bill
charges that
THE BELL PATENT
was procured by false suggestion, fraud
and contrivapce; that the Patent Office
was overreacbed; that said Office dis
closed secrets of other inventors to said
Bell, and thereby wrongfully favored him,
in violation of the act of Congress; thar
t he art of telephone was not new, or
by said Bell, as he was fully
aware; finally, that Bells patent, with
out o her discoveries and inventions, is of
no value. It is confidently and boldly
asserted, by those VINO urge the suit, that
nothing useful in the telephone in gen.
eral use, and styled the Bell telephone,
was invented by said Bell, or covered by
his patent. That the successes achieved
in litigation, in favor of said patent, have
been either collusive, not contested, or by
mistake as to
FUNDAMENTAL AND VITAL FACT.
The earliest or among the earliest and
most important of these suits, was that
known as the Dowd case. 1t was begun
in 1919 against Dowd for infringing the
Bell petent. Dowd was agent tor three
great and wealthy corporations. Much
proof was taken. Finally the parties com
promised, the defsr 1ants getting large
interest, by the ts Of the compromise,
in the Bel nateh nd agreeing to de-
cree In faSof c4vks patent they thus be-
came interested 4 supporting. They
started out TO defeat the Bell patent. Their
ANTAGONISTS made it to their interest to let
the Bell patent beat them. And it is the
most natural thing in the world for
A CORPORATION To AGREE TO
what is for its peeuniary interest. To the
public the result seemed a success for the
Bell patent. The happy family, inside,
knew better. This family soon after
brought on collusive interference con-
tests in the Patent Office, which were
foreordained to go the way that led to the
enrichment of the family. That is the
way they went. The next case of i'm
portance was the Spence case In that
the Bell patent succeeded, on the PROPOSE
tion of fact, that the Refs conception of
telephony did not anticipate Bell, because
it was SO
DEFECTIVE IN PRINCIPLE
that century of improvement in con-
struction would not make it a speaking
telephone. 1t is insisted with great con-
hdence by those urging this suit that the
learned judge who sat in the Spence case
was in error as to this vital fact, that tele-
phones constructed on the Refs principle
are talking telephones, and that Bell knew
such to be the fact before the date of his
alleged discovery"
PHILIP REFS
was learned German, who died in 1874,
two years before the date OF the Bell grant.
These opponents of the Bell monopoly in
sist that as early as 1861 or 1862 said Refs
discovered the art, and named the instru
ment employed in its use the telephone
that he made improvements on the art
from time to time up to his death that he
constructed ten d ifferent forms of 'strans-
mitters and four of "receivers;" that he
successfully employed it az an electric
speaking telephone; that others improved
and successfully used it in his lifetime,
the metal plate, or diaphragm, being sug-
gested by Prof. Pickering of Massachu-
setts. in lieu of the "animal membrane"
as early as 1870, and successfully used III
that year by Prof. Wander Wyde of the
State of New York, who made and used an
IMPROVED REFS TELEPHONE
prior to 1872; that at the very time oi
| Bells alleged discovery of the broad ART
there was one OF the Refs telephones, and
| by no means one of the best of them, in
the custody of the Smithsonian Institute
| at Washington; that this instrument was
and is, an electric speaking telephone, &
fact that can easily be established by the
| United States electrician in charge of that
department in said institution. Yet thoss
owning the Bell patent managed to secure
a decision, from an inferior court, that IL,
| Reis telephone was not capable OF speech
but failure, because inherently wrong il
principle, and that no mere improvement
in construction could ever make it an
ELEcTRIc-sPKAKING TELEPHONE.
Upon the truth or falsity of this assump
ton depends the fate of the Bell monopoly
If untrue, then Refs anticipated Bell
dozen or more years, and the broad ar
belongs to the public, and valid patent
can be obtained only, for improvement
on that art. The reign CT the Bell monop
oily, and the millions which it annually e1
torts from the public, will be thing of tn
past, as soon as it is made to appear tina
the Refs art IS not mute but q talkin
art. Those who are urging this suit, sa
that they have In possession, and are read
to produce in open court, several Refs il
strume nts, constructed in precise
ACCORDANCE WITH HIS PRINCIPLES.
and that they are the expression and rel
resentation in, and Of themselves, of
talking arr, and, speaking for themselve
will demonstrate that they are electr
, speaking telephones, and that Refs is Il
founder and true head of the art. The
assert that no well informed scientist an
! electrician, not in the service of the Be
i monopoly, doubts or questions the trut
} of that proposition. They assert that the
! will establish their theory OF the suit 3
well authenticated descriptions and mo,
: lels of the art left by Refs, himself; by
scriptions of the art made and left by II
Z contemporaries of Refs; by the
EVIDENCE OF HIS CONTEMPORARIES
,, ! whose credibility viii not for moment
: questioned, and by many learned and di
I | interested witnesses in the United State
| They do not propose to leave this vii
1 point in doubt, but to establish il ess,s %,
: ly to the Bell mono, .. ors, -
'A'u'S veyond a reasonable doubt.
l. every way, therefore, such contest is
r, great moment: First, in scientific poi