The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-11-17
THE TELEPHONE CASE.
Argument Before Secretary Lamar Concluded
Ten Days Given to File Briefs.

WASHINGTON Nov. 16.-The hearing of the
telephone case was resumed this morning. At
the request of Mr.. Young, the Secretary de-
cided to allow each side an extension of time
in which to close their arguments. Mr.. Hum
phreys, representing the Globe Company,
read an affidavit by President Goodwin,
of that company, in answer to the affidavit
of Mr. Tompkins, touching the alleged
negotiations by the Bell company for the pur-
chase of Muerccis claim Included in the affida-
Wit were copies of correspondence passing be-
tween E. B. Welch, of Boston, and Muerccis
representatives, in 1883. He declared that Bells
invention, as set out in his specifications. was
imperative, and that no one, in the condition of
electrical science at that day, could have made
the instrument speak.
Mr.. Beckwith of the New Orleans company,
then began his argument. He said that not
more than fourteen instruments under the orig
nal Bell patent of 1876 were ever made. He
took up the points of law involved and proceeded
to answer Mr.. Starrow's argument He
attacked the model of the Riess instru
ment prepared by Professor Martin in the
interference sut. He stated that the contacts
could be established as described in Riess' draw
irg and expressed a belief that the instrument
was imperfect when submitted in the interior
suit He reviewed the evidence bearing
upon the issuance of Professor Bells patent, and
asserted that the circumstances all warranted
and demanded judicial investigation. Mr..
Dickerson took up the argument for
the Bell company. He made an exhaustive
exposition of the laws of acoustics and the
scientific theory of the operation of the telephone
and photograph. Mr.. Dickerson took up the
alleged reproductions OF the Riess instrument,
and pointed out the dissimilarity between the
original drawing and the reproduction. He then
took up the positions which the va
litigation. and the weight of legal
authority expressed in decisions
against them, and in favor of Professor Bell.
Referring to Mr.. Gray's caveat, he said it was
charged that Professor Bell had stolen from the
Patent Office an idea known to the world for ff
teen years. Then he corruptly stole a caveat and
yet he did not put its contents into his pat
emit was not there. In reference to
the Dowd case, where collision had been
charged Mr.. Dickerson said the Western Union
| company had bought up all these inventors
Dolbear, Gray, Edison and others. The Bell
company, not the present company, was a weak
concern financially. Yet the Western Union,
which formed company of the body of the in
ventors, came to the Bell company, confessed
offered to compromise SO they com
promised the Bell company taking
all of the claims. and, to decide the relative
rights of the inventors. the Dowd case was
fought up TO tne nanole. Inc argument
against the Bell company in the Spencer case
was the ablest made against 1t, yet that had
been characterized as collusive suit
Mr.. CAN'T followed for the petitioners with an
argument directed mainly to the legal aspect of
the case, and discussion of the force of the
merous authorities recited. recess was taken
to this evening At the evening session Mr..
CAN'T resumed his argument, with an. arraign-
| ment of Gray's counsel alleging that
they had played the inventor false. and
had advised him not to prosecute his
| claim. while admitting to others that he had
Of p the Claims made bv Bell Bell Grav and Ress re
| spectvely, and closed by claiming that Gray
was the inventor of the telephone Mr. Starrow
replied briefly to some of the authorities cited
by Mr.. CAN'T. Counsel were given ten day s in
which to file Briefs and the hearing adjourned.