Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1886-02-12
THE GREAT TELEPHONE CASE.
The Grounds on which the Govern
mens Suit will he Brought.

The Grounds on which the Govern
mens Suit will he Brought.
The Washington correspondent Of the New
York Times presents the following complete
and ineligible statement of the facts on
which rest Secretary Lamsr's decision to
bring suit in behalf OF the government to
snnul the Bell telephone patent;
Assistant Secretary jerks is admitted by
even the Bell telephone people to be one Of
the clesrest minded aud most capable officers
OF the government. He believes that the
facts exhibited do warrant the institution OF
an action by the government as trustee for
the people, having substantial reason to be-
lieye that fraud has been perpetTated upon
its agents. He sifted the facts presented on
the hearing, and found an interesting history,
which convinced him of the plain duty Of the
government. Bells first application for a
patent was filed on February II, 1876 There
was no parole evidence to show Ut what hour
OF day 1t was fled. lie described his inven.
tion as new and useful improvements in tele-
grsphy. lie nowhere claimed an invention
that would transmit articulate vocal sounds
or words. Oa the same day that Bell filed
his application Elisha Gray fled a caveat
which certainly interferes with Bells spplica-
tion, if Bells embraced the transmission of
words. There WAS no oral evidence to show
AT Wlat lOur OF lne uay tue chNedl WAS ultu.
The Revised Statutes would have required
the officers Of the patent office to declare an
interference, give notice to Gray, retain his
caveat in the secret archives OF the office,
and suspend all action for three months TO al
low Gray to file his applications. This pro.
vision OF law was clearly vloaled in that no.
tice given on February 10 to Bell, as well as
Gray, of the filing of the caveat, to which
Bell was not entitled under the statute. The
letter of February 10 to Bells attorney in
formed him that the caveat of Gray inter
fered with the first, fourth, and fifth clauses
OF Bells application. This Bell had no right
to know. Bell then went to the officers of
the patent office and extracted information OF
the particular clauses in his application with
which the caveat conficted-another viola
tion of official duty.
On February "a, 1876, Bells application
was suspended. His attorney then appeared
before the commissioner of patents; and
through Examiner Wilbur secured an indorse-
ment on February 20 upon the caveat that
the cash blotter showed in the chief clerks
office that the application was filed some time
earlier on February Il than the caveat.
These proceedings by the commissioner were
| exceptional and contrary to the former pTao.
| tice of the office and contradictory to rul-
| ing by the same commlssioner-Speer. Bells
| application found it's way to the examiners
room on February IA Six others in the
same room filed on February IA did not reach
the examining room until February 10. EK.
| aminer Wilbur, who decided the question of
priority, made entry on the back OF the cave.
at that the cash blOtter in the chief clerks
room showed couclusively the priority of the
application. On October 10, 1885, he made
| affidavit that the book he referred to would
| give no reliable information on the subject.
| Upon examination of the book his oath seems
| TO be entitled to greater credenee than his
written entry, az, If the book gave any relia-
BILE information, 1t would seem to prove that
Gray's caveat was first filed.
The book is a registry of applications filed,
| with fees paid. Entries are received by mail
and by hand. Those received by mail are
first entered. This would indicate that the
entries received by hand were not made till
after the last mail that came to the office that
day was received and opened. Immediately
after the mail delivery was entered on Febru-
ary IA the hand delivery was entered. The
| general practice was that, as applications and
caveats delivered by hand were thrown into
the same basket as they came in, the one
that came first in the morning would be
| found at the bottom of the basket That
| which came last would be on the top. They
were registered as taken from the basket
which gave the last application place at the
| head of the entries of hand delivery, aud the
first application would be at the end of the
list. AS the Bell application is near the top
of the register of hand delivery aud Gray's is
near the bottom, the inference from the book
is strongly in favor of the fact that Gray 8
caveat preceded Bells application. But the
decision of fact so important to the rights
of the two men, in Mr. Jenkss opinion, at
the instance of one in the absence of the
other, against the absentee, without notice
or opportunity to be heard, savors strongly
of injustoe and is suggestive of wilful
wrong.
On February 20 Bell, by his attorneys,
amended his application. Still, no speaking
telephone was suggested. 1t had been sus-
pended by the caveat until February 20 Sew
en- days after, on March 3, it was certified for
patent. Patent was issued March T. This