The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-04-16
A VIOLATION OF THE ORDERS
The Mayor Charges that the Central
Union Is Acting Presumptuously.
The Company Ordered to Cease Extending It's
Lines--Superintendent Hockett Says the
Bell Will Enjoin Any New Telephone.

by several members of the Council and Others
that the Central Union Telephone Company was
putting up pay stations in different parts of the
city, without regard to the recent action of the
Council and Board Of Aldermen in repeating it's
franchise. He says he considered the company
action, in view of this repeal, high
ly presumptuous, and but for the
fact that ii was proposed to
hold special meetings of the Council and Board
this evening to consider the matter, would have
at once instructed the street commissioner to
tear the wires and cut down the poles. He hap
no idea the company would do such thing, and
thought it outrage on the city. AS it was he
instructed Superintendent O'Donnell and Street
Commissioner Roney to notify Superintendent
Hockett to stop at once, as the erection Of sta
tons, poles and wires was violation of the
order of the city legislature. They did not find
Mr.. Hockett, but served the order on the man in
charge.
special meeting Of the municipal bodies will
be held tonight, and it is extremely probable
that heroic measures will be resorted to, and
the street commissioner instructed to tear down
the wires at once.
Only few telephones were removed yester
day. owing to the weather The diminished serv-
ice has caused preceptible reduction of the
number of employees at the exchange. There
were formerly employed twenty ladies, and the
number is now reduced to eleven. which will be,
If the removals progress, further reduced to
nine by the end of the week. The Central
Union intends to keep the latter number until
the exchange closes up it's business. The fol-
lowing is a list of the patrons whose telephones
were removed yesterday:
Mccormick Machine Co., Charles Ferger,
DR.. E, s. Elder, Kreisher s. Lyders,
@. "A. Van Pet, w. H. Thomas,
Hunt & Pray (2) James Wells,
Theo Pfafiin & Co., A. d. Tempeton,
Steeg & Bernhamer, Branham & Co. (3),
Denny & Elliott S. w. Wales.
Mr.. Leach general agent of the Interstate
Telephone Company, YESTERDAY connected the
over the B. & o. wire. with his instruments,
and he offers opportunity for testing the
practical merits of his machines
Superintendent Hockett says that all the in
ventions now represented here, in the applica-
ton for the Central Union franchise, are of the
wildcat" order. and that the Bell company will
bring suit against any Of them which should
attempt to operate He says that the new tele-
phones, such as are proposed by Mr.. Leach. Of
the Interstate company, do not embody any new
application of transmission, which had not
already been passed upon, as infringements
of the Bell patent. by the United States
courts The claim of Mr.. Leach that the Inter-
state company was now operating An exchange
in Grand Rapids he had been informed was not
founded upon fact, but that the company had
confined itself to inducing capitalists in becom-
ing interested in the formation Of companies,
The new patents OF course. could not be tested
for infringement of the Bell patents until they
were put into actual use. Mr. Hockett also said
that the Cushman telephone had never been
patented nor even had patent been
applied for; and that it could
invention has been publicly made known for
several years. In 1882 the commercial value of
the telephone we'll known, and if Cushman
had wished to establish his claims ne could have
done SO then, and have received all the fame Of
the invention and have had his pockets filled
with money. At that time he entered into an
agreement with the Bell company that, for three
years, for 500 per month, he would
keep his discovery a secret. The Cush-
man company has no telephones in COM
mercial use, and therefore cannot. be sued
for infringsment OF patent The Wallace com
pany Mr.. Hockett said, were now operating a
few exchanges in Canada, whore the courts had
declared the Bell patent void because instru-
ments were not manufactured in Canada as re-
quired by the Canadian patent law. They had
started two exchanges in New York, but suits
for infringement of patent are now pending in
the courts against them by the Bell company.
He says the Brown appears to be only another
form Of the Bell hand-telephone, and the reason
no infringement suits have been filed
instruments are in use. The West telephone,
he also says, is but duplicate of the appliances
already judged by the United States courts as
infringements upon the Bell patents.
1T is difficult to see" said Mr.. Hockett. chow
many of these companies expect to operate if
the statement of Mr.. Vance, of the Wallace COM
pany, that If the fifth claim of the Bell patent
holds good. we are all shut out is true, and it
undoubtedly is, unless the courts will not hear
motions for and grant injunctions, while the
government suit is pending, but in two
cases. the United States courts decided
that the government suit is not q
bar to hearing suits for infringement Of the Bell
patents In the same cases, motions were made
to defer the proceedings until the government
suit had been decided but the courts overru,ed
all such motions. The idea is novel, at least,
that if company were to put up lines, and then
infringe the Bell patent, court of equity would
require the Bell company to compensate the in
fringing company, for its expense in placing
lines, when it knowingly trespasses the right Of
the owners of the patents. I have heard that
some three or four other companies. similar to
those already here, were coming this week to
make application for the telephone franchise"
THE CENTRAL UNIONS TAXES.