Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-12-11
TELEPHONE RIVALS.
The Bell Invention" Preceded by An
other I eIephone sever al Years.

Inc Bell Invention" Preceded by An
other telephone several Years.
There is probability that the validity of
the Bell telephone patent will soon be
tested by proceedings which will not be
embarrassed by any connection of Govern
ment officials with them. The Scientific
american of Saturday contains a remarka-
bic editorial calling attention to the House
telephone patent, which antedates that of
Bell by eight years, and publishes several
cuts of the original models on file in the
Patent Office The Scientific american, which
is conceded to be high authority on the sub
ject says:
THE scope conceded to this claim is
quite incompatible with the state of the art
as illustrated by the Refs device alone If
any one had affirmed few years ago that
from the records of the American Patent
Office a complete anticipation ofthis broadly
interpreted patent of Bell would be ex-
humed none would have credited the asser-
ton. Yet this has been done. A telephone
far superior to Bell S crude and inoperative
device of 1876, or the somewhat better one
of 1877, is illustrated in our columns else
where. 1t is an exact reproduction of q de-
vice patented by the early Geographic in
ventOr, Royal E. House, in 1868. His name
is one of the best known in connection with
the early history of the art. He was the
first inventor of printing telegraph. He
stands side by side with Professor Morse
and Professor Balm in the history of cleo
trio progress. To-day, nearly so years old,
he still lives, connecting the past with the
present"
Further on in this connection the same
authority adds lone fortunate circum-
stance in connection with this instrument,
as concerns its use in litigation, is that all
the facts can be so concise!y proved The
patent in a clear drawing and description,
shows what the instrument is. A simple
| inspection shows that it is a telephone
By connecting two of them in circuit they
will talk, thus practically showing that thev
are telephones. The date of the invention
is far enough back to remove all danger of
| priority of invention on Bells part. The
| bearing of this invention on the extrava-
| CANT claims OF the telephone monopoly
would seem very evident. fit ever can be
brought before the Courts it will be an en-
tirely new matter, and will justify new
| decision by a Circuit Judge. At present
| these Judges are governed by decisions al
ready rendered. But this new matter in
! the shape OF prior patent the most con-
| vincing OF all proof, must certainly force a
new decision that will limit the Bell claims.
An attempt is now to be made to bring it
before the Circuit Court on a final hear
ing"
Such statements as these from such high
and responsible authority will naturally
excite great interest in the minds of the
general public, while they must produce a
startling effect among those directly inter
ested in telephone property II is under
stood that proceedings will at once be insti-
tuted in different States against local com
panies operating under the Bell patent to
bring the questions involved to the proper
consideration of the Federal Courts, and as
the new points presented have never been
passed upon the Courts will be in no way
'trammeled by precedents or previous rui-
ings touching the validity of the Bell pat
| ent.-NeiU York Star.