Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1886-09-22
THE TELEPHONE CASE.
Mr.. ST0RR0W CONTINUES HIS ARGUMENT
FOR THE BELL COMPANY.
The Real Issue Of the Case as Defined by the Counsel
For Ihs GOvsrnmsnt--Is the Bell Company
Really Doing Business In Ohio
Through its Agents?

CIScINNATI, September 21.-In tn,
telephone case this morning Nr. Storrow
of Boston, continued his argument begur
Yesterday afternoon. He said that tn,
local companies are not agents of the Bel
Telephone Company. They are pur
chasers of the exclusive right in a giver
territory to convey human speech to dis
tance ~ electricity in accordance with the
Bell pAtent. Mr.. Storrow went on tc
show that as to the telephone instrument:
(receiver and transmitter) the local com
pany is the lessee of the American Bel
Company at monthly rental Of so cents
1t is one thing to license party to do 9
business with certain leased instruments
or facilities, and another and very differ
ent thing to do the business. In the
course of Mr.. Storrow's remarks it trans
pired that the American Bell Telephone
Company owns 33 per cent of the stock Of
two of the Ohio companies and a little
over so per cent in two others.
The whole argument in this case ap
pears to turn on the question whether the
American Bell Telephone Company, which
owns large share ofthe stock in the Ohio
local companies, and whose instruments
are owned by the Bell Comdany, and in
use all over the State, is ipSO .tdctO a resi-
dent of Ohio. Mr.. Storrow of course, ar
gued that the American Bell Company is
resident of Massachusetts,, and not at all
resident of Ohio When il would follow
that the present court was no jurisdiction
being unable to compel the Defendant tC
come from Boston to Cincinnati to be tried
Mr.. Storrow concluded by pointing out
formal and facial defeats in the returns
of the United States Marshal.
Grosvenor B. Lowry, Of New York, Of
counsel for the Government, rising tC
reply, attracted the closest attention. He
did not attempt to follow Mr.. Storrow's
argument seriatum, but addressed himself
to the issue as if nothing had been before
said upon it except as he might inciden-
tally collide with Mr.. StOrrow's reasoning
or statements. The real issue, Mr.. Lowry
stated was simply and purely whether the
American Bell Telephone Company is
really doing business in Ohio by its agents,
it being at once granted that its residence
is in Boston, Mass. He contended that
the relations between the American Bell
Telephone Company and the local
Ohio telephone company are pre-,
cisely analogous to those between q
wealthy Boston capitalists who should
send million dollars to company OF
young enterprising, upright Cincinnatians
to be used in this city subject to his con-
slant direction and control, and subject to
his option to decide as to the nature and
purposes of the investments, the parties
accommodated with 1.-The cash, the em-
plOyes engaged, the conditions and line.
of terminating the engagement, and the
division of the assets. Such an investor
receiving q stipulated per cent of his cap
ital, and a share besides in the profit
would be the analogy of the American
Bell Telephone Company acting through
the local Ohio companies in this State.
Tie fact that such an investor and Oper-
tor in Ohio business chose to reside else.
where and to spend his income elsewhere,
would not invaidate the fact of his dOinl
business in Ohio through his authorized
agents. Mr.. Lowry was about to proceed
to show from the terms of the American
Bell COmpany's contract with the Obi,
companies that this analogy does exist
when Judge Jackson announced the mid
day recess of court till p. NJ.