Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1886-07-01

under the administration of President Grant,
IL might justly be called upon To try lts
strength with a giant like the Bell Telephone
ana western Union Telegraph Com GAMES
comDlned, when the question TO be trled was
the right of this combination to appropriate
the electrical current to its exclusive use TO
cripple the inventive genius of the country,
ana To collect millions of dollars every year
from the people of the Urited States by com
peillng them 10 pay eXtortiOnate rates for the
use OF that which, it was alleged. did not be
long to these two companies, but had been
purl0lned from the rightful owner.
Mr.. WilDur's affidayits are cited and
copiOus quotations are made from papers
before the District Attorney at Memphis
and from the Interior Department record
to show that there was matter before
solicitor General GoOde and Secretary
Lamar that may have operated on their
minds IN determining the question as TO
whether the legality of the Bell patents
should be judicially investigated. MIR.
BelPs specifications are considered and
compared with Mr.. Gray's caveat, and
stress is laid upon Mr.. BelPs
failure to say anything in the speei'
fications ABOUT the telephone for
transmitting vocal speech. Altogether,
the report finds that enough testimony
was submitted to Mr.. Goode to make
prima facie case that there were speech
transmitting telephones before that OF
Mr.. Bells, and enough to snow that the
Solicitor General and the Secretary of the
Interior did only their DUTY and were
guilty of no wrong when they made pro-
vision for having that question tried be-
fore a fair court. In answer TO the alle-
cations of the Bell Company that the
questions about to be tried in the govern
ment suit have already been litigated or
are about to be decided by the Supreme
Court, the report reviews the proceedings
in the Dowd, Spencer, Dolbear and Draw
baugh cases, and says:
The question of fraud and the question
whether Mr.. Bell was the inventor OF the
speaking telephone were not ruled on in one Of
them. The latter decisions were all based
upon the Spencer case. No further comment
IS made on the circumstances of the spencer
and Dolbear cases. In view Of the facts here
stated Mr.Goode and Mr. Lamar ought not to
have been deferred from bringing the govern
ment suit by the allegation that the questions
involved In 1t had already been adjudleated.
INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE.
It has been urged that the people of the
United States have not sufficient interest in
having the Bell patents oVerthr0wn to war
rant the interference of the government as
the effect would be only to establish some
other monopoly IN their stead. The committee
does not so regard the matter. It Is not be-
lieved that any other patentee claims to have
discovered the art OF transmitting
articulate speech by electricity. If that claim
would be maintained for any one, in case
MIR. Bell's is disallowed, 1t would be for Mr..
Reis. OF course for his discovery there would
be no monopoly. Least of all could this suit
so result TO the benefit of the Pan Electric
Company, as many Jpyentions preceded that
of Mr.. Rogers. The effect would be to throw
the market open to all the companies. All
would probably do nothing, but the one hav-
ing the best instruments and being the best
managed would probsbly have the greatest
degree of success. In conclusion. the report
says: The committee does lind that there was
anLhnrItV O
the suits. but it expressly refrains from at
tempting to end whether the Ben patents
we're obLs tIed fraufFnently or whether Mr..
Bell was the Inventor OF the speaking tele-