Weekly commercial herald. (Vicksburg, Miss.) 1884-18??, 1886-01-22
THE BELL PATENT.
SECRETARY LAMAR'S DECISION
IN THE TELEPHONE CASE.
The Question fof Priority In Inven-
ton to be Tested by the Govern
ment Before the Courts.

tanning his conclusion upon the proofs
and arguments submitted touching
the validity of the Bell telephone
patent Of March Z, 1876, in which he
says, in part:
The petitioners, upon the grounds
and for the reasons set forth in their
petitions, ask the Department Of
Justice; to cause or allow appropriate
legal proceedings to be instituted in
the proper court by the Government
or in the name of the Government on
their relation, to vacate and annul the
the Bell telephone patent of March z,
1876, in the petitions specified.
In order to know what suggestions
| should make as to the action of your
department on these petitions, l have
heard the oral presentations of the case
and considered it again upon the proof
and the able arguments Of counsel as
they appear in print. l thought that
my own consideration should be d.
rected to two questions. and to meet
these questions | requested that the ar
gumeht Of counsel should be shaped.
They are:
/. Has the government the right to
institute such suit for such a purpose ?
2. Ii it has such right, should the
proceedings involved in the respective
petitions, or either of them, be insti-
tutedI
The first Of these questions is spec
tally within the cognizance of your
department, as it has the Affirmative
answer of numerous precedents in that
department and has received a like
affirmative answer from the courts of
the United States. If it had not been
thus authoritatively settled, l should
in principle have reached the same CON
clusion.
The government is asked to institute
judicial inquiry as to the patent of the
Bell Telephone company upon the al
legation that such patent was obtained
by
THE FRAUD OF THE PATENTEE
with the collision or by mistake of
the executive officers of the govern
ment.
1t these allegations be true a great
wrong to the whole people rests in the
name and is sustained by the power
of the United States.
TO say that the government in1licts
the wrong would seem to imply that
somewhere among its resources the
government would have the power tC
redress it.
The argument against the prayer o
the petitioners GOES not contr2dic
this, but rests upon the theory that tn
government has provided a remed,
which excludes all other modes, and
therefore, prevents their governmental
action.
Ii two patents issued for the same
invention one is certainly wrongful if
the other is rlghtful. The whole in.
terest on the question as tn which is
rightful is confined to the two paten-
tees, and private litigation will secure
the needed remedy in determining who
has the right to the patent as between
rival claimants.
Ii however. there is only n pat
ent, and it has been f~raudulently OBJ
tanned to the exclusion Of the one
really entitled to be patente; if a
patent is issued for something not pat
entable, an invention already belong
ing to the world, it becomes the right
as well as the duty of the government,
when of sufficient public Importance,
TO fully seek its cancellation, because
private litigation is not IA possible or
adequate remedy, and because the
whole people are wronged without
other mode OF redress.
Under our government a man can
never fail for want of trustee, nor
can fraud, mistake or accident, in a
business transaction, escape investiga-
ton for want Of a tribunal, while the
court Of equity is maintained.
If a patent ought to be vacated, it
can be vacated there, but when a pat
ent bears the great seal of the govern
ment, even then, can ask TO have the
seal torn off.
My second inquiry was as to wheth-
er the right of the government exist
ing, the proceedings invited by these
petitions, or by either of them, ought
to be instituted.
TIE GROUNDS OF INVALIDITY
alleged against the Bell Telephone
patent may be substantially sum.
married thus:
l. The patent was procured by the
fraud Of the patentee through the col
fusion or mistake Of the officers Of the
Patent Office, and in violation of the
rights of an inventor named Elisha
Gray.
2. The invention patented was not
p~atentable because already public.
These allegations describe the &C.
casions in which the government, upon
my view, ought to act for the cancella-
ton Of a patent.
The issue before me lies outside of
the ultimate merits of the case as a
subject OF judicial investigation. AS
to what the final judgment should be,
1 have not lelt called upon to form,
and if l had formed, 1 would not ex-
press an opinion.
The question is whether enough has
been shown upon hearing to require
the submis sion of the matter to the
-...- 30 H. s..A--u n