The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-02-09
No ComuromIse is Possible.

New York Times Our esteemed
contemporary, the EUsning Post, very
-oblieingly and handsomely fufills or
prediction that it would try to wrigele
out of the pit into which we have
cast it. 1t made the attempt last
evening. The Times, it assert, in
seeking to justify Secretary Lamar's
decision allowing the Intervention of
the government between the Bell
Telephone Company and its rivals,
has cited a precedent (which it appa-
rently does not understand" The
Times's contention is, says. the Post,
that il you wish to have a patent can
-celed for fraud the government must
bring the suit. And our contempora-
" proceeds as follows:
ut then cites, as an illustration Of
the superior effectiveness of the Gov
ernment's remedy, the Colgate case,
in which the Attorney General in 1867
brought, at the instance Cf the West
ern Union Telegraph Company, suit
against Colgate, as the assignee of one
Simpson, to determine the validity of
q patent for gutts-percha insulator.
The writer in the Times gives the his
toy of the case, and then, with a
faulty which is happily rare, describes
it as having ended, no. in cancellation,
but ina compromise. In other
words, the proceedings terminated
just az the suits brought by private
parties are apt TO terminate. We have
ourselves no doubt what iver that the
Pan.Eiectricians are now in pursuit of
exactly what Colgate got. Conse-
quently we are stilt left without reasons
for believing Mr.. Lamar's action wise
and necessary, but are as open to con-
viction as ever"
The statement that we cited the
Colgate case las an illustration of the
superior effectiveness of the govern
ment's remedy" is painfully iDaccu-
rats. Here is what we said: SHORE
over, the procedure by government
Intervention is the recognized and es-
tablished procedure in cases where
fraud is charged against patentee."
And we proceeded to cite and set
forth the Colgate case, in which Mr..
Jay Gould's Western Union Tele-
graph Company invoked the govern
ment's aid against Colgate, whose
patent it desired 10 have carceed on
the. ground that it had been fraudu-
lently obtained, There was net a
word about superior effectiveness"
And the Posts inference that be.
cause the Colgate case termi-
mated in a compromise the Bell case
also may terminate in that way is
absurd. The Colgate case was small
one and obscure. The public never
heard of it-certainly the Bell Tele-
phone Company's newspaper organs
never heard OF it, or they would not
have been so rash and foolish as to
attack Secretary Lamar's decision. |
Such case can be CompIo nised with
out difficulty. The Bell case can never
end in that lame and impotent way.
1t has made too much noise in the
world. The questions it involves are
of too great public importance, and |
the interest Of the people in just de-
termination of these questions is too
direct to admit Of withdrawal or COM
promise. So we must courteously but |
firmly refuse to releas the Evening
Post from its awkward and tiresome
position at the bottom 81 the pit.
1t is our duty, also, to remind our
esteemed contemporary that the "Pan-
Electricians" are not the only or the
principal parties in interest against |
the Bell telephone monopoly. The |
government proceedings against that
company are instituted to right a
wrong, to cancel fraudulent patent,
and the benefits of its actions must
accrue to the people. When the Bell |
patent is annulled, if the suit shall &C.
complish that most desirable result,
the art OF Il ansmilting speech by cleo
tricity will be open to the public. The
evidence that the devices used in that |
art were known aud used prior 10
Bells alleged invention is now too
complete and too we'll known to admit !
of the grating OF another patent. Mr..
Garland's Pan.Eectric stock, there.
fore, will be worth .ather less than its
present inapprecisble value:when the
seals are torn from Bells letters pst
emit. 1t is not for that reason, how
ever, that we urge him to get rid of it.