New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-03-25
rupFgUfYG ON STR1W,

s-~-----------------~~-
THRESHiNG OLD STRAW
The interyent of the Government In the
telephone case Is very unusual proceeding
There are indeed n few precedents Tor It, Dnt
these are feeble pegs upon which to hang 80
extraordinary litigation One Of them Is
United States versus Fraser (22 Fed. h'' loo)'
In which the court dismissed q suit to cancel
patent for invention. Another Is the
Throckmorton case (9s y. s., ~, where sut
for declaring land patent void was also dis
missed. Other precedtnts are perhaps mere
favorable. The right to bring suit In this
instance is claimed under Article l., Section
of the Constitution aud the acts relating to
patcnts and copyrights but the validity of the
proceedings will certainly he called In question
by the counsel for the Bell Company, ana IL
will be dificult for the Government TO sustain
its position "Go where they don't feel Sucil
reverence for jallcal precedents and comfy
exclaimed the Pennsylvania lawyer whom Mr.
Casey Young consulted IN the Pan-hleetllc
interest. Apparently this was the principle on
which the Solicitor General acted in selecting
the Tennessee circuit last September. We are
cnth to believe that there is any lack of rever-
ence for judicial preeedcnts and comfy in Ohio,
where Judge Baxter holds court.
Since the intervention of tho Government is
unusual, If not without adequate precedent the
country has naturally expected that the com
plaint when fled would disclose new Issues OF
fact or law. Accomplished counsel have been
retained; there have been protracted confer
ences mt Washington; and ut last, after long
DELAY, the Solicitor Generals bill Is before the
court. But from beginning to end 1t hoes not
contain single question Of law or fact that has
not been argued in the United States courts or
is not at this moment before the Supreme Court
for final adjudication (DOlbear and Molecular
cases.. The various claims that Professor Bell
did not file a proper description of his inven-
tom that his patents were issued upon
delusive and ambiguous application; that
Philip Refs was the inventor of the speaking
telephone; that an improper use was made OF
the Gray caveat communicated to Bell through
collision Of an exam liner in the Patent Office;
and that the Bell patents were obtained by
fraud at the expense of Professor DolDear, are
issues of fact which have been already raised
IN the courts, especially in the Dowd aud Dol
bear cases. and decided in favor of the Bell
Company, with appeals now pending In the
Tinted States Supreme Court. Recourse is had
to proceedings of doubtful validity, and tho
only possible result is to bring before the high
est judicial tribunal questions which are already
before it.
It is not customary for the Department of
Justice to make its legal proceedings a basis
for a political demonstration. The Solicitor
General in his anxiety to attract public SYM
pathy attempts to justify his action on public
grounds. His complaint closes with the
assertion that the Bell Company is a monopoly
which is depressing the American people and
demanding extortionate prices for the use of
its Instruments That is a tue statement and
VIC have no wish to gainsay it; bat it is
amusing to find it at the bottom OF complaint
which if it comes to anything will involve the
substitution of one monopoly for another.
Somebody Invented the telephone and is entitled
to the exclusive benefits of its use and sale. IL
Professor Bell did not invent it, he must have
stolen the idea from Elisha Gray or Professor
Dolbear; for the claim that Philip Refs had
anticipated everybody else has been critically
examined by the Patent Office and the courts
and pronounced clearly untenabe. Justice
Grav's opinion in the DOlbear case seems
decisive against the charge of fraud in that
direction; and, consequently, the sole remain
ing ground for invalidating the Bell patents is
based upon the Gray caveat and the accusation
that the secret of the invention was disclosed
to Professor Bell by reason of collision with en-
examiner. If the Bell patents are illegal,
Elisha Gray is entitled to all the benefits of the
invention. AS he has sold all his rights as an
inventor to the Western Union Telegraph
Company, one monopoly will be substituted
for another If the Government succeeds in this
litigation.