The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-05-25
THE TELEPHONE PATENTS.
Professor Bell Formally Denies, Under Oath
the Statements of Wilber.

u
Professor Bell Formally Denies, Under Oath,
the Statements of Wilber.
WASHINGTON. May 24-Cbairman Boyle, Of
the telephone investigating committee, to-day
received the following communication from Prof.
Alexander Graham Bell for submission to the
committee:
"Hon. Charles e. BOYLE, Chairman Pau-electric Tel
ephone Investigating Committees
Dear Sir-I have read in the Washington
Post and other newspapers of May o. 1886. what
purports to be a copy of an affidavit of Zenas
Fisk Wiber sworn to about seven weeks ago
and offered to your committee. The persons
who offered this to the committee are now at
Baltimore and New Orleans, in the United States
Court. defending suits for infringing my patents.
am informed that testimony for final hearing
is now being taken in both those cases. If these
persons, or any one else associated with those
defenses, think that any court would believe
what Mr.. WILDER swears to, it would be their
duty and their interest to call him as witness;
he could then be cross-examned and his truth
fulness or want of truthfulness established.
If they believe them, they will do
80. am not disposed. however. to let his state
ments wait for denial, and therefore enclose with
this my affidavit. / also call your attention to
his various afidavits made before this one At
the request of Mr.. Van Benthuysen and others,
he made an affidavit at Washington, on July 81,
1855, and repeated it on Aug g. This was filed
before the Secretary of the Interior by the petit
TONERS for the government suit In that his
only ground of attack upon ray patent rested
upon written communication of Feb 10, 1876,
and on his present opinion of the rules of law on
the subject. He did not suggest any other COM
munication nor any fraud On Oct 10, 1885,
before or any one interested with me had com
municated with him. my opponents took another
affidavit from him, and filed 1t before the Secre-
tary of the Interior, and it is printed page
342 of the printed record of the testimony then
used. In that he states. in terms, that he gave
no information about the Gray caveat beyond
what appears in the official communications in
the files. Subsequently Mr.. Wilber made an af
hdavit. Oct Il. 1883, which was used on behalf
of my patent before the Secretary of the Inte-
rlor 1t con tains the following:
I'm the conduct of such application there was no
fraud OF any kind whatever any transaction, any
communication oral or written which would support
any such allegation in the least whatsoever
either the part of Professor Bell his attorney nv.
self, or any other person whatsoever.
II cali your attention to the fact which ap-
peared before the Secretary of the Interior, that
the whole of the affidavit, covering more than
twelve pages of foolscap is in Mr. Wilber's
handwriting. Subsequently, and on Nov. 10,
1885, MIR. WILDER made another affidavit for my
opponents. which they used before the Secretary
of the Interior. 1t contained no allusion to the
topic now referred to. 1t is printed on page 377
OF the record of petitioners proof before the Sec
retary | request that you will kindly communi-
cate this letter and the incosed affidavit to your
y.
ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL"
Professor Bells affidavit is as follows:
I. Alexander Graham Bell being duly sworn, ON
oath depose and say: reside in Washington y. G.
am the inventor to whom we're issued letters patent of
the United States No. 174465 dated March T. 1875.
have read in the Washington Post of May % 1886
what purports to be affidavit of Zenas Fisk Wlber
sworn to April g. 1856 never presented. paid gave
other bill, any money any valuable considera-
tion or thing at the place he mentions any other
place. Tor any purpose whatever Inever promised to,
or undertook to- or attempted to- expressed any
Willingness to, pay any money or any valuable con-
sideraton thing whatever for any purpose Inever
knew. or believed, heard that Mr.. Bailey or Mr..
Pollok, any else, undertook to influence said
Wilber or made any attempt so to do employed or
endeavored TO employ any corrupt practices to obtain
far my personal acts and knowledge concerned,
know that all proceedings in the filing and prosecu.
ton OF the application for patent and in the grant
of it free from fraud and tickery and honest
all respects and believe that all the acts of others
concerned were also, in all respects, honest l make
these statements in the fullest and broadest sense
Mr.. Wilber did not show me Gray's caveat. or the
drawing of it, any portion of either have never
seen the original papers of that caveat and did not
even acopy of them until after the Dowd suit was
brought, which was in the fall of 1873. When I saw
Mr.. WILDER about my application, in 1876, he took up
my origna! application papers and pointed out para
graph which was in them when the application was
originally fled Feb L. 1875 and has not been changed
since and which contained the following passages The
external resistance may also be varied. For instance
tac circuit then the deeply the conducting wire
is immersed in the mercury other liquid the less
resistance does the liquid offer to the passage Of the
current; hence the vibration of tie conducting wire
in mercury other liquids included in the circuit oc-
casions undulations in the current"
Mr.. WILDER said that the caveat have been put in
interference with interfered with that. / did not
have any other knowledge of the contents of Grays
caveat specifications or drawings either of them
until after Gray had published the caveat in 1878
except what Mr. Gray wrote me himself about his
caveat on Feb 81, 1877 in letter which is in the
record OF proofs for patent before the Secretary of
the Interior testified to this in 1870.
ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL.
Subscribed and sworn TO before me- notary public
in and for the city and District aforesaid this oath
day of May A. d. 1886
ROBERT r. SHELLABARGER
Notary Public.
The telephone investigating committee met in
open session, to-day for the purpose of COM
petine the record of documentary evidence
Mr.. Briesen had written personal letter to the
chairman stating that the article published in
the New York Times on Ocr. 10 had been writ
ten by him to exculpate the Attorney-general,
and two hours were consumed in disposing of
sundry motions to put the letter and newspaper
article in evidence Finally they were ad-
mitted. The chairman then submitted and read
the letter and affidavit from Prof. A. g. Bell in
answer to the recently published affidavit of Mr.
Wilber. but as the latter had not been accepted
as evidence, Prof Bells affidavit was also re-
jected
PENSION RIIIS VETAEn