The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-03-20
The Supreme Court OF the United
States Upholds 1t.
Every Individual Case Decided in
Favor of Boil.
To Him Alone Is Due the Credit o.
the Invention.
Justices Bradley. Fields and Harlan Dis
sent-The Chief Justice Writes the
Opinion-Justices Gray and
Lamar Take No Part.

WASHINGTON, March 10.--ln anticipa-
ton OF the decision Of the famous tele-
phone cases, the United States supreme
courtroom was crowded today when court
assembled at noon, and large number Of
people were turned away from the doors.
Alexander Melville Bell and Mr.. Storrow,
OF counsel for the Bell company, were
present, as were also the commissioner OF
patents, several patent attorneys, and
large number OF persons directly or indi-
rectly interested in telephone stocks. At
five minutes past ~ o'clock Mr. Justice
Blatchford, acting for Chief Justice Waite,
began reading the opinion In the telephone
cases. The opinion was prepared by the
chief justice, but owing to indisposition he
did not feel able to read IL, and requested
Mr.. Justice Blatchford 10 do 10 for him.
The cases covered by the decision Of the
court are six in number, one Of them COM
ing from Massachusetts,, one from Pennsyl-
vania and four from New York. In the
first five cases the appellants are Amos +.
Dolber ct al, the Molecular Telephone
company, the Clay Commercial Telephone
company and the Overland Telephone
company. In the sixth the Bell Telephone
company is the appellant against the Mole
cular Telephone company.
The chief justice began his opinion with
a review OF the question raised rs 10 the
scope of the fifth clause Of Bells patent OF
March Z, lS76-that is, whether the patent
was for an art or process Of transmitting
articulatc speech, or merely for an appa-
ratus by which that object could be at
tanned. The court is OF opinion upon this
point that articulate speech Is one OF the
'vocal or other sounds" referred 10 in the
fifth claim OF the patent; Boll discovered
that speech could be transmitted by grad
ually changing the intensity OF a continu-
ous electric current 30 as 10 make II CORE
spond exactly 10 the changes In the den.
| sity OF the air caused by the sound OF the
voice. This was his art. lie then devised
a way in which these changes OF intensity
could be made in speech actually trans
mitted. Thus his art was put in condi-
tion for practical use. In Going this both
discovery and invention, IN the popular
sense Of those terms were involved-dis-
covery, in finding the art invention, in
devising the means OF making II useful.
For such discoveries aud such inventions
the law had given tbs discoverer and the In
vcntor the rightto patent-as discoycrer,
for the useful art, process and method OF
doing n thing he has found; and as In.
ventor, for the useful art, process and
method Of doing a thing hc has found
and as inventor, for the means he has de-
yiscd 10 make his discovery one Of actual
value.
Bell was the first discoverer Of the pro-
ccss Of transmitting articulate speech by
changing the intensity OF continuous
current 10 as 10 make II correspond with
changes In the density Of the abr produced
| by the voice, and with this he astonished
the scientific world. Prof. Henry, ono OF
| the most eminent scientists OF the present
century, spoke OF itm "the greatest marvel
| hitherto achieved by the telegraph"
patent for such discovery IL not 20 be
confined TO the mere means which the dis.
coyercr improyiscd 10 prove the reality OF
his conception. The court Is. Therefore, OF
the opinion that the patent must be sus-
tained ~ n patent for a process Of art.
The chief Justice then considered the
alleged anticipation Of Bells discovery by
Phillip Rci-, and said that llcis never sue
ceedcd In actually transmitting speech,
that what hc did was an anticipation OF the
discovery Of Bell.
After reviewing briefly the claims OF Dr.
Wander Weydc, James w. McDonough
and Cromwell y. varlcy, and showing
that these claims have no bearing upon
the validity OF Bells patents, the chief
Justice took up the case Of Daniel Draw
baugh, Of Pennsylvania, and reviewed IL
at great length.
DANIEL DRAwBAuon's CASE.
In the courts opinion, the effect Of the
depositions taken 10 show that Dnwbaugh
succeeded In using instruments which
antedated those Of Bell, has been COM
plctcly overcome by the conduct OF Draw.
baugh, about which there Il no dispute,
from the time Of his visit 10 the Philadcl.
phia centennial until he was put forward
by the promoters Of the Peoples Tele-
phone company, nearly four ycan after
ward, 10 contest the claims of Bell. lie
was silent 10 far m the general public was
concerned, when, II ho bad really done
what these witnesses now think he did, he
would most certainly havcppokon. There
II hardly single act OF his connected with
his present claim, from the time he heard,
before going 10 Philadelphia, that some
one else had invented y telephone which
was on exhibition at the centennial, that
II not entirely inconsistent with the idea
even then Of complete discovery or In
vcntlon by himself which could be put TO
any practical value.
The news Of Bells Inventions spread
rapidly and NJ once, and II took but q lew
months 10 demonstrate 10 The world that
he had achieved a brilliant success. II u
were known at Ebcrly's mills alone that
Drawbaugh had been doing the same
thing for years In hls shop there and i
certainly would have been known all
through the little village u Il had actually
been done--no one can believe that the
public would bo kept IN ignorance ol !,
until four years afterward when special
from Washington 10 the Cincinnati Co"'-
mociai announced a telephone combina'
ton ITO have entire charge Of the ieio'
! phones not only Of this country, but In the
world" that could transmit messages Tor
almost a song"
To our minds the result Of the expert
mens made with Dusbaugh's ins,ru.
mcnts concludvely showed that they
couldn't have done what the witnesses
: supposed they did, and ihai what they