The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-03-20
THE SUPREME COURT.
Decision in the Telephone
Case
IN FAVOR OF THE BELL CO.
other Important Decisions-Emperor
Frederfck's Message MisceI-
IaneOus News Items.
In the Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON, March 19.-The dis
sent of Justices Bradley, Fi,ld and
Harlan in the telephone ca'e is
based upon the Drawbaugh claim.
These three justices are of the opinion
that the evidence over whelmingly shows
that Drawbaugh was the first inventor
of the speaking telephone, although he
was unconscious of IL and not aware of
its Importance.
In the Drawbaugh case Justice Batch.
ford holds that The force Of the tes,i
mony showing thatDrawbaugh had tele-
phones in uss before the invention of
Bell is completely broken by his own
conduct. and the indifference which he
manifested with regard to his alleged
invention, until years after Bell s tele-
phones were known to the whole world.
The Drawbsugh claim is declared 10 be
Unsustained. The decisions as an
nouuced are ell in favor of the Bell
Telephon" Company on all points.
Jus ic1 Bradley read decision dis
sentirg from the decision of the court.
Justices Field and Harlan also dissent,
and Justices Gray and Lamar did not
sit in the case. The Bell patents are
therefore sustained by a majority CT
one, the court standing four to three.
Justice Blatchf0rd, i'll reviewing the
charge Of fraud and collision in the
patent office By means Of which Bell, it
Is alleged, obtained surreptitious in
fornlatioG with regard To the invention
of his rival, and then amended his own
specifications, held that there was not
the slightest evidence to support this
charge or to cast the least rejection
upon the integrity of Bell or the attor-
ney.
The opinion of the court in the Tel
ephoDe cases was prepared by Chief
Justice Waite, but, owing TO his indis-
position, Justice Blatchford rea 1t for
him.
4 decision was also rendered in the
case OF Bowman Bros. VS.. the Chicago
& Northwestern Railroad Company,
which involves the validity of the
statute OF Iowa forbjdding railroad
company to bring intoxicating liquor
into that State. unless such eOmnSny
mas bsen furnished with q certificate
from the county auditor of the county
20 which the liquor i3 10 be transported.
showing that the cODsigHee is legally
authorize to sell il. The Court hClda
that the power to regulate or forbid the
sale of & commodity after il has been
brought into the State. does not carry
with it the right and mower to prevent
its introduction by transportation from
another State. The section of the
Iowa statute, of April 5, 1886, which
prohibits railroad companies from
bringing liquor into the State,
is, therefore, declared to be Invalid and
the judgment Of the United States Cir
cult Court for the northern district of
Illinois Is affirmed, justices Gray and
Harlan dissenting.
The Supreme Court to-day, alao de-
cide1 the case Of the Willamette Bridge
Company vs.. u. L.. Hatch ct al. This
was q suit for an injunction to restrain
the bridge company from constructing
a bridge across the Willamette River.
between Portland and East Portland,
Oregon. The Court holds that the origi-
nal suit was not one arising under any
law of the United States, and that,
therefore, the lower court was without
jurisdiction. The case is remauded,
with instructions TO reverse the decree
in the original suit and dismiss the bill
fled therein, without prejudice to any
other proceeding which may be taken.
q decision was also rendered in the
case of the Western Union Telegraph
Company vs.. the AttoTney.G General of
Massao usetts. This was suit to en-
force the collection OF tax levied by
the authorities of the State upon the
telegraph company and for the purpose
of enjoi8ing that company from the
further operation of its telegraph lines
within the limits of the STATE until the
tax had been paid. The Court holds
that the tax assessed against the COM
pany is valid tax. The Judgment of
Che court below. that the sum claimed
by the plaintiff is due for taxes.
namely, $1O61S, be paid to said
State by the company with in
terest thereon, is without error,
and so much of that judgment is
affirmed. That part of the decree of the
Circuit Court, however, which awards
an Injunction to restrain the company
from carrying on its business in the
State until the tax shall paid is re-
versed, TO the reason that if CONGRESS
had the authority to say that the COM
pany might construct and operate its
telegraph over the post-roads, as we
have repeatedly held 1t had, the State
can have no authority to say it shall
not be done.