The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1888-03-22
THE TELEPHONE CASES.
The Unisea Supreme Court Decides 4
Favor Of she Bell Patent.

The UniGea Supreme Court Decides In
Favor Of she Bell Patent.
WASHINGTON, D. c. March 19.-The
opinion Of the United States supreme
court in the telephone cases as far as
it has been read, seems to indicate
that the patent of the Bell will be sus-
tanned as a patent for a process and
and for an apparatus. Less than a
quarter of the opinion, however has
been read. In considering the question
of the alleged anticipation of Bells
invention by the telephone
court holds that Refs discovered
| a means of transmitting musical tones
and nothing more. Bells patent being
for the process or art of Transmitting
| speech would have been just as valid if
they had used the apparatus of Refs
in developing it. The court holds that
| the apparatus of Refs was not success
full in transmitting speech and that his
invention was not in any respect an
anticipation of the discovery which
far considered in the courts opinion in
| the telephone cases have been de-
cided in favor of Bell, including the
| points set up in the claims of Refs,
| Vanderwayde and McDonough. JUS
tice Blatcherford is now (12:45 p. N.
reviewing the Drawbaugh case.
The decision of the court has been
announced and is in favor of the Bell
telephone on all points and in all of the
case the court holds that the force OF
| the testimony showing that Draw
baugh had telephones in use before thu
invention of Bell is completely brokee
/ by his own conduct and Indifference
which he manifested in regard to his
alleged inventions until years after the
Bell telephones were known to the
| whole world.
The Drawbaugh claim is declared
| to be unsustained. Justice Brady is
at this time (1:45) reading an opinion
dissenting from the decision of the
court. Justice Field and Harlon dis
| sent and Justice Gray and Lamar did
not sit on the case. The Bell patents
are therefore sustained by majority
of one. The court Stands four to
three. Justice Blatchtord is review
ing the charge of fraud and collision
| in the patent Office by means of which
Bell. it is alleged, obtained surreptit-
ious information with regard to the
| inventions of his rival and then am
mended his own specifications, held
that there was not the slightest cyl
dence to support this charge or to cast
the least reflection upon the integrity
of Bell or his attorneys.
The Dissent of Justices Bradley,
Field and Harlon in the telephone
cases is based upon the Drawbaugh
claim. These three Justices are of the
opinion that the evidence oyerwhelm-
| ingly shows that Drawbaugh was the
| first inventor of speaking telephone al
though he was uncouncious of it and
was careless of its Importance.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
WASHINGTON, March 19.-lmme-
| diately aft69 the conclusion of the
reading of opinions in the telephone
cases, Justice Lamar began the read
ing of his first opinion as member of
the United States supreme court, the
case decided being number 1853, the
Missouri River Packet Companr VS..
the Hannibal s. st. Joe Railroad Com
pany.
The point involved was the construc-
ton to be given to a law of
congress authorizing the building OF
| a bridge for the use of the railroad
company across the Missouri river at
Kansas City. The judgment of the
the Hannibal s. st. Joe railroad COM
pany was affirmed. A decision was also
rendered in the case of Bowman Bros.
| VS.. the Chicago s. Northwestern rail-
road company which involves the valid
| ity of the statute of Iowa forbidding
railroad company to bring intOxicat-
ing liquor into the state unless
such company has been furnished
with a certificate from the county
| liquor Is to be transported, showing
that the consignee is legally authorized
to sell it.
The court holds that the power to
regulate or forbid the sale of a COM
modify after it has been brought into a
state does not carry with it The right
and power to prevent its introduction
by transportation from another
state. The section of the To-
1886, which prohibits railroad COM
panies from bringing liquor into the
state, is therefore declared to be in
valid, and the judgment of the United
States circuit court for the northern
district of Illinois is reversed.
| The chief justice, and Justices Gray
and Harlan dissented.
A decision was also rendered in the
cases of William II. Thompkins VS..
the Little Rock s. Fort Smith railway
ct al, and William T. Williams vs.. the
Little Rock. Mississippi & Texas rail-
way ct al. The railways in these cases
were aided in 1869 by a loan of the
states credit in the shape of state
bonds. The bonds were subsequently
declared invalid and the state in
1873 ceased to pay interest on
the bonds. The bond holders now
seek to have the bonds declared an
equitable lien upon the railroads al
though the latter since the bonds were
issued, have passed into new hands
and the companies have been re-organ-
lied. This court holds that the new
companies took the road free of in
cumbrance, and that neither the state
DOR its bondhOlders are entitled to d
dollar of the income and revenues of the
road, in order that the bonds may bt
paid. The decree of the circuit court
in each of the cases is affirmed. These
cases are said to involve several mil
lion dollars.