Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-11-13
II s. SUPREME COURT.
.asssasa7s@-
op,xroy IN THE BILL TELEPHONE
CASE.
-rs,,,s miller Delivers q Decision In Ia
vor Of the govsrnment-The
status Of the Case.
my t.lorranh 10 no niapateh.l


WASHINGTON. ID. C., November l2.-The
Surrcne Court OF the United states To-day
rendered "a opinion IN favor II The Govern.
mont IA The case OF The United states against
The American Bell Telephone Company,
brought here on IN appeal from the decision
a. The Cirrnit Court OF Massachusetts,, which
sustained the demurrer entered by the Beli
COMPANY 10 the Governments suit. ihe
decision of tho Court to-day reserved tue
fudemont Of the Circuit Court, and remand
"a the case 10 that court for tri1i on ne
merits. ~olicitOr-GeuetalJ jerks. aching rs A.
tarney General. brought SUIT ~ equity IN
The Crcut Court oi Massachusetts 10 have
The Bel Compsny's patent cancelled Sud uc-
ciared uul and void on The ground that u
was procured by fraud sud thar Bell was not
the 6r.t inventor OF the telephone. The Zen
Company. through its attorneys. waving Tor
n time any suswcr % She allegation maze 10
The Governments bili In equity. FLED de'
ypurrsr fn which they asserted That the
United states hnd no right 70 the absence OF
a specific statute granting that power, 70
bring q suf t. cancel the patent
f1r an invention. They declared
tsaf such n eut could only be
BROUGHT by a priyst" party, ana not by the
Government The Circuit Court sustained
rc BDl COmmnY's demurrer aud refused 10
entertain the Governments bil. From that
decision ihc United states took IN appeal 90
Supreme Court, which to-day, through Jus-
to. Miller. reversed the decision ~ tao lower
court 100 n long aud elaborate opinion. jus
tee Miller frsi took mp the plea ~ multi
ftriou.urss urged bv thc Bell Company, and
said that Il could not hold good; that the suit
BROUGHT by TIE United States, although u
sought 10 cancel two patents issued year
apart really related TO TIE subject. ~ 10
tbe Bel C0mpauf's contentious that the
United states could not bring aud that no
circuit court could entertain suit ~ cancel
a rairni brought in tno name ~ Tue Govern
gperf. uo matter y neither tic fraud had Teen
committed or not. Justice Miller said That
there was 90 question That an individual hid
fYr right 90 iudicaly seek redress Tor a
v.rnnp committed against him, aDd vet u
was contcndcd that the United states, the
r.nrcsepiaiye ~ sixty million ~ people.
could 30 nothing Iu their behalf. Jusllce
Miller said That such o slate Of things would
lea Great anomaly in thc system Of Govern.
ueul Ike ours. The patent system, he said,
WA. derived from The same clause iu the
Constitution as thst relating 70 pu1lic lands.
Cine Government, although no express
statute hnd been enacted, 10 had repeatedly
D pn bcld had ,hc right 10 sCtaside land pat
ent. cbtuuc1 lv fraud, and the some thing
was true Of patents for Inventions. The
contention that the Government should not
flLe action because rae remedy existed with
private partlca. be said, did not ho'd good.
one person might bring SUIT against the
holder az q patent and obtain Judgment tn
thst particular case. and yet oiLer parties
,,ho subsequently brought su't would be mn
able 10 BRING proof. The Government alone
bad tbe power 10 bring suit which would
finally settle She whole matter.
Justice Gray dii not sit ia This case. Some
Of bis relatives sire holders u the Belliele-
r|f.ne STOCK.