New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-03-20
rur TELEPHONE DECISION.


THE TELFPRONE DECISfoN
The validity of the Bell patents has been
established by the court Of last resort nc
United States Supreme bench with three us
senting opinions, has sustained the decisiohs
of the lower courts and left the company AFTER
wears Of litigation. in undisputed possession Oh
it's exclusive privileges. The dccisioh VIII
not be popular one, since the DOH
COMPANY by neglecting to provide sal
isfactory service and by maintaining k
o,bitant charges, has earned the Ih-wn'
of the pub6c. 1t is, we doubt not Judg-
nent in accordance with law and equity, ana
confirms rights to which the inventor and the
monopoly that is proiiting 10y his genus are
iustly entitled by their patents. Nhiic the
formation of monopolies is one OF the lhcVl'a-
bic effects of the patents system IL ih'sl ho'
he forgotten that without legal methods Tor the
protection of inventors rights the word Wou'"
have been forced TO wait generation AFTER gen
Grafton for many. if not all OF thc grca'eS'
achievements of creative genius known during
this century. Not only is the hope OF reward
a powerful stimulus Of itself, bat complex proc
csses like that perfected for the ti;'iisn'sSl'n
of human speech require capital for theif com
plete development, and this can only be at
tracted by the assurance of protection from
natcnt law. II Professor Bell is not only the
inventor of the telephone, but also the oilginat-
or Of the process now generally employed IN
American cities. he and his associated capital
lists are entitled to the exclusive enjoyment OF
rights of which rival inventors supported ny
equally avaricious capitalists have been seek
ing TO deprive them. Tho courts in deciding
for the inventor, sustain a system OF laws when
has moved of inestInlable benefit TO modern
progress
When the telephone was Grst shown at the
Centennial Exhibition ii was regarded as a
scientific toy of no practical utility. ar Ill
lam Thomson at once pronounced II the great
est by far of all the marvels of the electric
telegraph" and foreign societies wed with one
another in honoring the inventor. II was not
until the commercial value OF the telephone
was demonstrated that the inventors claim TO
priority was disputed. Then inventors sprang
ND on every side until, in homcly phrase, the
woods seemed full OF them. Not only were
rival instruments produced but the claim was
pressed that the whole process had been dis
covered long before in Europe. and had thus
become common property As ono infringe
Of fraud and collision in the Patent Office were
raised, and Professor Bell was proclaimed 10
he a swindlcr who had stolen Grays ideas
through breach Of confidence in corrupt
| official. All these questions have been argued
in detail during the last ten years IN one courl
after another. and at last are disposed oil by
the Supreme bench. Three dissenting Judges
sustained the claim that the Pennsy wanna me-
chanc Drawbaugh, was the first 10 invent
Speaking telephone. although he impeficctiy
understood what he had done and made ne
effort TO introduce il in general use On al
other points the Judges seem TO have been OF
ono mind All other inventors were dismissed
without reserve. The claim that Rciss an
tcipatcd Professor Bells discovery was thrown
out Of court. The charge that surrcpttiou'
information Of Gray's caveat was conveyed u
the inventor or TO his attorneys by Niibor, thu
examiner, was declared 10 be unfounded. Is.
n majority of four to three against Drawbaugh
and by substantially UNANIMOUS verdict OF
all other counts, Professor Bells nights a. Tho
inventor Of tho telephone we're yndlcated.
Not only was Professor Bell opposed by
formidable array Of competitors all Of whom
had substantial support from capitalists, ~
was assaulted also by the United States Govern
mcnt with the National Treasury behind 1t
Speculative statesmen had combined TO dcprry
him of the results Of his own genius by con
spracy in which the functions Of the Depart
ment~6f Justice were prosttuted TO private AM
political ends. Although every question o
law and Of fact involved in the telephone con
troversy was already before the Supreme Cour
for final review. Attorney General Garland hn
his Pan Electric confcdcrttes brought on
series Of Government proceedings for the can
collation. Of the original patent. II is fortunat
that the dissenting opinions of the three Judge
arc not grounded upon any of the fIvolou
pretexts for the Government suits, but virtual
ly upon questions Of fact involved in the Draw
haugh case The evidence Of fraud and col
fusion on which tho cancellation OF the paten
was demanded by the Government counsc
and the plea that Professor Bells invcntio
was not patentabe since it had already bccom
common property in Europe were ruled out b
a united bench. Tho Administration is LEI
A., without an excuse for the unwnrrantablc, cost
~ and wholly. unnecessary proceedings Tor IL
validating the Bell patent Tho nakcdncs
and corruption OF It's partisanship are expose
to the view of an indignant and disguise
- Nation