National Republican., 1888-03-20
ould transmit messages ofor almost

ulu, nhp what they saw and heard was pro-
duccd by some other means than an electric
speaking telephone. We do not doubt that
lrawbaugh may have conceived the idea
that speech could be transmitted to dis
tance by means Of electricity, and that he
was experimenting upon that subject, but to
hold that he had discovered the art of doing
II before Bell did would be to construc testi-
mony without regard TO the ordinary laws
that govern human conduct. Without pur-
suing the subject further we decide that the
Drawbaugh defense has not been made ont.
The Chief Justice then took up the allie
cations OF collusion and fraud made In the
charge that Bells application, as originally
filed In the patent office, did not contain his
present fourth claim or any description of
his variable resistance method, and that all
which now appears In the specification on
that subject, including the fourth claim, was
surreptitiously interpolated afterwards. So
grave charge made In so formal q manner
Is entitled, the Chief Justice says, to care
ful consideration. IL involves the profess
sional integrity and moral character Of emf
nent attorneys and requires us to find from
the evidence that after Bell sworc to his
application on the Goth Of February, 1875,
and after the application thus sworn to had
been formally filed In the patent Office an
examiner, who got knowledge Of the Gray
caveat, put in afterwards, disclosed its con
tents TO Bells attorneys; that they were
then allowed to withdraw the application,
change 1t so as to include Gray's variable
resistance methods over Bells signature and
ovcrthe iurat and then to oretum II to the files
thus materially altered, as If II were the
original, and all this between Feb. II and
Feb. 10. Although much stress was laid in
the argument on the fact thatwhat pur-
ported 10 be certified copy Of the specilica-
tion OF Bell as found in the file wrapper and
entries and as printed in the Dowd case diff
fered materially from the patent, the cause
|Fof these differences has been explained In
the most satisfactory manner, and we enter
tain no doubt whatever that the specification
as now found IN the patent is precisely the
same as that ON which the order to issue the
patent was made. If any alterations were
made II was all done before Feb. 10, and the
fair copy which is now found on the files of
the Office is precisely as it was when the order
Tor the patent was granted. Not a shadow
OF suspicion can rest on any one growing out
OF the misprint of the specification in the
Dowd case.
The Chief Justice then reviewed briefly
the case Of the Bell Telephone Company
against the Molecular Telephone Company,
which involves one of the claims of the
patent issued to Bell on the Both of January,
1871. The court below held that the fifth
claim of this patent was anticipated by the
Schellcn magnet Bells patent, the court
holds, was not for the magnet, but for the
telephone, of which 1t formed only q part.
To that extent the decree In that case was
erroneous. 1t follows that the decree in
each of the cases SO far as it Is in favor of
the Bell Company, and those claiming under
II, must be affirmed, and that the decree in
Molecular case, SO far as II is against that
company on the full claim Of the patent of
Jan. 80, 1871, must he reversed, and . de-
cree directed to that extent in its favor It
is accordingly so ordered.
Justices Bradley, Fields, and Harlan dis
sentcd.
The other decisions of the court were as
follows:
George A. Bowman ct al. VS.. Chicago and
Northwestern Railroad Company. Opinion by
Justice Matthews reversing the judgment Of
the court. below. The Chief Justice and
Justices Harlan and Gray dissented'
Wes,e,,s,'o, Union Telegraph Company VS.. at
torney genera ot Massachusetts, Opinion BY
Justice Miller affirm: se the judgment OF the
court below. '~.-a-.-....---.
United States VS.. San Jacinto Tin Compa.' nv
Decree below affirmed.
No. 1910, The Southern Development Com
pany OF Nevada, appellant, vs.. Frank silva
Justice Lamar.
No. 1i3 Ira n. Clement vs. Elisha 4. Packer
Judgment reversed with costs and cause re-
manded, with directions to grant new trial |
Opinion by Mr.. Justice Lamar.
No. lS3 Samuel S. Cissel vs.. Mary A. Dutch,
executrix, &c., ct a.. Appeal from the su'
cree in general term reversed, with costs and |
cause remanded with u direction to affirm |
with costs the decree with the court in special |
No. 1863. Richard Hoskins ct al. vs.. Frank |
II. Fisher ct al. Decree reversed, with costs,
and cause remanded to the circuit court of
California, with direction to dismiss the bill |
with costs. Opinion by Mr. Justice Batch- |
ford.
No. 1876. Arthur Origet, claimant &C., VS.. the |
States. JllnlQpnf
by Mr.. Justice Blatchford.
No. l,s. Augusta FIeedcnstein, claimant,
irmed' jpinicn BY Mr., jtS Justice "TH Batchford,
Mr. Justice Field dissenting.
u, No, 53'. Richard A. Tilghman, appellant; yS,
William WI Proctor ct al, &s; NO 5is nI MiIl-
ard A. Tilghman. Decree reversed, costs |
in this, court TO be paid by William Proc |
tor ct al, and cause remanded with directions |
Of S2GO, 1886 with interest from october {, |
1891, and costs Opinion by MI Justice Gray. |
Dissenting, Mr., Chief Justice Waite. Mr, .lns,
any part in the decision)
No. 3s. The New Orleans Water Works Com |
pany vs.. the Louisiana Sugar Refinery Com
pany ct al. Writ of error dismissed for the
want of Jurisdiction. opinion by Mr.. Justice
Gray.
al. VS.. The shelby Railroad Company ct III,
Writs of error dismissed for the want of jurls'
diction., Opinion by Mr.. Justice Gray.
No. 1899. The Dale Tile Manufacturing Com
pany Qimited) vs., Elizabeth A. l.; Hyatt.
"; No. S"i is55. Benjamin f. Felix vs.. William
Scharnweber, Writ of error Dismissed for the
want OF Jurisdiction. opinion by Mr. Justice
>, No. as; Mary Wall ct al, appellants, Y,
George ?. Bissell ct al. Decree affirmed with
No. 49,. Frederick c. Weir appellant, VS..
William J. Morden ct al. Decree affirmed
with costs. opinion by NIr. Justice Matthews.
VS.. Abram NJ. Langfeld ct al. Judgment af-
iirmed with costs aud interest Opinion by
Justice Matthews. ~
a. Taylor ct al Judgment affirmed with costs.
Opinion by Mr.. Justice Harlan.
No; l2e RqSsel Sage anppslla1t appellant vs. The
No, l27. The Memphis and Little Rock Rail
road Company, appellant, VS.. Russell Sage;
Decree reversed, costs In this court to be paid
for further pr6ceedings to be had therein con
sistent with the opinion of this court. Opin
ion by Mr.. Justice Harlan.
No. "a, j. ID. Cunningham, assignee &C., vs.
A. b. Norton ct al, Judgment reversed with
costs and cause remanded with directions to
proceed therein according 10 law. Opinion by
No. SO. The Willamette Iron Bridge Com.
pany, appellant, VS.. Y. j. Hatch Ct nj. Decree
on the bill to renew reversed with costs, and
cause remanded with directions to reverse the
decree In the original suit, and TO dismiss the
bill filed therein without prejudice TO any
other proceeding which may be taken IN rela
tion TO the erection of said bridge, not incon
sstent with the opinion of this court, Opln
ion by Mr.. Justice Bradley,
No 100 Chas g Dawson ct AL VS.. Alex. Henry
Davis. Decree affirmed with costs. Opinion
by Mr.. Justice Bradley.
No. lG7. Chas. Il. Miller ct al, executors,
&C., VS.. Frederick Butteriield ct nj. Judg'
mcnt affirmed with costs and interest. opinion
u Mr.. Justice Field.
No. 1880 The Pembina Consolidated Silver
Mining Company vs. the commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. Judgement affirmed with costs
opinion by Mr.. Justice Field,
No. 10i Henry G. Maynard ct al, appellants,
VS.. W. G. Hill ct al. Decree affirmed with
nnste pnininn hv Mr. ,Iustipn Field Dissent