New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-11-13
A DECISION AGAINST BELL.
FIRST SUPREME COURT OPINION UNFAvOR
ABLE TO THE INVENTOR
THE DEMURRER OF THE TELEPHONE coMPANX
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT NOT SUSTAINED
THE CASE TO BE TRIED on IT'S MER-
IT'S IN THE CIRCUIT COURT.

AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT NOT SCsTAiSEH
THE CASE TO BE TRIED ON IT'S MER-
IT'S IN THE CIRCUIT COURT.
Washington Nov. I2.-The supreme Court OF the
United States to-day rendered opinion In favor OF
the Government In the Of the United States
against the American Bell Telephone Company brought
here on appeal from the decision Of the Circuit Court
OF Massachusetts, sustaining the demurrer entered by
the Bell Company to the Governments suit. The de-
cision OF the court to-day reversed the judgment Of
the Circuit Court and remands to that court
for trial on fits merits
solicitor-Genera jerks brought suit in Mass
achusetts TO have the Bell COmpany's patent
celed and declared null and void on the ground that
1t was procured by fraud and that Bell not tho
first inventor Of the telephone. The Bell Company,
waving for the time any answer to the allegations
made In the Governments bill In equity, filed .
demurrer In which they asserted that the United
States had right IN the absence Of specific statute
granting tiat power to bring a suit TO cancel q
patent for an invention. They declared that such
suit could only be brought by private party and
not by the Government The Circuit Court sustained
tho Bell Company's demurrer and refused to enter
tain the Governments BILL From that decision tho
United States took appeal to the supreme Court,
which to-day, through Justice Miller, reversed the do
csion of the lower court in a long and elaborate
opinion.
OF three grounds Of demurrer, the first ground, the
question Of multifarousness, the court docs not think
needs much consideration. true says, that tho
bill assals two patents, issued March z, 1879, and
January 30, 1877, nearly apart, but the patents
issued 70 the same party, Alexander Graham
Bell, and relate to the subject, that of communi-
eating messages at distance by speech and by tho
same general mode, the later patent being supposed
be for the improvement upon the invention Of tho
earlier one. Both held by the same defendant,
the American Bell Telephone Company, and are used
by it IN the same operations The principle OF multi
| fario Il
more often applied where two parties arc attempted
to be brought together by bill in chancery who
have no interest in the litigation, whereby ono
party compelled 10 Join in the expense and trouble
Of suit in which party Is Joined with another
party with whom In like manner he either has no iner
est at all or no such interest requires the defendant
to ltgate II in the same action. In the present
case, the court says, there is no such difficulty.
The court then, skipping for the time being tho
second ground, takes up the third ground OF demurrer
which that the bill does not set forth any iraui III
the procuring patents that It does not specif-
cay forth what acts, II any, the complainant re-
lies constituting fraud in procuring the parents
and that 1, does not show when, how from whom or
by what means the complainant first had knowledge
or notice of each alleged fact, why, with due dill
igence IT could not have learned them earlier On
| this point the court says that
the guilty knowledge IS we'll and fully stated, tho
prior inventions and their authors are alleged to have
been known to Bell and mentioned with sufficient
| precision 1t Is mistake TO suppose that In stating
the facts which constitute a fraud where relief is
sought in bill In equity, that all the evidence which
may be adduced prove that fraud shall be rccited
| In the bill. There can be no question that
If the bill be taken true, that there enough In 10
TO establish the fraud In the procurement Of the patent
and Justify its cancellation the court has turis-
dction to do so.
The court then proceeds to take up tho most i'm.
porant feature of the demurrer, the second ground,
authority, and that no power or authority In law
exists in any person party or any court to bring
or entertain the suit ard further that the complainant
| has not made stated a case which calls upon or
ustifes this court in the exercise of its discretion TO
| permit this bill to be entertained Tho court takes
strong ground against this assumption. The opinion
| saws that II such a fraud were practised upon
| an individual he would have remedy In any
court having Jurisdiction to correct frauds and
mistakes and TO relieve against accident; but IL Is
said that the Government Of the United states-ths
representative of sixty millions Of people, acting for
| them, on their behalf, and under their authority
| can have no remedy against a fraud which arects
| them all and whose influence may be unlimited
Though by the Constitution, 1t is declared that ths
judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under
the Constitution laws Of the United states, IL Is
assorted that the practice of gross fraud upon tho
United States concerning matters of immense Pc
cunary value and affecting large part OF It's popu-
laton is not proper question of judicial cogni-
zance II would be strange anomaly In govern
ment organized upon system which rgldly sepa-
rates the executive, legislative and judicial branches
to hold that in that department there should DO
no remedy for such wrong.
In the OF land patents this court has repeatedly
held that the Circuit Courts Of the United states
have Jurisdiction to set aside land patents for fraud
These cases establish the right of the United states
TO bring in its courts to be relieved against
| fraud committed in of class exactly similar
| 10 that charged in the present case. 1t Is also 10
be observed that in those there Is no express
! act of Congress authorizing such procedure.
The court then proceeds TO consideration OF the
objection raised by the Bell Company that such pro-
ccedng as the present one must be brought In
common law court ard not I'm court of equity Issue
IS taken with the conclusion reached by the Bell COM
ranys lawyers. The of English jurisprudence,
however, the court says, can have little force In
limiting or restricting the of the Government
of the United states.
The contention that tho Government should not
take action because remedy existed with private
parties Justice Miller said did not hold good. Ono
nerson might bring against the holder of patent
and obtain judgment that peculiar case, and yet
other parties who subsequently brought suit would 90
unable bring proof The Govcfnment alone had
the power to bring suit, which would hnaiy settio
| the whole matter. 49,
| Justice Gray took part in the decision OF this