Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1888-11-15
nRE1,s rArnxr IN pnnIn.
The unitnd stntey Supreme Cour
Decides Against the Monopoly.

The unitnd STATES Supreme Court
Decides Against the Monopoly.
WASHINGTON, Nov. l3.--The Supreme
Court Of the United States yesterday rem.
deTed ON opinion in fhvcr OF the govern
mept in the case Of the United States
against the American Bell Telephone
Company, brought here on appeal from
the decision OF the circuit court Of Massa-
ohusetts sustaining the demurrer entered
by the Bell Company TO the government
suit. The decision Of Che court yester-
day reversed the Judgment OF the oircuit
court, and remapds the case to that court
for a trial on its merits.
Solicitor general Jenhs, acting aB attor-
ney general, brought suit in equity Ia tho
cifenit court of Massachusetts to have the
Bell company's patent cancelled and de-
clared null and void, on the ground that
il was procured by fraud, and that Bell
was not the first inventor Of the tele-
phone. The Bell company, through it's
attorneys, wsiving for the time any
answer to the allegations made in the
governments bill in equity, filed de-
murfer In which they asserted that the
United States had no right, in the alb
senue of specific statute granting that
poser, 10 bring suit 10 eancsl patent
Tor an invention. They declared that
such q suit could only ba brought BY a
private party, ami not by the government.
The cigcuit court sustained the Bell COM
pany'5 demurrer, and refused TO entertain
the governments bill. Ths United States
took an appeal 10 the Supreme Court,
which to-day, through Justice Miller,
reversed the decision of tho lower court
in . long and elaborate opinion. Justice
Miller fist took up the plea Of multifari-
business urged by tina Bell company, and
said that Il could not hold good; that the
suit brought by the United States,
although it sought to canosl two patents,
issued year apart, really related to the
same subject, a. to the Bella complny's
contentious that thu United siBtss could
not bfiag and that no circuit court could
entertain suit to cancel q patsnt brought
IN the name IF the government, no matter
whether fraud hla hegn committed or not.
dustics siilisr said bat thAie was no
question t5Rt On iu1;7tauAl has = right
70 j1dieially seek redress for wHong
etm1littBd aganet him; and yet il was
contsndea ihps the Uua,ed States, the
rsprsss nsltvs OF 6O,Ggo 600 Q! people,
could 10 nothing ia their behalf. Jus.
tiee Millsr said further thst faah {. state
OF thinss -would be great anomaly in
system Of government like onrs The
patspt systen, he AHA, was derived fsom
The same olagse in the constitution as
that relaiing 10 public lznds. Tho gov
ernIaent, although no exnrtss statute had
hsen ensctad, it hsd repeatedly bsen
held, had the right 10 SCI aside loud
patanta obtained by fraud ind tho same
thing was tgue Of patents fo- Inventions.
The contention that the government
should not take action because remedy
existed WITH private parties, he said, did
not hpla good, OHa parsop a.ight hEing
suit agaiast the hoidsy u pstaAs and
obtsitl judgment IN th6t particular case,
and yet ether parties who subsequently,
LrluSht suit you'd ba unnbls to bring
psoOt. The FoyetnmoDt alone had tie
pol0sr to bring suit which would ilnAlly
settle the whole matter.
There SGs 3 largo crowd present in the
courtroom in anticipation Of the deci.
eion. A great zeal " interest has at
iachea 70 the case, ara both sides have
been represented by az abba array Of
COUNSEL GdSo Thurman, Solicitor Gem
etal jerks and JEFF OhlDdlef beiug
! appps-lhs.e sitNrusvg ysnyAaootino tho
goytnuent, wiiIa a.as.l.. 5.omag. ma
0'tlGsQn, Shs hevs roPrsgented tho Bell
/ Oampany IN ali It's i.aB4lon sol years, ap-
psAYei in behalf Of the telephone com
/ pany.