New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-03-20
cumstances, It "a impossible to hold that wnat heiS
did was an anticipation Of the discovery OF He'll
pRAWRAIr6H,S FATAL SILENCE.

pRAwBAUGHS FATAL SILENCE
After reviewing briefly the claims Of DIR. Van der
weyde. James W. Nc Douough and Cromwell f. farley'
and showing that those claims have no tearing upon
the validity Of Bells patents the Chief Justice took
up the of Daniel Drawbaugh. Of Pennsylvania. and
reviewed it at great length. lie said the court han
studied with the dispositions which had been TAKEN
in such large numbers to show that Drawbaugh sue
rcedcd in rising the Instruments which were put IN
mcnts Of Ee and il these dispositions contained all
fhe testimony I'm che case II would be more dlihcm.
sustained IN the courts opinion their effect has
been completely overcome by the condnct OF Dra Nv
time Of his visit 10 the Centennial until he was pn
forward BY the promoters of Tire PcoIses '
claims of Bell. lie silent 50 far as inc genera
public were concerned when. ne ,h had a. wan,S
done what these witnesses now think ne du' ho "ou'u
The Chief Justice then took M the ALLEGATIONS OF
rollusi0n and fraud made I'm the charge fhai Eel ap
pile alton originally filed In the Patent onire uin NOV
contain hs present fourth claim or any de19"n ho
of bis variable resistance. method fEd that an Whrh
appears In the specification on thai subIrtI. III
ending the fourth slan was Imfnmdrd
Not shadow of suspicion says the opho"; ~, .a nec
any ono growing ont of the m'sIh'ht oi Tue spo'
fieaiion in the Dowd case.
TIE CLAIM OF THE MOLECULAR COMPANY.
The Chief Justice then reviewed briefly 'hr cav VI
thu Bell Telephone Company against the M"'c'"a'
Telephone Company. which involves ono oi 'he c,as
Of the patent Issued 10 Bel on January 10 io''.
The court below held that The fifth claim Of his pslr.
was anticipated by the Srhellcn HiaHnci hrns
patent, Tho court holds. was not for me inae"'. p
for tho telephone. Of which II formed oni part
40 that extent the decree in Thai case was Ioncos-
Mr. BELLS SENIOR COUNSEL PLEASED.
T. Y. pIcKEnsoy EXPLAINS THE True INwAEDNEss
~F THE DECISION.
The decision of the United States supreme Court IN
the Telephone cases did cause much surprise mere
II seemed TO have been generally expected that the
Bell people would win and hence the verdict despite
It's sweeping and important character evoked l''le
comment. 1t was highly gratifying, OF COARSE 10
Edward y. Dckcrson and the Other counsel OF the
Bell Company. though they did NOT cvincc mnch
cla!on over the matter Before the decision was
announced here MI Diohcrson expressed himself as
perfectly confident it would be favorable TO LIS
clients and hen definitely stated to be 50 ho
said
The important question IN this which Affects not
only patent but all patents founded upon original
discoveries is whether the patent to be for tn" soul or
discovery merely for the visible form in
which the FIRST inventor presents TO the world con-
fusion of IDEAS presented when It Is said that
principle be patented which has different meanings
according TO circumstances The telephone invention en-
hiblts very perfect example II the tr"o
mfsrinr Of the term principle "hea
patent law and marks CLEARLY the h"un-
Diary between paiensIe and unpalentsble subjects The
invention by Professor Bell in one sense tie in
ycntion of principle and OF principle which seems
to essential the transmission o speech by electricity
and yet that principle is emiuentg patcntable.
undulae vibiae in unison with the undu-
vibrations Of air which produce soni In Tho car
that uniuatons OF Electricity VIII cN-
cite corresponding unullt ia tho air by means OF
receiver and striking produce the eject
If Original air vibrations fell directly the cal
" brilliant conception known many d.
could I've ocIived for carrying 1t Out ana naturally
the mad would Dc inf.ror TO hosc which cN-
pertinent produce ani with Bells original
telephone exhibited the Centennial In ls7G He him
sell improved ii The principle In 1874 and ohHr
inventors have made ether Improvements without dcpstng
from the original pInc pie aud probably stl further ones
may be made.
III this the lnngei conieh add HAT the Boil patent
should be con fined BY him fof car
ryng his principle" In which They do noi IN
fringe dad this tie Vital quest on. TIE coen unAn
iously red that question In f~Nsr Of the con
Of the patent which gives to the dsco'erer 81
principle seion who Is tho inventor Of rnr, one
way carrying out the right c0Llr"l iho VII"
merely contrire device carrying gu
his newly discovered principle, tr who have not Invented
my principle Of action All the JUICES agTc" uI'n
this tst three Of then. decision DrdW
baughs 20 been the first Inventor. which j.
question Of fact having IN II nothing but the cr'f
billy OF Witnesses telling certain story and on which
Judges laymon might very haDcsy diner. asily
It has ttan $40
hundred witnesses uphold Inn In his story
Wheeler II. Pet sham among the most promircn' |
New-York lawyers engaged on the other side he !
had heard Of decision before The Icpufs called,
but declined to express any views upon II. 'sf",-
Z. IOrrey, tho associated witt MI Pcckham
was not Ia the city.
To the friends of the Administration the decision !
was naturally most unpleasant ncu> kinre bv tho !
forever crushed They SCENE, teri bly, cIe-l .len /
5vtr The matter, but as nothing could he said 10
modify expain The crushing rhnke thus ad,
their peace and lncd all requests for an Inter