St. Paul daily globe., 1888-11-13
BELLS Cheeky BLUFF
1t Is Promptly Called by the
United States Supreme
Court.
Uncle Sam Has the Right to
lmpeaeh the Telephone
Patents.
Reversal Of the Decree Dis
missing the Governments
Bill OF Complaint.
The Case Will Be Tried in
the Federal Circuit
Court.
Snecial TO the Globe.

Ihe United States VS.. 1ne American
Bell Telephone Company. The decision
was in favor of the United States. The
case came before the supreme court Oh
an appeal from the circuit court of the
United States for the district of Massa-
chGsettS. The government brought its
suit in equity in that court against the
American Bell Telephone company of
Massachusetts, and against Alexander
q. Bell. George a. jerks. solicitor gem
eral of the United States, acted as attor
ney general in the matter, as the attOr-
ney general was under a disability to
prosecute the suit. The object of
the governments bill was to impeach
two patents for inventions issued to
Bell March I, 1876, and Jan. so, 1877,
and also that these patents be decreed
absolutely Hull. The telephone COM
pany filed demurrer. The demurrer
was sustained by the circuit court and
the bill dismissed. The present appeal
was brought to reverse that ruling. The
decision, which was read by Justice
Miller, considers the following grounds
of the demurrer:
First-That the said bill is multfarous in
that it joins allegations and prayers for relief
and allegations and prayers for relief as TO
patent dated January 30, 1877.
Seeond-The defendant demurs as TO each
patent specifically: That The complainant
i'll and by its said bill does hot show any
power or authority, and no power or author
ity i'll law exists in any person or party or
any court, to bring said suit, nor to entertain
the same, nor TO give the relief therein
prayed for, nor any relief hereunder or
touching the subject matter thereof" And
further, that the complainant III and by
said bill has not made or stated case which
calls upon or jusiIfies this court i'll the
exercise of its discretion TO permit this
bill to be entertained"
Third-The defendant specifically demurs
SO said bill, for that ii does not set forth
any fraud in the procuring of said patents;
nor what acts, il any, the complainant relies
on as constituting fraud i'll procuring said
patents; and for that 1t does hot show when,
how, or from whom, or by what means, the
complainant first had knowledge or notice of
each alleged fact. nor why with due dill
geuce it would not have learned them ear
her;' and also because if the allegations
contained i'll said bill be true, they would not
entitle the complainant to the relief prayed
for, nor to any relief i'll any court OF equity"
The opinion states that the question
of multifarieusuesS does not II ed much
consideration; that the question was
one largely of legal convenience, and it
seems to the court in every way apprO-
pirate that the question of the validity
of the two patents should be considered
together. The decision then takes up
the third group of the causes of de-
murrer. The fifth claim of invention,
it goes Oh to say, Of the patent OF March
z, 1876, was held TO be sufficient claim
for an invention i'll the recent telephone
cases decided March 10, 1883. The
claims of invention under the patent of
Jan. 80, 1871, may be stated generally
to be for the improvement in the in
strumentS by which the vocal SOUNDS
are conveyed. With regard to these
claims, the bill alleges that Bell knew
at the time of filing his application for
the patent of March z, 1876, that lie was
not the original and first inventor.as the
law required he should be. The bill
then charges that the untrue statements
made by Bell in connection with the
application constituted deception and
FRAUD UPON TIE GOVERNMENT,
and that but for said fraudulent state
ments the patents would not have been
issued. The bill also alleges that Bell
Intentionally refrained from any eX-
preston that would lea6hto the idea that
his invention was to be'6Sed as q tele-
phone, as in his statement he said that
his invention was for IAN improvement
in telegraphy." The bill then proceeds
TO describe various discoveries in the
art of conveying arhcuiate sound by
telegraphic wires prior to that OF Bell,
with which it is alleged Bell was
we'll acquainted, and render his patent
void. Various other citations of the
bill are given, showing BellS wrongful
intent. The opinion continues: "The
fraud alleged is precisely the fraud
which would be committed in case Of
this kind. 1t is the fraud of obtaining
patent for an invention of which the
party knew he was not the original in
yentor. But we do not decide here
whether patent is absolutely void
because the patentee is not the
first inventor. 1t is sufficient
for the present case, in which
we wish to decide nothing more than is
necessary, to determine whether the de-
fendant Should be called to answer the
bill; to say that the charge here is that
he knew he was not the first inventor,
and that his efforts to procure the patent
were fraudulent, because he was aware
that he was obtaining patent to which
lie was not in law OF equity entitled.
Nor is the objection to the bill that it
does not allege facts which constitute
frauds well taken.
L. f GUILTY KNOWLEDGE
is well and fully stated, and Bells con-
nection with some Of the prior inven-
set forth with minute particularly. The
decision holds that the second group of
causes of demurrer is perhaps the most
important, and that the second group
sets forth in a broad assertion that
party may practice an Intentional fraud
upOn the patent officers and perpetuate
a grievous wrong upon the general pub
lie. 1t assumes that the government,
which has thus BEEN imposed upon and
deceived, is utterly helpless, and that it
can take no steps to correct the evil"
The opinion goes on to show the
anomaly of this statement, and says
that the supreme court has repeatedly
held that in regard to patents issued by
the government for lands the circuit
courts of the United States do have
Jurisdiction to cancel them for frauds
committed by parties to whom they
were issued. There is a striking SINH
larity, the opinion states, in the Ian
guage of the constitution comforting
the power upon the government under
which patents are issued for inventions
and patents for lands. In the present
case the United States are plaintiffs.
and the bill asserts that the suit is one
of a civil nature and of equitable cogni-
Zance; and manifestly, if it is q good
cause for action, it arises under the
laws and constitution of the United
States. IL is, therefore, within the Ian
guage, both OF the constitution and of
the statute comforting jurisdiction on the
circuit court. The defendant raised the
objection that the appropriate remedy,
if any exists, is in the common law
courts, and not in a court Of equity, and
that in the ancient proceedings of
OUR ENGLISH ANCESTORS
in regard to patents. the only remedy
for relief against them, when they were
improvidently issued, was by scire
facias in the name of the king, or by