The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-11-13
& Ruling Reopening the Question and
Placing Bells Patents in Jeopardy.
The Court Also Decides that Judge David s.
Terry, of California, Must Serve the Jail
Sentence Imposed by Justice Field.
THE SUPREME COURT.

OF the United States to-day rendered an opinion
in favor of the eovernmens IN the case of the
United States against the American Bell Tels-
phone Company, brought here appeal from
the decision of the Circuit Court OF
Massachusetts. sustaining the demurrer
entered by the Bell company Co
the governments suit. The decision Of the
court to-day reverses the Judgment Of the Cir
cult Court and remands the case to that court
for trial on ts merits. Solicitor general Jenks,
acting as attorney, brought suit in equity
in the Circuit Court Of Massachusetts, to have
the Bell company's patent Cancelled and declared
null and void, on the ground that it was pro-
cured by fraud and that Bell was not the FIRST
inventor of the telephone. The Bel! company,
through its attorneys. waving for the time any
answer to the allegations made in the govern
ments bill 10 equity, filed demurrer. in which
they asserted shat the United States had no
right. 10 the absence Of specific stStuts grant
ing that power. TO bring suit to cancel pat
ent for an invention. They declared tpat such
suit could only be brought by private party,
and not by the government. The Circui; Court
sustained the Bell companys demurrer and re-
that decision the United States took an sppe al
to the Supreme Court, which. to-
day, through Justice Miller. reversed
the decision of the lower court
In long and elaborate opinion. The court
takes no the three grounds OF demurrer. The
first ground, the question of multifariousness, the
court does not think needs much consideration.
The Bel company and Mr.. Bell himself are toe
only parties defendant and their interest IN sus
tanning the patents is the came. So, also. there
is no such diversity OF the subject-matter en-
braced in the assault on the TWO patents that
they cannot be conveniently heard and consid-
cred together. The court then, skipping for the
time being the seeond ground, takes up the
third ground of demurrer, which is that the bill
does not set forth any fraud 10 the procuring OF
said patents. On this point the court says that
the bill alleges that Bell knew that at the time of
his filing his application for the patent
of March z, 1876, he was not the first IN
ventor, as the Law required be should be; that
the statement made ey Bell in his application
constituted a deception and fraud upon the gov.
ernment and did deceive complainant and
cause complainant to deliver the patent to Bell,
which would not otherwise have been done.
The court is of opinion that il Bell was aware,
at the time he procured his patents, that the
eame matter had been previously discovered
and put IN operation oy other persons, he
was guilty OF such fraud upon the public that
the monopoly which these patents grant to
him ought 10 be recalled and snnuled.
The fraud alleged, it says, is precisely the
fraud which would be committed In a case Of
the kind set forth. It is the fraud OF
obtaining q patent for sn iuventon of which
the party knew he was not the original in-
determine whether the charge made that Bell
knew that he was not the first inventor. and
that his efforts 90 obtain tho patent were fraud
nlent, is true or not. Nor IS the objection 10
the bill that he does not alege the facts which
constitute the fraud well taken. The guilty
knowledge is well and fully stated. the prior iU
ventions and their authors are alleged 70 have
been known to Bell and mentioned with
sufficient precision. In all these particulars the
bill is sufficiently explicit There can be no
hat he hull ha fak trina
there 10 enough in it to estab-
lish the fraud 10 the procurement Of
the patent and to justify it's cancellation II the
court has Jurisdiction to do so.
The court then proceeds to take up the most
important feature of the demurrer, the second
ground. which alleges that no power or au-
thority In law exists TO bring or enter tain the
euit. 1t will be observed, says the court that
this broad assertion admits that party may
practice an intentional fraud upon the officers Of
the government who are authorized and whose
duty it 10 TO decide upon his right to a patent,
ana that be may, by means OF that fraud per-
petrate q grevious wrong upon the general pub
lie. upon the United States, and upon it's repre-
sentstivea It admits that by prostitut.
ing the forms of law to his servIcs he
may obtain an instrument bearing the authority
of the government of the United States, en-
titling him TO a monopoly in use OF an inven-
tion which he never originated. or discovery
which was made by others, and which. how
ever generally useful or even necessary it may
become, is under his absolute and exclusive
control, either ss to the use it may be put To or
az to the price he may charge for it during the
life of the grant 1t assumes that the govern
ment, which has thus been imposed upon and
deceived, is utterly helpless, and that it can
take steps to correct the evil or to redress
the fraud. II such a fraud were practiced
upon an individual he would have
Jurisdiction but it is said that the government
of the United States, the representative Of sixty
millions of people. acting for them on their oe-
half and under their authority. can have no
remedy against q fraud which affects them hll
and whose influence may be unlimited. It
would be strange anomaly in govern
ment organized upon system which rigidly
separates the executive. legislative and judicial
branches, TO hold that in that department
there should be no remedy for such wrong. In
the case of land patents this court has repeat
edly 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 suits in its
mit,ed in cases OF n class exactly similar to that
charged in the present case. ae powers,
though exercised by different officers, are of
the same nature, character and validity.
The court then proceeds to consideration OF
the objection raised by the Bell company that
such a proceeding the present one must be
brought in a common law court. aud not In q
court OF equity. The elaborate argument of
the counsel for Bell To show that the English
course OF procedure. upon which our judicial
system Is based, required that the case should
be brought in common law court, Ii re-
viewed, aud issue 10 taken with the
conclusion reached by tho Bell comnnnys
lawyers The course of English Jurisprudence,
however. the court saws, eau have little force
in limiting or restricting the measures of the
government of the United States There lie in
this country no king, no man possesses a pre-
rogative rieht. and patents do not proceed from
the President, but from the United States
While existing provisions do not confer ex-
pressly upon the courts Of equity the power TO
set aside n patent, they show 1t TO ne the sense
of Congress that IL such power is to be exercised
il should be within the equity Jurisdiction OF the
courts. Numerous cases are quoted IN which
the ground was taken that the United States
was the proper party TO seek TO have land pat
ents aunullsd. The United States. in the pres.
snt case, is under an obligation to protect
the public from the monopoly secured under
q patent alleged To have been procured by fraud.
The right Of the United States to bring this suit
| IL based upon its legal general obligation to
give a good title. The United States, by issuing
the patents to the Bell company sought TO be
annullsd, has taken FROM the public rights OF
immense value and bestowed them upon the
patentse. The goverpmen and its officers. act
log as the agents of the people. have tskeo from
them valuable privileges and conferred them
upon the patentee. These privileges constitute
q properly SO large that nobody has been able 70
estimate its value. 10 argument II has besn
statsd st $25. 900 000 but il II charged to have
bean done because the officers Of the