Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-05-24
WHOEXCELLED FIRST
The Real Point Which Lawyers Say
is at Issue in the Edison Case.
INTERESTING ARGUMENTS MADE.
A Very Little Dog Which Cost Its Owner
the Sum of $500.
GENERAL NEWS OF THE COURT HOUSE

The arguments in the great electric light
suit were finished yesterday afternoon and
the briefs submitted shortly after o'clock.
in the morning Mr.. Amos Broadnax took
up the argument for the Westinghouse side.
He stoutly urged the claims of the Sawyer
Mann patents. The one new thing in all
the lamps was the fbrous conductor, and
that be held, was theirs. The Sawyer-Mann
lamp was perfected, under the meaning of the
patent laws, In March, 1873 He described the
Sawyer inventions and experiments from Feb
ruary lS7S, to October, 1875. when a continuous
exhibition of the lamp was made. Referring
TO the Sawyer letters, Mr.. Broadnax said they
were written when Sawyer was on prolonged
spree, and are contradicted by his sworn testi-
mOny. MIR. Broadnax denied that Edison made
use Of afibrols incandescent conductor priorlto
1873 He quoted from Mr. Edison's testimony
and held that it showed that Edison did not
use the hbrous conductor until 1879. During
freely
Mr.. Thurston made the closing argument for
the Edison forces. Beginning with the state
ment that the world to-day would have no
electric light were it not for Mr. Edison, Mr.
Ihurston gave history Of electricity and of
MT. EdlsOn's connection with il. He said in
November, 1879 Mr. Edison invented the hair
like hbrous conductor He alone was the in
Ventor Of that peculiar kind of conductor; he
the nbre so necessary. Because it is like all
the vegetable kingdom fbrous the plaintiffs
claim that they have right to use that fibre
because they have patent covering vegetable
nbrous textile conductors. The real contest,
MI. Ihurston held, was whether the complain
ants have the exclusive use of all vegetable
nbrous carbonized conductors.
POOR BUT INGENIOUS.
Mr.. Edmund Wetmore, representing the
plainuDs, made the closing argument He
opened by stating that, owing TO the great
length Of time consumed by the other attor-
neys, he would only deal with the facts in the
bT1etest possible way. The plaintiffs, he said,
are here with patent that bears with it the
presumption the law allows it. A great deal
had been said in laudation of Mr. Edison as
the inventor of the entire incandescent electric
system, and 1t was NOT his intention to
Qetract from this, but he would show that Mr.
Edison was not entitled to the entire laudation
given him. Mr.. Lowrey had spoken in light
terms OF the inventors of the Sawyer-Mann
patent which was not justice to them. Mr..
Metmore then detailed the character of Mr.
Mann, who was q well-known member of the
New York bar, and man of eminent respecti-
bllity; not a mere rent collector, as he had been
termed, but the executor of the immense Loril-
lard estate and other estates in New York
valued at millions of dollars, who in his spare
time devoted himself to mechanical SCIENCE
Mr. Sawyer was man of inventive genius, but
ike most men OF genius had an unfortunate
failing which should be looked on with pity
rather than held up to scorn.
These men, he stated, had but moderate
means-one was in absolute poverty-and they
had but small laboratory: they were not
backed by the wealth of Wall street. and, while
they used bamboo, they could not send TO
China or the dangerous jungles of Africa for
it. The speaker continued that the electrical
incandescent system
FIRST BECAME PRACTICABLE
after Sawyer Mann discovered the suitable
fiber, and from the day that their patent was
first taken out no lamps sent out by any firm
does not contain their idea of a fbrous and
textile material as a conductor. The statement
that bamboo is the thing almost wholly used is
not correct
The statement was made that the lamp of
Sawyer Mann was not commercial lamp
and did not go into commercial use but it was
not shown that the lamp was imperative not
practical and no good. The speaker continued
that the statement that it would not burn long
enough to compete with gas was without foun.
datiPnNaS theJ never tried it. and the state
went was therefore only guess work on their
part The Sawyer e. Mann lamp had been
actually tested, and was found to Surn for $50
hours. 1t was not necessary that it should
have high vacuum, and if the textile fabric
was good conductor in those davs it was
equally good now. In 1879 Edison had patented
seven different incandescent lamps, and not a
single one of them went into the commercial
world, and the speaker wanted to know if the
defendants attorneys would consider those pat
ents void and no good because of that fact. He
said on the question of bamboo that out of 25 1000
lamps that would be lighted in this city last
night not 800 of them would contain the bam-
boo conductor; and simply because the Edison
Company think that bamboo is best suited for
their lights, one would think that il was
the only thing that could be used, whereas
hundreds of thousands have been made and
sent out with wood carbon, cotton thread and
paper carbon conductors
A number of different bulbs were exhibited.
showing different materials which had been
carb0niZed and by actual test made to burn.
Both sides then submitted their briefs and the
Judges retired with the case.