Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1889-09-07
HELLO HELLO!
Drawbaugh May Yet Knock Out the
Bell Telephone Monopoly.

Drawbaugh May Yet Knock Out the
Bell Telephone Monopoly.
The suit of the United States govern
ment against the Bell Telephone company
has assumed more definite aspect
Rumors are giving place 10 action. The
government suit charges the Bell company
with fraud in the methods by which their
patents were obtained. 1t also alleges that
the company had no right TO the patents
however honestly obtained, because of the
invention by Daniel Drawbaugh. The in
dications of the revival of the claim were
apparent few weeks ago, when John Il.
Bartlett, president of the Drawbaugh syn
dictate. in an interview stated that the
government had called on his people for
assistance in the effort to establish the JUS
tice of their case. He said that the new
suit involved an entirely new contest for
the telephone rights and that it would be
pushed up to the limits of legal possibili-
ties.
The significance of this declaration was
somewhat lost sight of because it was
known that the rival claims TO Bell were
comprebended in multitude of patents
and several companies, among whom any
probabilitylof uniting was discredited. Its
force becomes apparent now in the light of
paper which has been filed in the patent
Office. This document assigns to Senator
Frank Jones, John X. Bartlett and Henry
c. Andrews, as absolute trustees, absolute
control of all the rights held by the
Peoples Telephone company. This
means unification of all the interests
which formerly fought Bell separately.
The former trial before the supreme
court in 1876, the climax of a seven years
war, proved of such general interest that
its chief details will be easily recalled. The
controlling point at issue was that of prior
ity of invention. Daniel Draw baugh, a
poor Pennsylvania mechanic, was fighting
Alexander g. Bell, rich, popular and
in possession of his patent. Witness es
who had known Drawbaugh, and knew
what he had done, came forward and told
how they had talked and heard
speech through his telephone at va
rious dates long prior 10 the dates of
Bells first patent, March, 1876 They
picked out and positively identified the
instruments they had seen and talked
through, and told what words they had
heard and what they themselves had said.
They told not only of the telephone but of
Draw baugh's life. In the little Pennsylva-
MIA town Drawbaugh mendcd their clocks,
repaired their guns, painted their houses
and their portraits, but for all the rest of
the time was engrussed in his electrical
devices. which were his hobby. In these
from any one. For five weeks the counsel
for Bell cross-eNamined these witnesses
but they came from the ordeal unshaken.
This testimony in behalf of Draw baugh' s.
priority seemed overwhelming, and was
not in any way met or impcached. Ii was
simply ignored by four judges of the
supreme court, who decided the case. They
said il was too improbable TO he believed
that such an invention could have been
made and not heralded To the world, and
they decided i'll favor of Bell
IL is known that Drawbaugh has new
evidence of a strong character. But with
out II all the old evidence viii of course be
resnbmitted. and before a tribunal most OF
whose members have already made de-
cision on the question. Two of the pres
ent court are of the original Bell judges
three are of the original Draw baugh Judges
as they are termed. OF the others, GRAY i,
| deharred from sitting, as he was LAST time
1 because Of personal interest, and Judge,
| vote of either OF the last two will Civ,
prawbapgh his cass.