Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1891-04-30
TIE TELEPHONE srir
Argument in the United States Giro
Court on Friday ON the Postal TIE

Argument In the United States Circuit
Court on Friday ON the Postal TeIe-
graph VS.. the Telephone Company Case.
kNArgument was opened on Fridays in
the United States circuit court before
Judge Wales in the case of the Postal Tele-
graph and Direct Cable Company against
the Delaware and Atlantic Telegraph and
Telephone Company.
George II. Bates, ESQ, and Il. s,
Guernsey, ESQ.,. of the bar of the Supreme
Court of the United States appeared for
the Postal Company and Il. G. Bradford,
Esq. and Charles L. Buckingham Esq,
OF the New York bar represented the Tele-
phone Company.
The Importance of the case attracted a
large representation of members of the
bar. Among them Were Senator Gray,
Colonel Nields, Samuel Macallister, ESQ,
District Attorney A. i. Cooper w. s.
Hilles, Esq, and others
Before pleading commenced Mr.. Brad
ford moved for the admission Of Mr..
buckingham to practice in the circuit
court. Mr.. Guernsey being a member of
bar of the supreme bench no action was
needed for his admission.
Before commencement it was conceded
among counsel of both sides that there
would be no controversy on the conceded
facts Of the case Mr.. Bates. who has not
yet recovered from the effects of his pro-
He then proceeded to relate the incidents
OF the cpse, stating that u mandamus had
been issued commanding that a telephone,
similar TO others i'll use here, be placed in
the local office of the Postal company and
that it be connected with the Central
Exchange The application of the
Postal company was refused. The
use Of a telephone was Offered on the pro
viso that it be not used to convey telegraph
messages. 1t was contcnded by Mr.. Bates
that the telephone company is required
to treat all telegraph offices alike and has
no right to discriminate as il does i'll favor
of the Western Union office. The respon-
dent is lessee Of the Bell Telephone Com
pany. The contracts of the Western Union
and Bell Telephone Company restrict the
use of the telephones substantially so that
telegraph business conveyed by the tele-
phone is restricted here to the Western
Union Company.
Mr. Bates contention was that it IS
entirely well settled that the carrying on
of the telephone exchange business is a
public employment of such character
that the law will not tolerate any discrimi-
nation between customers, and that one
customer is entitled to equal and tho same
privileges as any other. Any agreement
that violates this law is void as against
public policy. This particular agreement
under discussion has been held void in the
courts. Our position has been fully sub
! stantiated elsewhere.
The Gourt-''fhe respondents claim they
are restrained from placing telephone in
the Postal Conpany's office on account of
OF 9 contract with the Western union.n
Mr.. Bates-'rhe question has not been
| settled by the Supreme Court of the United
States, for the iaughable reason that before
the various appeals came up the companies
appealing We're consolidated by the West
ern Union
Mr.. Bates understood the respondents
claimed some patent law allowed the
owner of patent to put the inventions to
his own uses.
Court-"They rely on that think
Mr.. Bates-"We claim, on the other
hand, when patent has been obtained it
Is property and is subject under law as
other property. In other words there Is
nothing peculiar in patent to withdraw it
from public use. A man may shut his in
vention up in his closet. But when the
! patent is dedicated 10 public employment
or licensed for public employment, us the
telegraph or telephone inventions, then he
submits his property to the general prin-
Cples of law
Then followed some questions Of the
local courts jurisdiction, when upon short
argument, it was conceded that full juris-
diction existed here
Mr.. l}uellingham-"Th defendant is
| protecting the rights of the Western Union
Company, monopoly under patents, plir-
chased at heavy expense, an exclusive
right-on what grounds then can it be
taken from the company? The question
is on what ground can patent confer ex-
| elusive license-or is it something that can
be taken by mandamus at the whim of
anyone who desires to move in the
| premises ~
Mr.. Bates-"What our dispute is is the
discrimination which the laws of New
York expressly Forbid
Mr.. Bates then proceeded to cite certain
cases in illustration of his contention.
Argument was heard Saturday morning
before ,l,!dge Wales in the important case
of the Postal Telegraph Company VS. the
Delaware e Atlantic Telegraph and Tele-
phone. Company Mr. Buckingham Of
New York addressed the court upon those
| aspects Of the case touching upon patents
and also in regard TO contracts.
". G. Bradford, Esq, made lengthy
address. He emphatically claimed that
there is no obligation upon a common
carrier of speech or goods of another com
mon carrier of the same commodity He
would in this case be coneeding to them
without cost something for which he had
paid heavily as a special advantage.
There seems To be a general opinion ex-
| listing on the street that the case under any
| circumstances will find its way into the
| supreme Court Of the United States.
Among the listeners on Saturday were
representatives. Of both the Postal and the
Telephone companies.