The sun., 1892-06-17
four months Of the date Of that suggestion his
dream was reality.
yrI-rh. D,.m., ..1 Costly sesuel.

/
vI.-The Disus, and Costly Sequel.
Fraudulently named and scandalously pro-
cured. tho unprecedented suit styled by Mr..
Clevelsnd's Administration the suit OF the
People Of tho United States against the Bell
Telephone Comp was begun at Columbus.
| o.. in March. 1885, It's origin. as We have seen.
was in corruption and intrigue It's subse-
auent history has been marked by legal re-
verses costly blunders. and fruitless expendi-
| ture from tho United States Treasury.
The first blunder was in ordering the suit at
| Column bus A minority OF the eminent coun-
sci retained at public expense to save tho
reputation OF Mr.. Ccvelands public trust Ad-
ministration advised that the suit be brought
at Boston. whore tho defendant corporation
was domicilcd. The majority OF the counsel
decided against Boston. Memphis. for reasons
already indicated. was In bad odor. St Louis
was considered, but finally Columbus was
chosen. Tho Bell Company. or one OF its sub
| companies, had n branch offlce there. the Bell
| telephone was In use there. and the locality
| was specially suited to the personal convent
| ence OF Judge Allen G. Thurman. senior coun-
| sci for the new firm OF Rogers h the United
States OF America.
Tho Bell Company Immediately demurred to
the bill In chancery on tho ground Of nom
jurisdiction. It's home was In Boston. and II
heiu lnut III DOstou us patents must Do AZ
| tackled. IL attacked at all. In duo course the
demurrer was sustained by the United States
Circuit Court for the Southern district OF Ohio.
and the case was dismissed from the court on
the ground OF no jurisdiction. This first futile
proceeding in Ohio cost the Government two
years OF time and cost the people many thou
sands Of dollars.
Then tho Cleveland Administration took a
fresh start, this time in the Circuit Court for
the Eastern District OF Massachusetts Tho
Government filed at Boston new bill in equity
to annul the Boil patents on tho ground that
they were wrongfully granted: First. because
the original inventor OF the telephone was
Daniel Drawbaueh and not Alexander Graham
Bell. and. secondly. because the telephone (of
Philip Reis) had been In existence long prior
to the time OF granting tho patents to Bell.
This was precisely the line Of attack suggested
to Attorney General Garland BY DR.. Rogers in
his letter Of May "a. 1885.
The reply Of tho Bell Company at Boston was
sdemurrer taking tho ground that even II
these allegations were true. no power or au-
thority existed In any person or party or any
court to annul the patents. Tho case was very
fully argued on the demurrer. and tho demur-
rer was sustained by tho Court. The Govern
ment then carried the case to Washington on
appeal from tho Massachusetts, decision: and
after elaborate argument the Supreme Court
reversed the decision ofthe Circuit Court. hold
ing that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction and
power to annul a patent granted by the United
States. This memorable and important de-
cision was rendered on Nov. IL. 1888 Tho
Circuit Court was told to 60 ahead with the
observation-disclosures suit Among tho Justices
on the bench Of the Supreme Court at this time
was tho Hon. Lucius Quintus Clncinnatus
Lamar. who. as Mr.. Cleveland's Secretary Of
the Interior. had originally recommended that
the Government suit should be brought
The case was therefore remanded In tho
winter OF 1888 80 to tho Circuit Court In
Massachusetts,. with instructions to overrule
the demurrer. Tho demurrer was overruled
Alexander Graham Bell individually was made
a party. The defendant company took its
one hundred days to file an answer. and by
the summer Of 1889 the suit was at issue. and
q master in chancery was appointed to take
testimony. Then the Bell Company applied
to the Circuit Court for leave to withdraw its
answer and file an amended answer. Tho Gov
ernment's counsel objected. but the Court
granted the leave. and on Oct s. 1889. the
amended plea and answer ware filed BY tho
counsel for Bell. The Government filed . gem
oral replication. and the case was again ready |
for the taking Of testimony.
att time all Of the questions Of foot at tssus
he priority Of Reis the priority of Draubsuoh |
speaking telephone. the allegations of fraud on tas
part Of Bell. had Just been Examined bv tho ST.
prerne Court Of tho United States and decided |
finally and Jauorablv 10 tho Bell company. Tho |
decision Of the Supreme Court sustaining tho |
Bell patents. upon appeal OF the six great tels-
phone suits covering the whole ground OF tho |
Rogers Cleveland Government suit, had been |
rendered on March 20. 1888 But still tho |
Government suit went on at the expense Of the
people.
The taking Of testimony ON the part Of tho
Government occupied two years. from tho
autumn OF 1880 to tho last part OF 1901. The
Of single witness. Daniel
Drawbaugh. before Mr.. Hallett, the master in
chancery at Boston appointed by tho Court.
lasted nearly three months. It was not until
on or about April 4 ofthe present year that tho
defence began to take its testimony before the
examiner. II tho testimony for tho defence
occupies as much time as that Of tho Govern
ment the case will not be ready for trial until
the summer or fall OF 1894. 1t is true that the
present allowance OF time for the taking OF
testimony expires next October. but an s1ten-
sion may reasonably be expected.
Meanwhile. OF the two Bell patents which It
Is sought to annul. the first patent, of 1870. OK
pires on March 7. 1893: and tho second patent
Of 1877. under which. according to Q decision
OF tho United States Supreme Court, the Bell
Company would still hold monopoly although
tho first patent had lapsed. expires In Jsnu-
ary. 1894
Such is brief but sufficient sketch Of tho
legal history OF tho case down to date. It will
be seen that there is no good prospect that a
decision. either sustaining the Bell patents or
annulling them. will be reached during the
lifetime OF these patents. Yet the case still
drags on. as 1t has dragged for tho past six or
seven years. ever since it was started at tho
expense Of the people by Mr.. Clevelands Ad-
ministration upon the suggestion Of DR..
Rogers Of Parthenon Heights
We now put together the items Of expendi-
ture for counsel and witness foes aloneson the
part Of the Government on account OF this
scandalous. unprecedented and futile attempt
to use public trust for private benefit Tho
figures are from the books OF the First Comp
troller OF tho Treasury. and they represent
the money actually paid to date to lawyers. ex-