Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-07-06
SERIOUS CHARGES.
Sensational Aspect Of the Patent
Office Scandal Case.
QUESTION OF JURISDICTION RAISED.
Judge Payson's Claim for the ex-
Commissioner.
MIR. CHURCH'S ARGUMENT.

The patent Office investigation was resumed
this morning at 10 o'clock, and Immediately
developed into an interesting condition, which
quickly assumed a sensational aspect.
One of the sensational features Of the day
was the charge made against ex-Commssioner
Simonds by Mr.. Church Of having committed
grand larceny under the laws Of the District Of
Columbia, and having broken q number Of
statutes Of the United States. which provide
for punishment by fine and imprisonment in
the penitentiary.
The first step was the filing of an important
paper by Judge Payson. counsel for ex-Com-
missioner Simonds. 1t was addressed to Com
missioner Seymour and was as follows:
THE QUESTION JURISDICTION.
$50 long as the charges that there was q con-
nivance or collusion between ex-Commissioner
Simonds and Foster l. Freeman toimproperly
secure copies Of or permit inspection
OF pending applications by non-official
persons, either Foster or Freeman or
copyists not in government service,
remained an open question before you ex-
pressly waived the question of your juris
d1chon to examine such charges As TO Mr..
Simonds as to acts done by him while
commissioner. because while felt then, as 1 do
now, that you had jurisdiction, yet
so long as the alleged improper ac-
ton was charged to be in connivance with
attorneys practicing before your bureau 1t
might be charged that q denial of your jurisdic-
ton would be making technical defense to avoid
hearing on the question OF collusion As
charged. I waived 1t on the charge being
heard ..--... ..-
THE ATTITUDE HAS CHANGED.
"Since then the attitude has wholly changed.
The charge against Mr.. Foster has been formally
abandoned and dismissed. After the proof by the
prosecution is all in you have an
nounced that you see nothing implicat-
ing Mr.. Freeman. This disposes Of all
persons outside the department. except s1-Com-
missioner Simonds, leaving him and his acts
done while commissioner for consideration
under this complaint.
You are to be asked to disbar him
because Of acts so done, to sit in review
OF and judgment upon scts done by
him while commissioner and adjudioate. with
a view to the most serious punishment. whether
such acts entirely disconnected with nom
official persons come within the statute allow
ing You to disbar an attorney for gross mis-
conduct
SIN this changed status Of the record. I raise
the question and preserve it in this
ord: What jurisdiction have you to
hear and determine any question arising
out OF the charges in this petition against the
ex commissioner alone. they : growing
out of acts done by him while he
was commissioner, and In the doing
to do what he did. or acquiesced in what he
knew was done by subor iinates, because he was
commissioner OF patents and assumed such
right because Of the official position?
AN ASSERTION OF NO JURISDICTION.
81 assert that you have no such jurisdiction,
and Foster Il Freeman being out of the
case there is manifest injustice,
to put it mildly, in considering
this petition further as against Mr.. Simouds,
when it already appears that what he did was
in absolute good faith, to the detriment
of no one; in the belief that he had the
right to do it; that 1t was openly done on re-
peated orders to subordinates, and with the ap-
proval of the Secretary of the Interior
II make the point of want of jurisdiction,
knowing, as 1 think know that on the merits
Of the inquiry there is not shadow of
just criticism against Mr.. Simonds,
but regard it as less than my duty if should
concede by implication the right Of any public
officer to adjudicate with a view to punishment
| the propriety Of the official acts Of his prede-
cessor, at the instance of an outsider on q rule
to show cause, in proceeding standing as this
does now, solely against such predecessor.
"H am right in this and the question Of
jurisdiction when made must be first decided
no arguments on the question Of fact are neces-
sary.'
NIB. CHURCH BEGINS ARGUMENT
1t was agreed that the point raised by Judge
Payson need not be argued at once and the
case proceeded.
The testimony having been concluded before
the adjournment Of the investigation several
Mr. Church opened the argument for the prose-
cution. He said the charges may be divided
into two classes; those which relate
to Messrs. Foster & Freeman, with the
collusion of Chief Clerk Bennett, and
the charges against Mr.. Simonds. In
ia cOnn fiav, 10 thao 80
| tion Of the Drawbaugh files and charges of illegal
copying Of the same.
All the copies OF which specific mention is
made In the charges he said are proved to have
| been made, all except the 1884 application,
which, while they have not been produced
| in evidence have been shown to have been
copied. Two copies are now in the commits
sioner's possession and Maj. Emory has sworn
that they were made by outside copyists The
defendants have sworn that copies of the 1884
application we're desired
There have been exhibited here. said Mr.
Church, two certified copies Of the ''public use
proceedings" All these copies having been
proved to have been made, the material
question arises. they properly or
improperly made. and if so by whom. and who
rule Is of the patent Office re-
lating to inspection Of papers. and which
rule he said he would invoke This rule re-
quires that pending applications shall be kept
lnVlolate. his rue was designed to prevent
fraud, to prevent wrongful appropriation Of an
applicants invention.
AUTHORITIES QUOTED.
Mr.. Church at this point quoted authorities
upholding the legality of this rule and its ap-
plication. Mr.. Simonds himself had recog-
nized the wisdom of this rule in refusing the
application Of outsiders to copy this
same 1884 application. Mr.. Church also quoted
decision of the Supreme Court of the District
of Columbia upholding the legality of the action
of the commissioner Of patents in refusing
access to pending applications
He then asserted that public use proceed
ing in the patent Office has always been held
| to be ex parte, and that only the applicant and
the Office are concerned in public use pro-
ceeding."
A BELIEF THAT THE PRINTED COPY WAS STOLEN.
Mr.. Church here stated that it was his belief
that the printed copy of the public use pro-
ceedings'' recently exhibited was stolen, and
gave the reason for his belief.
Mr.. Church then dwelt upon the motive for
the acts charged against the defendants. He
said that after Mr.. Simonds had issued the
Berliner telephone patent the Depart
ment OF Justice moved upon Commissioner
Simonds. calling him to account for issuing that
patent The Department Of Justice entered
lo,1itS So- fbo llofi NJ haf Al