Little Falls weekly transcript., 1894-08-24

Aids DecA SO4uS OA4 lOI SstftFal Years past
smong the masses Of the people on this
subject. H.. ..sz zss.
Mr.. Hall and the Bell Telephone Monopoly.
In making up the record Of the Demn-
cratic party, that of it's representatives
from this state will be found locally most
interesting. There is something which
Mr.. Hall, of Minnesota, may find it desir-
able to explain to his constituents when
he comes back to his district. There have
been introduced in the house of representa-
tives since last December five bills con-
tanning provision intended to maintain
and perpetuate the hateful monopoly of
the Bell Telephone company; and of these
five, three were offered by Mr.: Hall.
The Hon. Charles II. Aldrich, of Chi
cago, who was solicitor general during
Mr.. Harrison's administration, has ad-
dressed a memorial to congress on this
subject, from which the interesting facts
that follow, have been. taken. The princi
pal patents on which the Bell Telephone
Company's monopoly is founded being
about to expire, and this great invention
promising to become the common property
of the people, the great monopoly whose
net earnings from 1885 to 1892 were over
twenty millions of dollars, cast about for
a way OF keeping the public under it's
thumb. The result is seen in the issuance
during 1898 of four new patents for which
applications were filed in 1877, or sixteen
years before. 1t may be remembered that
the Berliner patent, issued to the Bell
company, was detained in the patent Of
fee in similar fashion until it could be
most useful to the Bell company.
The MonoDOlv Nav Re Continnod
If these patents are to hold good, the
monopoly from which we were about to
escape will be prolonged for sixteen years
more. There is one obstacle in the way of
the success of this scheme Section 1887
of the revised statutes of the United States
reads as follows:
mo person shall be debarred from re-
ceiving patent for his invention or dis
covery, nor shall any patent be declared
invalid by reason of it's having been first
patented or caused to be patented in for
eign country, unless the same has been in
troduced in public use in the United
States for more than twoyears prior to the
application; but every patent granted for
an invention which has been previously
patented in foreign country shall be so
limited as to expire at the same time with
the foreign patent; or, if there be more
than one, at the same time with the one
having the shortest term, and in no case
shall it be in force more than seventeen
years."
The purpose Of this is to place our own
people on as favorable grounds with ref
erence to important inventions as those of
other countries; so that if an inventor has
patented his invention abroad, he cannot
exclude the people Of the United States
from free use of it beyond the time when
his foreign patent expires Now these in
ventions owned by the Bell Telephone
Company, to which reference has been
made, and for which patents were obtained
in the United States only last year,
(whether by fault of the patent office or
by collision between it and the Bell Com
pany no one need care to say were patent
ed in England, France and Canada in 1877,
in Belgium, Austria, Italy, Germany and
Spain in 1878, and in Prussia in 1882. The
expiry of these patents abroad would.
under the section quoted above, cause the
expiry Of any patent procured in the
United States, however long it m ght
otherwise have to run.
What Mr. Hall Would Accomplish.
Now it is a significant thing that there
should have been five different attempts
to repeal this very section of the United
States laws. The effect of such repeal, as
has been seen, would be to make good
these lately obtained patents for the full
term of seventeen years from the date of
their issue. That is to say, if this one
little obnoxious section can be got rid of,
the fact that patents were taken out
abroad and that the art has there been
made free to the people, will not prevent
the United States from being held COM
pletely at the mercy of the Bell Telephone
Company until 1910.
No doubt Mr.. Hall can give an explana-
tion of why three of these attempts to en-
trench monopoly behind our laws should
have been introduced under his name,
one 'by request" and the other two with
out any such designation. But it GER
tainly seems singular that a man should
innocently attempt so persistently to Sc
cure legalized monopoly at the cost of the
people for one of the richest, most grasp
ing and least admirable corporations of
the country.
There are several things which the Dem
ocratic representatives in this congress
will need to explain to their constituents.
This one will do for beginning.