The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1896-11-10
Argued Before the Supreme
Court Judges
NINE HOURS FOR ARGUMENT
win Continue the Case Until Friday
or Saturday
BY Careful Management the Telephone
Patent Has Been Kept Valid for
the Past Nineteen Years.
Associated Press Special Wire

Associated Press Special Wire
WASHINGTON, Nov. 9.-The case of
the United States against the American
Bell Telephone company was argued IN
the United States supreme court today,
In some respects the case is regarded
as among the most important before the
court, as it involves the validity of the
Berliner patents owned by the Bell COM
pany.
Attorney General Harmon, Solicitor
General Conrad and number of attor
neys representing special interests ap-
peared in connection with the suit of
the United States, while the Bell COM
pany had heavy array of counsel in
Guiding Messrs. James ]. Storrow,
James H. Choate and Frederick P. Fish.
The Standard Telephone company IS
represented by Gen. James Mcknight
and Myron Francis Hill, who have filed
brief on two points in behalf of the
government. The Standard company
has no direct interest in the litigation,
except as it affects the general use of
telephones. 1t is said a decision in favor
of the government would tend to open
the telephone to public use
ests involved. the court granted nine
hours for argument, which will continue
the case for about three days. Judge
r. S. Taylor of Indianapolis opened the
argument today in behalf of the United
States.
The suit began February 9, 1893. when
the attorney general filed bill in equity
against the American Bell Telephone
company and Emil Berliner, asking for
the annulment of the patent. Alterna-
tive prayer was made that if the patent
was not declared wholly null and VOID,
it should be repealed in part as the
court deemed proper.
The Berliner application for patent
was filed June 4, 1877, but the patent was
not issued until fourteen years there-
after. The main points raised by the
United States are:
First-That the patent is void for lille
gal delay in its issue.
Second--That is also void on the
ground that the prior patent was granted
upon the same application to the same
applicant for the same invention. The
patent covers what is known as the
microphone.
The attorney generals bill set up that
the Bell Telephone company designed
ly and with intent thereby to prolong its
monopoly, delayed and prolonged the
tendency of the APPLICATION for more than
thirteen years after it's control of the
patent.
The Bell company in its answer points
ont that the United States officials from
the first have had entire control of the
application for patent, and an express
denial is made that there was any fraud,
accident or mistake. The company
maintained that it had not designedly
delayed the issue of the patent with a
view to extending its rights. 1t alleged
that II there was any sloWness it was
the act of the plaintiff itself, the United
States.
The case was tried in the United States
circuit court for the district OF Massa-
chusetts, where the contentious of the
United States We're sustained The Bell
company appealed to the circuit court
of appeals, where the preceding decision
was reversed on the ground that there
was no evidence of dereliction of duty
in the patent office, and the bill in equity
of the United States was dismissed. The
case now comes before the supreme
court on an appeal by the United States
from the decision of the court of ap-
peals. The same points at first presented
as to delay are still foremost and the ar
guments of counsel today were directed
mainly to these points.