The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-11-10
FAMOUS ACTION AGAINST THE BELL
COMPANY BEFORE THE ST.
PREME COURT.
UNITED STATES PLAINTIFF.
TO FRAUD THE MAIN ALLEGA-
TION SET UP.
THE BERLINER PATENTS INVOLVED
Case Regarded as the Most Isnpor-
tant Pending Before the Federal
Court of Last Resort.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9.-The case
of the United States against the Amer
lean Bell Telephone company was
argued in the United States supreme
court today. In some respects the case
is regarded as among the most i'm
portant before the court, as it involves
the validity of the Berliner patents,
owned by the Bell company.
Attorney General Harmon, Solicitor
General Conrad, and a number of at
torneys representing special interests
appeared in connection with the suit
Of the United States, while the Bell
company has heavy array of counsel,
including James j. Srorrow, James Fl.
Choate and Frederick P. Fish. The
Standard Telephone company is repre-
sented 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 that decision
in. favor of the government would tend
to open the telephone to public use.
Owing to the Importance OF the inter-
hours for argument, which will con-
tinue the case for about three days.
Judge r.. S. Taylor, of Indianapolis,
opened the argument today in behalf
of the United States.
The suit was begun Feb. 8, 1893, when
the attorney general filed a bill in
equity against the American Bell Tele-
phone company and Emile Berliner,
asking for the annulment of the patent
An alternative 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null and void, it should be repealed in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
Illegal delay in its issue.
Second. That 1t is also void on the
ground that 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 de
Slgnedly and With intent to thereby
prolong its monopoly, delayed and pro-
longed the tendency of the application
for more than thirteen years after it's
control of the patent"
The Bell Telephone company in it's
answer points out 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 maintains that
it has not designedly delayed the issue
of the patent with a view to extending
it's rights. 1t alleges that if 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
Massachusetts, where the contentious
of the United States were sustained
The Bell company appealed to the cir
cult court Of appeals where the preced-
ing 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 appeals. The
same points first presented, as to de-
lay. are still foremost, and the argU-
ments of counsel today were directed
mainly to these points.