New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-11-10
MILLIONS AT STAKE.
-, ARGUMENTS IN THE BIG TELE-
PHONE MONOPOLY SUIT.

ar GOVERNMENTS CONif'Niio'>' '' ' ~
-. of THE pnRIdNER PATENT PRE-
srNTrp-IIIsToRY OF THE CASE
1870, Nov Argument In the famous case
n,n,,od states against the American Bell Tele-
company a suit to cancel the patent issueu 10
~ Rerllner for a transmt'er. upon 'he resu'' Vi
.,,h aepcnds the continuance OF the teiep"ohe
o,v IN the United States was begun III tne
mo"o SIS supreme Court this afternoon by X. B.
r.vlor. on behalf OF the Government ne WIN "
, ~, Ferdinand p. Fish. Of Boston. ana Joseph
low Of New-York. for the Bell company.
H. -. po,,,e will close for the Government. Be-
,ha case was called Mr.. Browne. in behalf Of
~ ounsel asked for all increase Oh the time usually
-, t,r argument in case from Tour hours 10
It., hours but the Court limited IL 10 the portion OF
49, session then remaining. one hour. and all
''S and Wednesdays. nine hours In all D.
o. ~,,s,, counsel for the Standard Telephone
:. unavaling.y pleaded for an hour In which
'"'f . some views favorable to the contention OF
the United States -, ,,uo,,,ou =, .,,orrev
-, MILLER near the close of President Harrisohs
remuneration and had its origin In susses.'oh
made by Charles a. A'u'ion' '"''' '"o 'O
-, a, me United States. =,
"s 80 orc stated in the brief fled by MT Al
.ne .r,o was especially charged with It's prepara-
.,er his retirement from office He Gays that
-. IS moved TO recommend tnat on eNa'hi"""o"
~ - "a 10 the validity Of the Beriiner patent
pe =, b,s discoveries while acting as attorney
~,,o r Kellogg, before holding of1ciai POSITION
io' " ,,o, against the Bell Telephone Company.
IN "ure,dation was referred TO the Commits
~ Patents who returned IL with an areu-
-. % show that suit TO cancel the patent wou'u
-. ,,,nstiaable. That argument was deemed IN
a,sn, by President Harrison and Attorney-Gen-
.raI Miller and after the INVESTIGATION suggested
&c A,srich had been made the suit 10 cancer
November Ii.
tn c,a,as Circuit Court for the District of Mas
.u,,ss,,s R s. Taylor of Fort Wayne. Ind and
c...r Browne Of Boston. appearing LOT 'he uo'-
r,ent as special assistants TO the Attorney-ueh-
.raI Judge Carpenter on January 3. 1870 louhu
Gov the plaintiff. and decreed cancellation OF the
ton, The Bell company took the case 10 the
Court Of Appeals for the First Circuit, whicn on
~. "a 1896 in an opinion read by Judge Putnam
,or himself and Judges Colt and Nelson. reversed
~ c,rcni, Court. with instructions TO dismiss the
In rrom that decree the United States appealed
a. the Supreme Court Of the United states
The principal ground upon which the government
asked the cancellation of the patent. as shown by
%. $50 was the Extraordinary delay in its issue
-. ,he Patent Office which. Il was held. was In
anac, a fraud upon the public. Berliners orieihal
anplication for a trensmitter was nied on June =
Is-7 in 1873 the application came INTO possession
and under the control Of the Bell company anu t"e
natent was not granted until in November 1Sl thus
extending a
latter date the monopoly OF telephone TRANSMISSION
occurred by the issue OF the original Bell patent IN
,s7s or a total period of thirty-two years.
But counsel for the Government urged the cancel
lation upon these additional grounds First-That an
issued patent Berliner in 1880 covered the same IN
vention as that covered by the invention in suit Sec
ond-That the patent not for the same Invention
described in the application filed. Third-That
taking the application TO date from the time when
II was made by amendment 10 cover the invention
described and claimed in the patent as issued II was
barred by previous public use for period OF more
than two years.
The Bell company controverted those propoA ions,
asserting: First-That whatever delay there was IN
issuing the patent which in itself counsel said, was
not Unprecedented, from the action OF the
Patent Office. and that the Bell company had no
control over it, and was not responsible fc' X the
system OF the office was 10 blame. sseond-That
transmitter; that he made and described two In
has never gone into commercial use.
In disposing OF the case by the Court OF Appears
e en9 double e0as h1 the
counsel assumed that the four given In the bii as
preme Court of the United States Judge Put
hams opinion. in effect. held o. That TO obligation
arose from the circumstances. and that a patent
cannot be declared invalid for non-perforinance OF
the Commissioner Of Patents was not without
power issue the patent II he found The facts an
facts. and that It did not appear he was mistaken
as 10 what the facts were. and. therefore. tnat
the case was not for the interference OF a
court OF equity -, <,, a, .
In the present argument counsel VIII follow me
same general line Of argument as that laid down
IN the courts below. Much interest IL taken in the
case especially by companies DESTROYS OF entering
the telephone field. and besides the literature FUR
nished by the attorneys for the parties of records
two briefs for permission of the Court, were sub
mitted by Mcknight & Redding. solicitors OF the
position of the United States. Their briefs dis
cussed the propositions Cl that the Beriner lrans
the same had been issued In foreign countries 10
Berliner Edison and Blake. and had expired De.
fore the issuing OF the Berner patent; I'd that
The novelty in the Berliner patent az any was IN
the mechanical adjustment OF the electrodes. ana
not as held by counsel for the Bell company. In
fits mode OF operation and the electrical principles
employe ed These points were not MADE In the
court below. and counsel for the Bell company re-
piled 10 the briefs by citation OF authoritiec 10
into consideration Of matters not presented TO
the lnYfr