Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1896-11-11
TELEPHONE PATENTS.
A Great Suit which May Give the
Whole Telephone to the Public.

Washington, Nov. 1.-THE case Of the
United States against the American Bell
Telephone company was argued in the
United States supreme court to-day. In
some respects the case is regarded as the
most important before the court, as it in
wolves the validity of the Berliner patents
owned by the Bell company.
Attorney General Harmon, Solicitor
General Conrad and number of attor-
neys representing special interests ap.
pear in connection with the suits, while
the Bell com pany has a heavy array of
counsel, including Messrs. James j. Stor-
row, James H. Choate and Frederick p.
Fish. The Standard Telephone company
is represented by Gen. James McNaught
and Myron Francis Hill, who have filed q
brief on two points in behalf Of the gov
ernment. The Standard company has no
direct interest in the litigation except as
it affects the general use of telephones
1t is said that a decision in favor of the
government would tend to open the tele-
phone to public use.
Owing to the interests involved, the
court granted nine hours for argument,
WuiOu WILL buo OdoP lOI dOOuV
three days. Judge R. s. Taylor, Of In
dianapolis, opened the argum ent to-day
in behalf of the Unite States. The suit
began February 8, 1898, when the attor-
ney-general flied bill in equity against
the American Bell Telephone company
and Emil Berliner, asking for the annul-
ment 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be repealed in part, as the court deemed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 Beriner application for patent
was filed June 4, 1887, but the patent was
not issued until fourteen years thereafter.
The main points raised by the Ucited
States are:
First, that the patent is void for lille
gal day in the issue.
Second, that it 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 mi
crophone.
The attorney-general's bill set up that
the Bell Telephone company designedly
ana with intent to thereby prolong its
monopoly delayed and prolonged the
pendency of the application for more
than thirteen years after its control of
the patent. The Bell company, in its
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
maintained that it had not
designedly delayed the issue of the pat
ent with view to extending its rights.
1t alleged 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 Massa-
where the contentious of the
United States were sustained. The Bell
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 in equity was dismissed.
The case now comes before the supreme
court on an appeal by the United States
of the decision of the court of appeals.
The same points first presented, as to
delay, are still foremost and the argu-
ments of consul to-day was directed
mainly to these points.