The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-11-10

washington City, Nov. sL-rhe case az
ne United States VS.. the American Rel
ispnone Company. was argued In the
sHfted states supreme court ,osay In
SHe respects the case Is regarded al
among the most important before sha
court. as II involves the validity Of the
pany.
Attorney General Harmon. Sosar;tor f,en-
erai Conrad and a number os asturneys
representing special interests. appeared in
connection with the suit OF the United
Csafes. while the Bell comrarv has a heavy
array OF counsel. including James ]. Ssor-
TOW, James II. Choafe and Frederick
FISH The Standard Telephone Company
Is represented by Gen. James McNausht
ana Ayron Francis Hili. who have fled a
osi1 on TWO points in behalf Of the govern
ment The Standard company has no di-
rect interest In the litigation EXCEPT as II
anects the general use OF telephones. II
Is said decision in favor OF the govern
ment would tend to open the telephone TO
pubic use. Owing to the importance of
the interests involved the court granted
nine hours for argument, which will con-
lnue the case for akout three days. Judge
Il. 3. Taylor, OF Minneapolis, opened the
argument today in behalf of the United
States.
The suit began February q. 1897 vhey,
the attorney general filed bill in equity
against the American Bell Teiephone Com
pany and Emil Beriiner. asking for the an
naiment OF the patent. An alternative
PRAYER was made that il the patent was
not declared wholly null and void II should
re repealed IN part. as the court deemed
proper. The Ber!iner application for pa
tent was fled June 4. 1877, but the patent
was not issued until fourteen years there
affer. The main points raised by the
unsted States are: First. that the patent
- void for Illegal delay in its issue: Sec
ond, that 1t 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 generate bill set up that
the Bel Telephone Company desiene<fly
sand with intent to thereby prolong its
monopoly, delayed and prolonged the pen-
ldency of the application for more than
<thirteen years after is control OF the
xpjant
The Bell company in its answer. points
out that the United States officials from
The first have had entire control of the ap-
plication for patent. and an express denial
= made that there was any fraud accident
or mistake. The company maintained that
= had not designeily delayed the issue OF
the patent with view to extending Its
sights Il alleged that IL there was any
Slowness. II was the act OF the plaintiff IT.
self. the United States.
The case was tried in the United States
circuit court for the district of Massacfu-
setts, where the contentious of the United
States were sustained. The Bell company
appealed to the circuit court OF appeals,
where the preceding decision was reversed
on the ground that there was no evidences
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 the de-
lay, are still foremost, and the argument
of counsel today was directed mainly to
these points.