New-York tribune., 1922-03-19
Refused Aid by Relatives


He was obtaining what seemed TO
him remarkable results and he showed
his apparatus to his father and let him
listen to his signals and asked his
father 10 advance money for 8 patent
application. Mr.. Armstrong sr. was not
evidently impressed and refused his son
financial help.
About this time Armstrong showed
the receiver to his uncle, Mr.. Smith. and
tried to get him to advance money for a
patent application. This Mr.. Smith did
not d. but advised Armstrong to make
drawing Of the connections and have
IT witnessed By q notary"
The action was first started in 1916
and continued until this country en-.
tered the war, when temporary truce
was signed while the principals en-.
tered the service Of their country. Arm.
strong became major in the army
because Of his expert knowledge OF
radio. When the armistice was signed.
however, the defendants began to press
Tor continuation Of the proceeding.
One day Armstrong was seated in
| Hindenburg's headquarters at Spa.
Belgium. installing radio tele-
phone set for the purpose of keep
ing that important center in constant
communication with General Pershinc's
headquarters in France. He had lust
completed his task and succeeded in
getting into touch with G. II. O.. when
Captain Close at the latter place said ::
I've got cahlegrarn for you, major.
It reads: When can you return? De
Forest pressing action, your presence
urgently required.'"
The message was from william Fl,
Davis, the attorney who fought for
Armstrong throughout
In the subsequent action Armstrong
was confronted with two supreme diff
fculties, because two OF the principal
witnesses were dead. One, Profes ssor
Frank Mason, of Columbia University
who died as g. lieutenant in the United
STATES Navy, was The first person Arm
strong had divu!ged his invention to-
The other was John A. Goodwin. the
notary public, who witnessed the
original diagram.
The remarkable fact was that Good
win was man with two signatures.
The defense obtained the original GER
Nfcate Of Goodwin as q notary public.
and the signature YES entirely different
TO that on Armstrong; diagram The
charge Was then made that the diagram
WAS forgery. However, it was sub.
sequently adduced that Goodwin really
had two signatures, one Of which he
reserved for very important documents
ard he hac signed Armstrong; diagram
with his least important signature.
The fact Of his two signatures was
proved without shadow OF doubt by
documentary and oral testimony.
How important this diagram was is
aptly described in the opinion of Judge
Manton, Of the Court Of Appeals, writ
ten last week, which concludes IS fol-
lows:
We think this excellent contribution
to the wireless art should be accorded
the full scope which the court below
gave It in the decree. We think that
che decree is not too broad, but prop
erly describes what the inventor con-
ceived ard Tor whicn protection must
be accorded 70 him"
IN another article OF this page Pro.
lessor Pupin has outlined the scope
OF the Armstrong patent and It's sig
nificance.
On the day following The decision
vas invited to luncheon with Arm
strong, Professor Pupin and Thomas
Ewing and Willis II. Taylor jr., counsel
FOR Armstrong. During this luncheon
Professor Pup;n outlined some Of the
future possibilities OF the Armstrong
patent. He said that one large elec-
.rical corporation was now engaged in
with powerful vacuum
ube oscillstors with an output of up
yard OF fifty kilowatts. Such tubes
ave practically unlimited possibilities !