The U.S. Government Versus Alexander Graham Bell: An Important Acknowledgment for Antonio Meucci
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
General Articles
The U.S. Government Versus
Alexander Graham Bell: An Important
Acknowledgment for Antonio Meucci
Basilio Catania
The important trial between the U.S. as U.S Bell). This lawsuit aimed at invali-
government and Alexander Graham Bell dating Bell’s two original patents (U.S. Pat-
began in June 1885 and ended in November ent No. 174,465, 1876; U.S
1897 with neither a winner nor a loser. The Patent No. 186,787, 1877) on the tele-
proceedings contain a large and authorita- phone. Within those files is found, in par-
tive body of evidence in the case for the pri- ticular, the sworn affidavit of Michael
ority of Antonio Meucci’s invention of the Lemmi (1885), which contains an English
telephone. They are, however, difficult to translation of Meucci’s notes on the tele-
retrieve, because they were never printed phone experiments as he recorded them in
and distributed and because the typewritten his lab notebook (also known as his memo-
or handwritten papers, which are located at randum book). Included in this notebook are
the National Archives and Records Admini- Meucci’s drawings, which, equally as im-
stration in the United States are to this day portant as the notes, have had so much
unorganized and scattered in various files. bearing on the recent international acknowl-
The author presents some of the evidence of edgment of Meucci’s merit (Catania, 1995,
fundamental importance to illustrate how 1996a, 1996b, 1998), as well as in Resolu-
the history of the invention of the telephone tion 269 voted by the U.S. Congress on June
is very faulty on this point and demands, 11, 2002
therefore, a congruent revision In this article, I reconstruct the little-
known history1 of those important proceed-
Key words: Antonio Meucci, Bell, telephone, ings and highlight the role that the U.S. gov-
invention, monopoly, U.S. government, pat- ernment had in favor of Antonio Meucci
ent (Figure 1). This is not, as the reader will see,
a scientific article, nor does it have any legal
In a previous article (Catania, 1998), it was pretense, but it illustrates how all the people
demonstrated how some documents, proofs involved perceived the importance of the
of Antonio Meucci’s priority in the inven- discovery of the telephone and the role that
tion of the telephone, are retrievable nowa- Meucci had in it. Indeed, what the U.S gov-
days, with much difficulty, only at the Na- ernment set out to prove was that the elec-
tional Archives and Records Administration tromagnetic telephone was discovered by
in College Park, Maryland. They are in the Antonio Meucci, and the carbon microphone
disorganized files of the lawsuit brought by was discovered by the German Johann
the U.S. government against Alexander Philipp Reis.2
Graham Bell and against the American Bell
Telephone Company (hereafter referred to
AUTHOR’S NOTE: This article is based on a translation by Professor Filomena Ricciardi of the Italian-language article pub-
lished in 1999 by Basilio Catania entitled “Il Governo Degli Stati Uniti Contro Alexander Graham Bell—Un Importante Ri-
conoscimento per Antonio Meucci,” in Automazione, Energia, Informazione, 86 (10), Supplement pages 1 to 12
The author wishes to express his gratitude to AT&T Bell Laboratories, Archives Records Management Service, Warren, New
Jersey, for permission to access its archives in 1990 and to quote and/or include in this article some of the documents retrieved
in said archives. References made in this article to American Bell (also referred to as Bell Co.),Western Union Telegraph
Company, American District Telegraph Company, and so on are merely in regard to companies that were active during the
time with which this article deals, namely, the 19th century.
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 22, No. 6, December 2002, 426-442
DOI: 10.1177/0270467602238886
Copyright © 2002 Sage PublicationsCatania / The U. S. Government Versus Bell 427
European countries, with the goal of gradually
limiting the monopoly status of the national tele-
phone companies in each particular country.
As reported at the time (“All About Meucci,”
1884; Globe Telephone Company, 1885a), sub-
scribers’ complaints about U.S. Bell became
quite pressing in 1880, so much so that in August
1882, about 1,200 people gathered together at the
Continental Hotel in Philadelphia for a meeting.
There, they discussed and condemned the poor
quality of telephone service in the presence of
executives from the company. Because these ex-
ecutives maintained that the service was to be
considered “average,” the president of the assem-
bly, William W. Goodwin, proposed the estab-
lishment of a committee, called the Phil’a Com-
mittee, whose task would be to prepare a draft for
a resolution asking the company for a clear com-
Figure 1. Antonio Meucci at the Time of the Trial mitment on the quality of service that it would
guarantee to deliver in the future. Toward the end
of 1882, the Phil’a Committee met again and re-
alized that no reasonable answer had been pro-
vided by U.S. Bell, and therefore, a syndicate was
The Monopoly Syndrome formed to look into telephone systems other than
that provided by U.S. Bell. At the time, a young
Contrary to what we may think today, it was electrical engineer who worked for U.S. Bell of
not the likes of Antonio Meucci, Johann Philipp New York reported that in that city, “there was an
Reis, and others claiming precedence on the in- old Italian who could furnish conclusive evidence
vention of the telephone who moved public that he was the original inventor of the tele-
opinion and later the government of the United phone.” The news (following other similar ru-
States against U.S. Bell but U.S Bell itself, be- mors about alleged inventors of the telephone)
cause of the effect of what can be called “the mo- was initially not taken seriously, but just as a pre-
nopoly syndrome.” In the 19th century, there caution, it was thought wise to ask a subcommit-
were no limitations to monopolies, because U.S. tee of experts to make a thorough investigation of
patent laws granted the owner of a patent, for 17 that “elderly Italian man,” who was none other
years, the exclusive right to profit commercially than Antonio Meucci.
in whatever way and at whatever price wished, After a few months, in the spring of 1883, the
preventing anyone from entering the market other subcommittee concluded its investigation with
than as a licensee. Consequently, because of the astonishing results (“All About Meucci,” 1884),
dominance of patent owners within the market, confirming the validity of Meucci’s invention.
the negative aspects of monopolies that today we The findings were sent to wealthy businessman
know all too well began to take place: exorbitant Robert Garrett, president of Baltimore & Ohio
prices, a lack of attention to the complaints Railroad Company, who sent them to his lawyers
and/or the needs of customers, arrogance, and an for legal scrutiny. In the meantime, on April 2,
ever increasing abuse of power. 1883, and independent of the Philadelphia events,
The problem of how to curb and limit the the Globe Telephone Company was established
abuses of power of monopolies has been a con- in New York with the purpose “to manufacture,
stant concern for the government of the United sell, license and lease or rent telegraphic, tele-
States (Microsoft Bookshelf, 1994; Mueller & phonic and electrical instruments and supplies
Rogers, 1998) since the last decades of the 19th therefor . . . to acquire by purchase or license . . .
century. The consensual closing of the proceed- patents and patent rights” as an alternative to U.S.
ings of U.S. Bell in 1897 was but the first step in Bell products (Meucci, 1885-1886, part 2, pp. 43-
a long battle between the United States and U.S. 46). A few weeks later, the aforementioned syn-
Bell that culminated in the well-known divesti- dicate of Philadelphia, having learned of the ini-
ture of AT&T (heir to U.S. Bell), which was de- tiative, took over of the new company and in the
creed in 1982 and carried out in 1984, almost a subsequent reorganization nominated William W.
century from the beginning of the trial in ques-
tion. Similar measures were later adopted in other428 BULLETIN OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY / December 2002
Goodwin as its president (Globe Telephone • his later experiments in Clifton from
Company, 1885a; Goodwin, 1886b). 1852 on;
• the drawing executed for Meucci by the
Antonio Meucci’s Protest painter Nestore Corradi in 1858 (see Fig-
ure 3 in Catania, 1998);
As the reader can gather from the events de- • the publication of Meucci’s invention in
scribed, Meucci found himself involved in a the newspaper L’Eco d’Italia in 1861;
situation that would have exploded even without • his friend Bendelari’s mission to identify
his intervention or that of his supporters. venture capitalists interested in the tele-
Going back a little in respect to those events, phone for Italy in 1860 and 1861;
one must consider that on his part and in spite of • the disaster of the Westfield ferry of July
the his dire economic conditions, Meucci had 30, 1871, in which Meucci was seriously
immediately reacted to Bell’s two patents of 1876 wounded, laying between life and death
and 1877, which he considered to have been for many months;
“usurped” from his own invention. Initially (1877 • the establishment of the Telettrofono
to 1879) (Meucci, 1885a; Stetson, 1885-1886),
Meucci had relied on his lawyer, Thomas D. Stet- Company with three Italian partners to
son, who had filed his caveat “Sound Telegraph” promote his invention on the December
(Meucci, 1871). Later on, in 1880, Meucci sought 12, 1871;
the help of Professor Parmelee, Colonel William • the caveat “Sound Telegraph” filed at the
Bennett, and others, who promised to uphold his U.S.
priority, but without any direct commitment on • Patent and Trademark Office on the De-
their part (Cunningham, 1885; Meucci, 1885a). cember 28, 1871;
Nevertheless, with the money provided by Colo- • Meucci’s poverty from 1871 on; and
nel Bennett, Meucci was able to rebuild the prin- • his request to Mr. Grant, vice president
cipal models of the telephone that he had created of the American District Telegraph
between 1853 and 1871, which were similar to Company of New York, to test his tele-
those that his wife had sold during the serious phone in 1872 and the latter’s statement
illness that he suffered following the explosion of in 1874 that he had lost all documents
the Westfield ferry (C. Bertolino, 1885; Meucci, and prototypes received from Meucci.
1885).
Furthermore, from the beginning of 1879, Meucci, furthermore, after getting a certified
Meucci gathered as many affidavits as possible copy of his caveat from the U.S. Patent and
for his case, drawing up 24 of them between Trademark Office in November 1879 (Stetson,
January and July 1880. Of these, I have found 15 1885-1886) turned many times to the press. He
(Barbette, 1880; Bendelari, 1880; Bowen, 1880; gave an interview to the New York World (Eaton,
Corradi, 1880; DeLuca, 1880; Lewis, 1880; 1885; Meucci, 1885a; Pratt, 1885) and wrote to
Lorini, 1880; A. Meucci, 1880; E. Meucci, 1880; the Messager Franco- Americain and to L’Eco
Negretti, 1880; Secchi de Casali, 1880; Sidell, d’Italia (“Il Vero Inventore,” 1880) (Figure 2).
1880; Stetson, 1880; Tartarini, 1880; Ullo, 1880). L’Eco d’Italia went back on the topic in an edito-
Of three more (A. Bertolino, 1885; Cunningham, rial (“La Proprietà,” 1882) published on February
1885; Egloff, 1885) (probably drawn up in Ital- 9, 1882, which, in addition to stating that “we
ian), I found the English versions, translated in will recognize Mr. Antonio Meucci as the first,
1885. These affidavits were mentioned and de- the one and only inventor,” recounted the history
scribed in two editorials published in 1884 (“The of Meucci’s invention and implied the possibility
Philadelphia Electrical Exhibition,” 1884; “The that, for their patents, Bell and Gray used the in-
Telephone Claimed,” 1884), in which six more formation that Meucci gave to Mr. Grant. The
were mentioned (drawn up by Henry King, Pat- editorial concluded with an invitation to all Ital-
rick Kehoe, Reuben Lord, Giuseppe De Gregorio, ian businessmen residing in New York to give
Antonio Lazzari and L. Meriance), which I was financial support to the legal battle for Meucci’s
not able to retrieve. priority.
Because of limited space, I cannot comment In the spring of 1881, Adolfo Rossi, who only
on the details of each of the affidavits. I can say, a few months before had become director of the
however, that they contain valid testimony on the Progresso Italo-Americano, joining the old and
following topics: well-established L’Eco d’Italia in New York,
• the experiment that Meucci performed in interviewed Meucci many times and printed a
Havana in 1849; detailed history of his invention in a series ofCatania / The U. S. Government Versus Bell 429
newspaper articles that were later summarized in his book (Rossi, 1899, pp. 156-163).
Figure 2. Antonio Meucci’s Letter of March 4, 1880, Published in L’Eco d’Italia on March 6, 1880 (the banner
of the newspaper has been placed over the letter)430 BULLETIN OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY / December 2002
At the end of this long period of preparation, telephone prototypes created by Meucci and all
on April 25, 1883, Meucci gave power of attor- the affidavits sworn in his favor up to that time.
ney to the law firm of Michael Lemmi and Carlo On December 4, 1883, Meucci signed another
Bertolino to protect his rights over the invention deed of transfer to the same syndicate for his pat-
of the telephone and consequently put in their ent application, “Marine Telegraph”, filed on July
custody all the affidavits in his hands, a copy of 8, 1880 (Meucci, 1885-1886, part 1, p. 70) and a
his caveat and its renewals, and the 26 prototypes (ready to be made) patent application entitled
of the telephone that he had rebuilt (Lemmi, “Method of and Apparatus for Transmitting
1883). The first occasion for Lemmi and Ber- Sound Telegraphically” derived from his caveat
tolino’s firm to promote Meucci’s cause was “Sound Telegraph.”4 Finally, on December 7,
when on July 21, 1883, the newspapers published 1883, Meucci notified the U.S. Patent and
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s decision, Trademark Office that the lawyers O. E. Duffy,
largely favorable to Bell, after examination of the of Washington, D.C., and Howard Munnick-
various patents and applications for patents “in- huysen, of Baltimore (both legal representatives
terfering” with Bell’s patents.3 of the syndicate), were going to represent him in
Three days later, on July 24, the Lemmi and relation to the caveat “Sound Telegraph” and its
Bertolino’s firm sent to all the major newspapers future development (Meucci, 1885-1886, part 2,
of NewYork a letter signed by Meucci (1883) in p. 5).
which he claimed priority in the invention of the In the meantime, something was happening in
telephone, citing his caveat “Sound Telegraph,” Baltimore, where the aforementioned Robert
filed on December 28, 1871, its renewals up to Garrett, after receiving from his lawyers in the
the end of 1874, and concluding as follows: fall of 1883 the final report on Antonio Meucci,
decided to intervene against the gigantic monop-
I shall not abandon my rights, and I shall call oly of U.S. Bell “in order to break the powerful
myself, by valid documents, the first Ameri- grip that allowed this company to maintain its
can citizen who has obtained from said Patent isolation in the market.” In fact, on January 31,
Office of Washington, a caveat which entitles 1884, the Globe Telephone Company of Balti-
me to the priority of invention of the great more was established with capital of $1 million.
contended telephone. (p. 128) The newspapers reported that the founding mem-
bers were capitalists well known in the financial
This letter was published in, among others, the world (one of them was from London) and that
New York Herald and the Telegraphic Journal they were connected with the Globe Telephone
and Electrical Review (“The invention,” 1883). It Company of New York (“All About Meucci,”
produced an immediate positive reaction that at- 1884; “The First Inventor,” 1884; Goodwin,
tracted the attention of U.S. Bell as well. As will 1886a; Rogers, 1886).
be seen in more detail later, Lemmi and Ber- The following March 31, 1884, the corporate
tolino’s firm, in August 1883, received some im- capital of $10 million of the Globe Telephone
portant proposals, among them those of E. B. Company of New York was deposited. The head-
Welch of Boston and Alfred P. Willoughby of quarters of the company were at the Mills Build-
Chicago. ing, 15 Broad Street. The nameplate at the en-
The negotiations with Mr. Welch (who was trance of the offices, as well as the letterhead and
connected with U.S. Bell, as shown by Schiavo, the newsletter (Globe Telephone Company,
1958), as well as the following direct contacts 1885a; Meucci, 1885-1886) released by the com-
with U.S. Bell, are described in detail in affida- pany, bore the name of Antonio Meucci as “elec-
vits (Goodwin, 1885b; Lemmi, 1883) and amply trician,” meaning the technical expert of the
illustrated in an editorial published in the Chi- company.
cago Evening Journal (“The Telephone Case,” Meucci’s “magic moment” continued in Sep-
1887). It is sufficient to say here that they were tember with the publication of an article in the
but maneuvers aiming at finding out as much as Electrical World (“All About Meucci,” 1884)
possible about Meucci’s claims so as to dismantle that recalled the entire story of his invention of
them. However, the Lemmi and Bertolino’s firm the telephone and the events that led to the crea-
was quick to identify them and avert them at their tion of the Globe Telephone Company in New
very beginning. Recall that representatives of York. The article was published on September 6,
U.S. Bell, during a meeting with members of the 1884, a few days before the inauguration of the
syndicate, hinted at an estimate for Meucci’s in- Philadelphia Electrical Exhibition, open to the
vention of about $1 million (Goodwin, 1885b). public from September 14 to October 18, 1884, at
A few weeks later, Meucci’s lawyer, Carlo which the two principal prototypes of Meucci’s
Bertolino, relinquished to the syndicate all the telephone were shown.Catania / The U. S. Government Versus Bell 431
Also, the Telegraphic Journal and Electrical or translated into English from previous ones,
Review of October 11, 1884 (“The Philadelphia already mentioned, given in 1880.
Electrical Exhibition,” 1884), recalled the story On August 20, Beckwith was appointed gen-
of Meucci’s invention and reported that Meucci’s eral manager of the Globe Telephone Company
telephone devices were shown at the exhibit. An- (Beckwith, 1886; Moncada, 1933). The following
other quite similar article entitled “The Tele- September 12, he made the company publish and
phone Claimed by Meucci” (1884), referring to distribute a newsletter (Globe Telephone Com-
the same exhibit, was published shortly afterward pany, 1885a) that carried the history of Meucci’s
in the prestigious Scientific American. invention, in which he enumerated the proofs of
In both, it was reported that Meucci’s priority with respect to Bell, stating that
the Globe Telephone Company had in its posses-
the Globe Telephone Company (New York) sion a total of 50 affidavits supporting the state-
exhibit is one that at present attracts (amongst ments.
telephone men) considerable notice. This I have been able to trace 27 affidavits (sworn
company was formed to work the Shaw pat- after 1880), adding to the 24 mentioned before to
ents. . . . But it is in the Meucci invention, total 51 affidavits, close to what was mentioned
shown here, that the greatest interest lies. in the newsletter. Those affidavits were listed
and/or commented on in a letter of lawyer David
The articles continued with detailed descriptions Humphreys (1885a), legal counsel to the Globe
of 18 affidavits, among those mentioned previ- Telephone Company, addressed to the acting at-
ously in support of Meucci’s priority in the in- torney general of the United States, the Honor-
vention of the telephone, and concluded with “a able John Goode and/or in a letter of the Honor-
drawing of one of Meucci’s telephones (1857) able Lucius Q. C. Lamar (1886), secretary of the
exhibited here, together with a copy of the caveat interior of the United States, also to Goode. Some
filed in 1871 and a reproduction of the drawing of these 27 affidavits (C. Bertolino, 1885; Eaton,
said to be the original on which the caveat was 1885; Goodwin, 1885b, 1886a; Lemmi, 1883,
based.” 1885; Meucci, 1885a; Pratt, 1885) have already
It is not possible to quote here the contents of been recalled in this work in different instances; I
the numerous other articles on and/or interviews traced the others (Bachmann, 1885; Barili, 1885;
of Meucci published or referred to in the period Biggio, 1885; Ciucci, 1885; Conti, 1885; De-
from 1883 to 1885; therefore, I give only their Martini, 1885; Dendi, 1885; Fleming, 1885;
bibliographic references (“The Claims to the Goodwin, 1885a; Gregory, 1885; Kassan, 1885;
Telephone,” 1885; “The First Inventor,” 1884; Mariani, 1885; A. Meucci, 1885b; E. Meucci,
“Globe Telephone Company,” 1884; “Meucci’s 1883; Panizzi, 1885; Vanni, 1885; Wilber, 1885a,
Claims,” 1885; “The Meucci Telephone Claims,” 1885b) at the National Archives and Records
1885; Morris, 1885; “Telephone Patents,” 1885; Administration, except for one drawn up by R.
Roversi, 1942; Tyrrell, 1907). Benedetti and cited in Humphreys’s (1885a) let-
In the spring of 1885, as shall be seen later on, ter, which was not retrieved.
some industrial companies started an action at- Again, I do not have the space here to com-
tempting to involve the government in hindering ment on these additional affidavits. I cite, how-
U.S. Bell’s monopoly. The Globe Telephone ever, the long affidavit sworn by John Fleming
Company, in view of joining the initiative, began (1885), the secondhand dealer who bought from
to prepare a body of evidence in favor of Meucci. Meucci’s wife all the telephone prototypes and
The person who took on the task was Dr. Seth R. other pieces and electrical components, which
Beckwith, a surgeon from Elizabeth, New Jersey, filled “a box 3 x 3 feet, so heavy that I could not
who also had a degree in law and who in 1883 move it.” In his affidavit, Fleming gave a detailed
was general manager of the Overland Telephone description of the things he bought, with precise
Company of New York. There, he had acquired a reference to some of the prototypes reconstructed
substantial knowledge in the telephonic field and by Meucci in 1880.
had become an admirer of Meucci. Beginning on
June 1, 1885, and following his request, Beck- Powerless Against U.S. Bell: The
with was hosted at the offices of the Globe Tele- Government Is Asked to Intervene
phone Company in New York, where he talked
with many people who had seen Meucci’s tele- From 1878 to 1885, when the American gov-
phones before 1875, had used them, and were ernment finally intervened, U.S. Bell had been
able to describe them. He had them draw up 36 able to gain in local courts a substantial series of
affidavits, most of them new and some rewritten victories against those who tried to attack its mo-
nopoly. The word, however, was that they were432 BULLETIN OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY / December 2002
obtained thanks to the ability of U.S. Bell’s law- The maneuvers to involve the government
yers, as well as the connivance of some judges against the monopoly of U.S. Bell began in the
and people from the U.S. Patent and Trademark second half of 1885 in the southern United States
Office rather than the objective superiority of and were facilitated by the rise to power of the
Bell’s patents with respect to the inventions Democratic Party (which was very strong in the
boosted by other inventors. The lawyers for U.S. South). In the administration of the new presi-
Bell were even able to obtain from the judges, in dent, Grover Cleveland6 were, among others,
a very short time (a few weeks from the begin- General Augustus H. Garland, attorney general,
ning of the lawsuit), a preliminary injunction that, and Lucius Q. C. Lamar, secretary of the interior,
pendente lite, forced the plaintiff to suspend all whose names will come up often later on.
business activities. This in turn, by preventing the The person who started the fire was Watson
company to generate income, forced it to exhaust Van Benthuysen of New Orleans, Louisiana,
its capital in legal expenses. president of the National Improved Telephone
It is impossible to summarize all the court Company. 7 On July 12, 1885—a few days after
proceedings mentioned; however, it is important one of the many preliminary injunctions that U.S.
to point out that the first and most important Bell obtained against National Improved—Van
court case that saw the confrontation of U.S. Bell Benthuysen wrote a letter to Attorney General
with the giant Western Union Telegraph Com- Garland inviting him to start a lawsuit on behalf
pany (which controlled the telephone inventions of the government with the purpose of annulling
of Thomas Edison, Amos Dolbear, and Elisha the two main patents of A. G. Bell on the tele-
Gray and owned much of the U.S. telegraph net- phone. Later, he drew up an affidavit in which he
work) was resolved with an out-of-court settle- accused the presiding court of collusion with U.S.
ment signed on November 10, 1879. The settle- Bell (Swan, 1903). Moreover, on August 24,
ment provided for the division of the market be- 1885, from Memphis, Tennessee, Van Ben-
tween the two companies: the telephone market thuysen sent a memorial (Van Benthuysen,
for U.S. Bell and the telegraph market for West- Huntington, Beckwith, & Gantt, 1885) to the
ern Union, plus the official acknowledgment by Honorable Henry W. McCorry, U.S. district at-
Western Union of A. G. Bell’s priority in the in- torney for western Tennessee “on behalf of the
vention of the telephone. U.S. Bell, for its part, citizens of Memphis,” underwritten by Charles P.
agreed to pay 20% of the profits derived from
any telephone subscribers for a period of 17 years Huntington (of Mississippi), J. R. Beckwith8 (a
and to buy the 56,000 telephones and exchanges well known lawyer of New Orleans, Louisiana,
that Western Union had already installed in 55 and legal counsel to the National Improved Tele-
cities (Schiavo, 1958, p. 175). phone Company), and Colonel George B. Gantt,
This agreement was heavily laden with suspi- of Memphis (a director of National Improved). In
cions of collusion. In particular, there were well- the memorial, they extensively outlined the rea-
founded suspicions (Beckwith, 1885; Hum- sons why the two principal patents of Bell should
phreys, 1885b; Jenks, 1885; Schiavo, 1958) that be annulled and again invited the government to
it was reached in part to prevent Antonio bring a lawsuit for the annulment, suggesting that
Meucci’s invention from becoming public. West- the trial should preferably take place in Memphis
ern Union, it seems, had obtained complete on behalf of the government of the United States.
documentation of it from its affiliate, the Ameri- On August 31, 1885, the Honorable H.W.
can District Telegraph Company, or more pre- McCorry forwarded the memorial to the attorney
cisely from its aforementioned vice president, general with an accompanying letter stating that
Edward B. after examining the evidence and the affidavits
Grant, as well as its superintendent, Henry W. enclosed with the memorial, McCorry believed
Pope, brother of the chief technical expert of that Bell’s patents had been “improvidently and
Western Union, Frank L. Pope.5 Its disclosure, in irregularly issued” and therefore that he favored
fact, would have annulled or raised questions the initiation of a trial “wholly under the control
about the telephone patents of both sides because of the government, so that it should be a suit of
the then current patent law (the Patent Act of the government, in fact as well as in name” (U.S.
1871) ruled in § 24 that to be valid, a patent had House of Representatives, 1886; Young, 1885).
to describe an invention “not known or used by In absence of General Garland, the letter was
others in this country” and in § 30 that “the appli- read, as per norm, by his second in command,
cant shall make oath or affirmation . . . that he General John Goode. He signed the authorization
does not know and does not believe that the same requested by McCorry, who on September 9,
[invention] was ever before known or used” 1885, filed the bill of complaint of the U.S. gov-
(Chisum, 1990). ernment against U.S. Bell (“Bell’s Right Dis-Catania / The U. S. Government Versus Bell 433
puted,” 1885; U.S. House of Representatives, sioner of patents, Martin V. B. Montgomery. The
1886). Evening Post of November 10 (“The Telephone
Obviously, U.S. Bell was not about to take Hearing,” 1885) reported that the parties in the
lightly an attack so violent and dangerous. First lawsuit were three: U.S. Bell, a group of compa-
of all, it unleashed a furious press campaign with nies “which base their claims in considerable
articles in the New York World and the New York measure upon the patents of Reis and Meucci”,
Times condemning the Justice Department and its and an “unknown interest which is represented by
decision to proceed against U.S. Bell and accus- Professor Elisha Gray.”
ing Attorney General Garland of wanting to pro-
mote the interests of the Pan- Electric Telephone
Company, of which he was a stockholder (U.S.
House of Representatives, 1886). The admini-
stration issued a press release denying the accu-
sations (“Gen. Garland Explains,” 1885)9 but at
the same time, on October 9, 1885, ordered
McCorry to suspend the legal action against U.S.
Bell and turn over the entire documentation in his
possession to the Department of the Interior, in
charge of awarding and controlling patents, for
preliminary examination and recommendation.
Although on October 14, McCorry reiterated his
request to be authorized to proceed, 3 days later,
the Honorable John Goode denied the request
(Swan, 1903; U.S. House of Representatives,
1886; Young, 1885).
At this point, other opponents of U.S. Bell,
such as the Globe Telephone Company (1885b),
the Washington Telephone Company, the North
American Telephone Company, and others, came
to the aid of the National Improved Telephone
Company, filing with the Department of Justice
petitions asking the government to intervene for
annulling Bell’s patents. The New York Chamber
of Commerce as well approved a resolution in
favor of the trial (Young, 1885). Later on, the
Pan-Electric Telephone Company sent many af- Figure 3. Lucius Q. C. Lamar, Secretary of the
fidavits signed by eminent scientific personali- Interior (1885 to 1888) and Justice of the
ties— among them Thomas Edison (1885)—who Supreme Court (1888 to 1893)
denied A. G. Bell’s priority in the invention of
the telephone (“The Telephone Hearing,” 1885).
For its part, U.S. Bell began to prepare itself On the opening day of the trial, November 9,
for the inevitable confrontation with the govern- counsel David Humphreys was the first to speak,
ment and its new opponents. In particular, to face saying that he had proof of Meucci’s priority and
the Globe Telephone Company, it hired Pinker- that Meucci had had a telephone since 1849
ton’s National Detective Agency (1885) to follow
Meucci and gather as much information as possi- (“Attacking Bell’s Patent,” 1885; Globe Tele-
ble to use in its own defense and/or to start a le- phone Company, 1885b). Humphreys also read a
gal action against the Globe Company. sensational affidavit, sworn by Major Zenas Fisk
The secretary of the interior, the Honorable Wilber (1885a),11 former chief examiner of the
Lucius Q. C. Lamar (Figure 3),10 did not waste U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, only a month
time in bureaucratic examinations and announced before the beginning of the hearings. In his affi-
hearings, open to the public and the press (this davit, Wilber denounced the irregularities com-
also to avert another campaign against the ad- mitted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
ministration), from November 9 to November 14,
1885, to elucidate erga omnes the parties’ posi- in favor of A. G. Bell, stating in particular,
tions. The Honorable Lamar had two assistant
secretaries sitting with him, Henry L. Muldrow At the time, in December, 1871, Antonio
and George A. Jenks, as well as the commis- Meucci filed a caveat for “Sound Telegraphs,”434 BULLETIN OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY / December 2002
I was an assistant under Prof. B. S. Hedrick, It was clear from the beginning of the hearing
principal examiner, and engaged under him in that things were not going well for U.S. Bell. In a
the examination of cases relating to electrical preemptive move, the day after the beginning of
inventions; hence the Meucci caveat came un- the aforementioned hearing, November 10, 1885,
der my charge at that time. At the time of the in the southern district court of New York, U.S.
last renewal thereof, in Dec., 1873, I was in Bell brought suit against the Globe Telephone
charge of applications involving or relating to Company, Antonio Meucci, Dr. Seth R. Beck-
electricity as principal examiner myself; and with, and Amos Rogers (secretary of Globe), re-
the Meucci caveat was still in my charge. iterating its tactic of gaining local victories to
During 1876 the electrical department was create a situation of res adjudicata in an eventual
under my charge as principal examiner, and I trial with the government and to create an obsta-
received as such examiner, from the proper cle to Globe’s efforts in Washington in favor of
division of the office, the Bell application Meucci (Bill of Complaint, 1885).
which became U. S. Patent No. 174465 of In addition, the New York district court was
March 7th, 1876, and the caveat of Elisha presided over by the same judge, William J.
Gray. . . . If this case had the usual course of Wallace, who had ruled four times in favor of
suspension of the application been followed U.S. Bell. This move allowed the lawyers of U.S.
Bell would never have received a patent, and Bell to announce triumphantly, during their con-
had Mr. Meucci’s caveat been renewed in cluding arguments on November 14, before the
1875, no patent could have been issued to Honorable Lamar, that “a suit is pending under
Bell. the Bell patents in New York against Meucci and
From my experience in examining a vast the Globe company” (Dickerson & Storrow,
number of electrical specifications, I have be- 1885). In the concluding session of the same day,
come familiar with the terms and nomencla- all parties summarized their arguments in support
ture used and have found that the terms used of their positions. Dr. Seth R. Beckwith in par-
by Reiss and Meucci are expressed or meant ticular gave a long dissertation on Meucci’s pri-
by different later inventions under different ority (Beckwith, 1885; “Telephone Talk,” 1885),
names. I have noticed [for instance, that] the describing the move of U.S. Bell as follows:
“closed circuit” of Bell is the “continuous “During this hearing it [U.S. Bell] has shown dis-
metallic conductor” of Meucci. respect to your Honors, for on the 3d day of your
sitting a suit has been entered against Antonio
Note that in a later affidavit drawn up only 2 Meucci.”
days before the beginning of the hearings, Wilber Once the hearings were completed, the assis-
(1885b) described Reis’s and Meucci’s tele- tants to the Honorable Lamar each prepared a
phones as “the prototypes of all speaking tele- report. Mr. Montgomery sent his report on De-
phones” (referring, probably, to the loose-contact cember 12 (Swan, 1903). On December 22 fol-
transmitter of Reis and to the electromagnetic lowed the reports from assistant secretaries Mul-
transmitter and receiver of Meucci). drow (1885) and Jenks (1885). They all agreed in
After counsel Humphreys, Dr. Seth R. Beck- recommending to proceed against U.S. Bell. In
with spoke, read Meucci’s (1885a) affidavit, and his report, Assistant Secretary Jenks wrote,
showed the telephone models built by him, his among other things,
memorandum book, and the many affidavits
signed in his favor (“Telephone Talk,” 1885). There is also evidence that as early as 1849,
Thereafter, George Gantt, Casey Young, and J. R. Antonio Meucci began experiments with
Beckwith illustrated the already mentioned me- electricity, with reference to the invention of a
morial on behalf of the citizens of Memphis. Al- speaking telephone. . . . Up to 1871 . . . al-
though the position of these latter speakers was though much of the time very poor, he con-
essentially in support of Reis, they did not hesi- structed several different instruments with
tate to express appreciation for Meucci. George which in his own house, he conversed with his
Gantt (1885), in particular, stated, wife, and others. . . . His testimony is corrobo-
rated by his wife, and by affidavits of a very
If human testimony is worth anything then large number of witnesses. He claims that in
Meucci anticipated Bell. I refer to the large 1872, he went to Mr. Grant, Vice President of
volume of proof offered in support of his the New York District Telegraph Company,
claim . . . but leave to others more familiar explained his invention, and tried repeatedly
with it to prove it, at such length as its impor- to have it tried on the wires of the Company.
tance deserves. This, it is claimed, was used by the telegraph
company, and was the basis of the contractCatania / The U. S. Government Versus Bell 435
between the Western Union Telegraph Com- U.S. Bell launched a harsh attack against the
pany and the Bell Telephone Company, dated government at the House of Representatives,
November 10, 1879. through the representatives of Massachusetts
(who were close to it). They managed to have a
It should be noted that in the long report of the resolution passed, on February 26, 1886, to es-
Honorable Jenks, only Philipp Reis and Antonio tablish a federal investigation committee made up
Meucci were mentioned as the inventors of the of nine members with the purpose of investigat-
telephone that preceded Bell’s. ing “charges against certain public officers13 re-
In his report, Assistant Secretary Muldrow lating to the Pan-Electric Telephone Company
(1885) commented in detail on the affidavits in and to suits by the United States to annul the Bell
favor of Meucci, concluding, telephone patents” (Swan, 1903).
The ad hoc committee gathered depositions,
So many witnesses having sworn that the in- documents, and sworn testimony from March 12
ventions of Meucci, Reis, and others ante- to May 27, 1886. The material was printed in a
dated those of Bell in the speaking telephone . volume of almost 1,300 pages, which is in my
. . I therefore believe it to be the duty of the possession. At the end of the investigation, two
Government to judicially inquire whether reports were prepared: one from the majority
these facts do not warrant the institution of a party (Democrats) and one from the minority
suit to cancel the patent of March 7, 1876, party (Republicans). Both were presented to the
which bears the seal of the Government, and House of Representatives on June 30, 1886. The
which confers upon him a monopoly of the majority report concluded that the government
use of one of the forces of nature at the ex- officials implicated had done nothing wrong,
pense of whole communities. whereas the minority report stated the contrary,
and thus, things remained unchanged.
And so, once again, the names of Reis and However, also on the Globe-Meucci front, the
Meucci came up, the same ones that would fill Honorable Lamar’s letter produced some impres-
the numerous articles that appeared during those sive effects. With surprising swiftness, on Febru-
days in the major American newspapers. ary 27, 1886 (deed recorded on March 1), Dr. S.
Encouraged by the unanimous opinions of his R. Beckwith founded, with the approval of the
assistants, on January 14, 1886, the Honorable Globe Telephone Company and Meucci, the
Lucius Lamar wrote a letter to the Honorable Meucci Telephone Company in Elizabeth, New
John Goode (acting attorney general), enclosing Jersey, with its headquarters in the Herald
the three aforementioned reports and the 60 Building, 109 Broad Street (Adee, 1886a; Incor-
documents exhibited during the hearings, rec- poration of the Meucci Telephone Company of
ommending in particular that New Jersey, 1886; Moncada, 1933). It should be
noted that none of Globe’s stockholders were part
the proceeding should be in the name of and of the new company. S. B. Ryder was its presi-
wholly by the Government, not on the relation dent and S. R. Beckwith its general manager. As
or for the benefit of all or any of the petition- a matter of fact, Beckwith offered $25,000 to
ers, but in the interest of the Government and Globe to purchase its rights on Antonio Meucci
the people, and wholly at the expense and un- for the newly established company in New Jer-
der the conduct and control of the Govern- sey.
ment. A detailed account of this company is given in
the valuable manuscript by Francesco Moncada
The Honorable Lamar’s letter raised Meucci’s (1933), who did research in the United States in
and his supporters’ enthusiasm (not to mention 1932. He notes that on April 26, 1886, Dr. Beck-
that of Reis’s supporters) to the sky; with the with issued a short circular, in which he stated
open support of the government of the United (Adee, 1886a, Ans. No. 139),
States, this enthusiasm became so extreme that a
legal victory was taken for granted even before The company uses the Meucci telephone that
the trial began. 12 Meucci himself, in an affidavit was patented in the Patent Office in 1871, five
signed on July 23, 1886, stated that “the Interior years before the Bell patent was granted. The
Department of the United States has practically American Bell Company has been ordered by
decided in his favor, giving him priority of in- the government to appear forthwith in the
vention of telephony over all others. (See deci- United States Court on a charge that Bell ob-
sions of Assts. Secretaries, Muldrow and Jenks.)” tained his patent by fraud, collusion, and his
Soon after the conclusions of the Honorable untruthful oath that he was the original in-
Lamar were sent to the Department of Justice, ventor. The government demands an “injunc-436 BULLETIN OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY / December 2002
tion to perpetually prohibit and enjoin the Bell as Globe’s. The Meucci Telephone Company of
Company from again setting up any pretence Tennessee did little if nothing at all (Beckwith,
of right or claim under and by virtue of Bell’s 1886, Ans. No. 160), essentially because it was
supposed Letters Patent.” The Bell Company waiting “to bring the Meucci matter before the
or its agents will be liable for every telephone Patent Office” (Bowen, 1886b, Ans. No. 79).
used, rented, or sold as a patented article, as Tennessee (the state where U.S. district attor-
soon as the patents of Bell are cancelled and ney McCorry had repeatedly tried to bring U.S.
made void by the government. Bell to trial) was chosen by Globe officers as the
Each and every subscriber using our telephone seat of the new company on the grounds that it
will be protected in its use against any dam- would not have been easy for U.S. Bell to get an
ages annoyances or suits instituted by any per- injunction against it, nor to win a possible trial
son or company. with the same ease as in the states of the North.
For the same reasons, on August 28, 1886, Globe
These words are a clear indication of the and the Philadelphia syndicate relinquished all
euphoria that the Honorable Lamar’s conclusions rights on Meucci’s inventions to the Meucci
produced. Works to build the telephone exchange Telephone Company of Tennessee (Bowen,
in Elizabeth and connect the subscribers pro- 1886a) as a safeguard against the (probable) legal
ceeded quite rapidly. Thanks to the courtesy of defeat of Globe in New York.
AT&T Archives of Warren, New Jersey, I was The hesitancy and prudence of the Globe
able to retrieve the first list of subscribers of the Telephone Company, particularly of Mr. Good-
Meucci Telephone Company (Figure 4), which win and Mr. Humphreys, were in stark contrast
lists a total of 116 subscribers, 49 of whom were with the swiftness and boldness of Dr. S. R.
already connected on May 21, 1886, the others to Beckwith. Beckwith even made precise plans to
be connected by August 1st (Adee, 1886b). Even expand the activity of Meucci Telephone Com-
the lawyer Charles Swan (1903), of U.S. Bell, pany of New Jersey to Washington, D.C., and
had to admit, “In April, 1886, Beckwith had Alexandria, Virginia, as shown by a contract
made such progress with his exchange in Eliza- signed with a W. H. McDonald of Washington,
beth that the Bell Company thought best to apply D.C., on May 28, 1886 (Article of Agreement,
immediately for a preliminary injunction.” 1886). The contract provided that the telephones,
The injunction was requested on April 20, complete with accessories, were to be supplied by
1886, in the Bell-Globe trial in New York, al- the factory in Elizabeth.
leging ties between the two companies. Never- These opposite approaches caused some quar-
theless, the following May 28, Judge Wallace rels between Beckwith and Humphreys, which
refused to grant the injunction against the Globe initially were just antagonistic but eventually de-
Telephone Company, because no significant ties generated into a vulgar fight, with reciprocal ac-
had emerged between Globe and the Meucci cusations even before the court in New Jersey.
Telephone Company. For this reason, on June 8, Meucci found himself caught in between, but
1886, U.S. Bell sued the Meucci Telephone ultimately, he was to side with Globe, which was
Company. The trial went on until January 9, the formal owner of his rights.
1892, when it was officially closed, many years
after U.S. Bell had won the lawsuit against Globe The U.S. Government Versus U.S. Bell:
(1887) and the Meucci Telephone Company had The Lawyers Win
stopped all activities (November 1888).
Going back to the events that followed the de- On March 17, 1886, the government issued an
cision of the Honorable Lamar, the Globe Tele- order to sue U.S. Bell, and the relative bill of
phone Company, seeing the brilliant success of complaint was filed at the district court of south-
Beckwith’s initiative in New Jersey and fearing ern Ohio on March 23, 1886. The solicitor gen-
losing the opportunity afforded by the prestige eral, John Goode, assisted by a staff of lawyers,
suddenly acquired by Meucci’s name, opened a represented the government of the United States
second Meucci Telephone Company in Nashville, (Swan, 1903). The lawyers for U.S. Bell raised an
Tennessee, on April 15, 1886. This company also objection concerning the court’s jurisdiction and
had offices in Philadelphia, where it planned to asked for a motion, which was granted on De-
hold its meetings, given that Goodwin and other cember 7, 1886, obtaining at the same time that
members of the syndicate ran their business there the case be closed. Because of this, almost all of
(Incorporation of the Meucci Telephone Com- 1886waswasted.
pany of Tennessee, 1886). Thomas Bowen was The venue for the trial was then moved to
appointed general manager of the new company. Boston, where U.S. Bell had its headquarters.
The stockholders were for the most part the sameCatania / The U. S. Government Versus Bell 437 Figure 4. Subscriber List of the Meucci Telephone Company of New Jersey, as of August 1, 1886 Source: Courtesy of AT&T Archives, Warren, New Jersey.
438 BULLETIN OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY / December 2002
The new bill of complaint was filed on Janu- Conclusions
ary 13, 1887. The prosecuting attorney was the
Honorable George M. Stearns, under the direc- I believe that I have amply demonstrated in
tion of the solicitor general, George A. Jenks. this article that the government of the United
The lawyers for U.S. Bell, however, raised an- States of America for many years extensively
other objection, sustained by judges LeBaron honored the name of Antonio Meucci as the in-
Colt and Thomas L. Nelson on November 26, ventor of the telephone, upholding that he, to-
1887 (another year wasted!). This time, however, gether with the German Johann Philipp Reis (for
the government appealed to the Supreme Court, the loose-contact transmitter), preceded Alexan-
which on November 12, 1888, reversed the ver- der Graham Bell. I have also amply illustrated
dict of judges Colt and Nelson and forced them to how long and fiercely Meucci fought to defend
reject U.S. Bell’s objection and to resume the his priority, until death took him, while the Globe
trial (nevertheless, yet another year was lost). Telephone Company was still defending his
This last sentence lifted Meucci’s spirits and was memory by appealing to the Supreme Court (Ap-
considered by many as a victory for him, even if peal, 1888), and the government of the Unites
only interlocutory. Unfortunately, though, States was aiming at the same goal with its trial
Meucci died on October 18, 1889, before he against U.S. Bell.
could find out the final outcome of the govern- Meucci’s memory was honored by many and
ment action. for many years after the end of both trials.
After many other legal squabbles, finally, on Among the many, we must remember Guglielmo
December 6, 1889, the depositions began. The Marconi, who fought strenuously to have the
government counsel was headed by the intelligent merits of his unlucky fellow countryman recog-
and persevering jurist Charles S. Whitman of nized internationally (Catania, 1990, 1992). Still,
Washington, D.C. in 1976, a Smithsonian Institution publication
On January 30, 1893, when Bell’s second pat- celebrating the centennial of the invention of the
ent expired and the depositions were still going telephone featured only eight portraits, chosen
on, Bell’s lawyers maintained that it did not make among the many dozens of known inventors in
sense to continue a trial to cancel patents that had the telegraph and telephone fields: one of them
already expired. However, the Honorable Whit- was that of Antonio Meucci (p. 19). The others
man replied that in any case, a sentence would were Gray, Blake, Hughes, Edison, Morse,
have provided a reference point for issues of fun- Thompson, and Reis (see Figure 1, Catania,
damental importance for the country and contin- 1992).
ued to go ahead with the government action. Un- Since then, the name of Antonio Meucci has
fortunately, though, he died in September 1896, been gradually fading, risking becoming rele-
and with his death, the effort of the government gated at best to science trivia. I sincerely hope
quickly lost its impetus. The attorney general, the that such will never happen, because if we were
Honorable Judson Harmon, made a recommen- to deny or obliterate our roots or forget those who
dation to Congress that the case be closed with with their hearts and minds so honored Italy and
the minimum cost possible because he had made the United States, we would be the first ones to
an agreement with the other party (U.S. Bell) that bear the consequences.
the latter would not have in any way taken ad-
vantage of government inaction (Swan, 1903). Notes
In the meantime, at the end of 1897, President
Cleveland was concluding his second term, and 1. For example, Giovanni Schiavo (1958), one of the
William McKinley, a Republican, was elected most accurate and competent historiographers of Meucci,
president. On November 30, 1897, the new attor- included in his book a minute analysis of the Bell v. Globe
ney general, Joseph McKenna, announced that trial but substantially ignored the U.S. Bell trial.
for all intents and purposes, the lawsuit between 2. In 1861, Reis conceived a make-and-break transmitter
the government and U.S. Bell was to be consid- and a magnetostriction receiver, with which he could trans-
ered closed. So in the end, there were neither mit musical tones and, with some difficulty, the vowels of
winner nor losers: The only ones who had gained human speech. Reis died in 1874, but his supporters in the
from this long and complex trial were the lawyers United States maintained that the carbon microphones of
from both sides, who had charged their clients Edison, Blake, Berliner, and others were all derived from
stratospheric fees. Reis’s make-and-break transmitter but adjusted for loose
contact.
3. Meucci’s caveat was not considered among the inter-
fering patents or caveats because it was not renewed in De-
cember 1874, Meucci being in need of the $10 renewal fee.Catania / The U. S. Government Versus Bell 439
4. This patent application was filed on December 8, of the Meucci Telephone Company, Elizabeth, NJ, to 1st
1883 (Bowen, 1886a; Langdon, 1933). After 7 years of vari- August 1886. Warren, NJ: AT&T Archives.
ous discussions, it was definitively rejected by the U.S. Pat- All about Meucci [Editorial]. (1884, September 6). The
ent and Trademark Office on March 21, 1890, 5 months Electrical World.
after Meucci’s death. Appeal, the Globe Telephone Company of New York, W.
5. Giovanni Schiavo (1958, chap. 15) maintained that W. Goodwin, Seth R. Beckwith, Amos Rogers, W. O.
Bell and Gray, on the occasion of their respective experi- Kline, and Antonio Meucci, appellants, vs. the American
ments performed at Western Union in 1875, got precious Bell Telephone Company and the Metropolitan Tele-
information on Meucci’s invention and that their subsequent phone Company, filed October 12, 1888, dismissed
patent or caveat was inspired by that information. March 10, 1892. College Park, MD: National Archives
6. Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, was elected president and Records Administration, Records of the U.S. Su-
of the United States in November 1884 and took power in preme Court, Case No. 13271 (“The Globe Telephone
March 1885. He was known as a fierce opponent of the Co. et al. vs. The American Bell Telephone Co. et al.
decadence of values because, in his previous public charges, [appeal]).”
he had firmly fought corruption and cut expenses. Article of agreement between the Meucci Telephone Com-
7. The National Improved Telephone Company owned pany of New Jersey and W. H. McDonald of Washing-
part of the telephone patents of J. Harris Rogers, the re- ton, D.C., signed May 28, 1886, attached to a letter from
maining part being owned by the Pan-Electric Telephone D. M. Brown (detective) of Washington, D.C., to the
Company (another competitor of U.S. Bell), which was American Bell Telephone Company, Boston, dated July
founded in 1883 and mostly rooted in the South. Therefore, 3, 1886.Warren, NJ: AT&T Archives.
the two companies had common interests. The Honorable Attacking Bell’s patent; the hearing in the telephone cases
Augustus H. Garland had been a shareholder as well as begun; numerous petitions and affidavits presented as-
counsel of the Pan-Electric Telephone Company since its sailing the validity of Prof. Bell’s monopoly [Editorial].
foundation (i.e., before being called to the cabinet of Presi- (1885, November 10). The New York Times.
dent Cleveland). Barbette, F. (1880, April 3). Affidavit. College Park, MD:
8. Not to be confused with Dr. Seth R. Beckwith, gen- National Archives and Records Administration, RG 60
eral manager of the Globe Telephone Company and founder (Department of Justice), Year Files 6921-1885, Box 10,
of the Meucci Telephone Company in New Jersey, as shall Folder 1.
be seen later on. Bachmann, F. (1885, September 28). Affidavit. College
9. In the same article, under the subtitle “The Telephone Park, MD: National Archives and Records Administra-
Monopoly —How It Is Proposed to Break Down the Bell tion, RG 60 (Department of Justice), Year Files 6921-
System,” it was reported that “five years before Gray and 1885, Box 10, Folder 3.
Bell made their applications for patents, Antonio Meucci, of Barili, N. (1885, September-October). Affidavit. College
Staten Island, filed a caveat for a speaking telegraph.” Park, MD: National Archives and Records Administra-
10. Lucius Q. C. Lamar was a respected political leader tion, RG 60 (Department of Justice), Year Files 6921-
of Mississippi. He served in the House of Representatives 1885, Box 6, Folder 1.
from 1873 to 1877, as a senator from 1877 to 1885, as the Beckwith, S. R. (1885, November 14). Argument presented
secretary of the interior from 1885 to 1888, and as a justice at the hearing before the Department of the Interior, in
of the Supreme Court from 1888 to 1893. the matter of a petition to set aside Bell’s patents, and on
11. It may be noted that in quoting important persons, the prior inventions of Antonio Meucci (the telephone
their military rank was highlighted. case). College Park, MD: National Archives and Records
12. The Honorable Lamar’s letter gave rise, in some Administration, RG 60 (Department of Justice), Year
Italian papers, books, and encyclopedias, to gratuitous am- Files 6921-1885, Box 7, Folder 1, enclosures, printed re-
plifications and misinterpretations, as pointed out in the cords and briefs, No. 9.
introductory chapter of Schiavo’s (1958) book. Beckwith, S. R. (1886, October 25-26). Deposition. New
13. The allusion to General Garland is evident. York: National Archives and Records Administration,
Northeast Region, Records of the U.S. Circuit Court for
References the Southern District of New York, Equity H-3681-3687
(The American Bell Telephone Co. et al. v. The Globe
Adee, D. M. (1886a, April 16). Deposition of Daniel M. Telephone Co. et al.).
Adee, witness for complainants (Bell Co.). New York: Bell A. G. (1876). Improvement in Telegraphy. U.S. Patent
National Archives and Records Administration, North-
No. 174,465. Filed 1876, February 14, granted 1876,
east Region, Records of the U.S. Circuit Court for the
March 7. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark
District of New Jersey (“The American Bell Telephone
Office.
Co. vs. The Meucci Telephone Co. et al. of New Jer-
Bell A. G. (1877). Improvement in Electric Telegraphy. U.S.
sey”).
Adee, D. M. (1886b, May 20). Letter to W. C. Tompkins Patent No. 186,787. Filed 1877, January 15, granted
(American Bell Telephone Co.) attaching subscriber listYou can also read
