[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 114 (Wednesday, September 5, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1580-E1582]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                    SPEECH BY PROF. BASILLIO CATANIA

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. ELIOT L. ENGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, September 5, 2001

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, recently, I took to the floor to tell our 
colleagues about Antonio Meucci, who is one of history's forgotten 
inventors. I would like to take this opportunity now to insert into the 
Congressional Record excerpts of a lecture of Prof. Basillio Catania 
that he gave in October 2000 at New York University. I believe you will 
find it very informative and illuminating. I commend it to all our 
colleagues.

  Antonio Meucci, Inventor of the Telephone: Unearthing the Legal and 
                           Scientific Proofs

       For 12 years I have researched the life and inventions of 
     Antonio Meucci. My research was largely based on original 
     documents, found in archives located in Italy, Cuba and the 
     United States. Here I will briefly touch on topics connected 
     with Meucci's priority in the invention of the telephone, 
     namely, the Bell v. Globe trial, the United States v. Bell 
     trial, and the scientific proofs of Meucci's priority.
       Regarding the Bell v. Globe trial, it is known that Judge 
     Wallace's decision, issued in New York on 19 July 1887, ruled 
     in favor of the Bell Company against the Globe Telephone 
     Company and Meucci. The report of this trial is at 31 F. 729 
     (Cir. Ct., S.D.N.Y., 1887). In particular, the Deposition of 
     Antonio Meucci is also available in many public libraries, 
     such as the New York Public Library and the Library of 
     Congress.
       However, it must be remarked that, while the Bell Company 
     had sued the Globe Company and Meucci for patent 
     infringement, it is largely unknown that the U.S. Government 
     sued the Bell Company and Graham Bell for fraud, collusion 
     and deception in obtaining the telephone patent(s). See 32 F. 
     591 (Cir. Ct., D. Mass., 1887). The U.S. Government set out 
     to prove that Meucci--not Bell--had discovered the 
     electromagnetic telephone and that the German Philipp Reiss 
     had discovered the variable resistance transmitter, later 
     called the ``microphone.'' In other words, whereas in New 
     York the Bell Company claimed that Bell, not Meucci, was the 
     inventor of the telephone, in Washington the Government 
     claimed the opposite. Here is a brief chronology of what had 
     happened in Washington, before the commencement of the Bell 
     action against Meucci.
       As early as 31 August 1885, the U.S. Solicitor General 
     consented to petitions from several parties and authorized 
     the U.S. Attorney for Western Tennessee to institute a suit

[[Page E1581]]

     in the name of the Government to annul the Bell patents.
       On 9 September, a bill of complaint against the Bell 
     Company and Graham Bell was filed.
       On 29 September, the Globe Company filed a petition with 
     the Department of Justice. supporting the action of the 
     Government and upholding Meucci's priority.
       On 9 October, the U.S. Solicitor General suspended the 
     proceedings, in order to allow the Secretary of the Interior, 
     Lucius Lamar, who had jurisdiction over the Patent Office, to 
     launch an investigation of its activity in this connection 
     and report recommendations to the Department of Justice.
       On 9 November, the Secretary commenced public hearings, 
     with the aim of determining if there was ground for further 
     proceedings against Bell and the Bell Company.
       In January, 1886, the Interior Secretary recommended the 
     institution of a suit against Graham Bell and the Bell 
     Company, in the name and on behalf of the Government of the 
     United States. He accompanied his letter with all reports, 
     arguments and exhibits put ahead at the hearings.
       Now, while the Secretary was holding said hearings, the 
     Bell Company filed a bill of complaint against the Globe 
     Company and Meucci in the Circuit Court for the Southern 
     District of New York. Judge Wallace, who had already ruled 
     four times in favor of Bell for patent infringement in other 
     cases, presided over this court. It was, therefore, evident 
     that the Bell move was more a maneuver to counteract the 
     attack of the Government, than to sue the Globe Company for 
     an (otherwise non-existent) infringement. The Bell Company 
     was confident to win quickly in New York, also to create a 
     situation of res adjudicata in an eventual trial with the 
     Government and to hamper the action in favor of Meucci in 
     Washington. The Secretary of the
       The trial in New York against Globe and Meucci went on 
     swiftly, as expected by the Bell Company, and it came to a 
     decision in about one and a half years. On the contrary, the 
     action of the Government, hampered by the obstructionism of 
     the Bell lawyers, dragged for twelve years, up to the end of 
     1897, when it was discontinued after the parent(s) had 
     expired--without settling the underlying issue of who had 
     priority to invention of the telephone. Moreover, the record 
     of this trial was never printed and is now only available, 
     with some difficulty, from the National Archives, mostly in 
     typescript or manuscript, being spread among different groups 
     and cities.
       We must point out that, in the Bell v. Globe trial, the 
     counsel for Globe and Meucci, David Humphreys, filed only 
     nine out of the about fifty affidavits in favor of Meucci 
     that were formerly exhibited and elucidated in Washington 
     before the Interior Secretary. Counsel's main concern was to 
     prove that Globe did not infringe the Bell patents, not 
     having sold nor operated any telephones.
       Notwithstanding, Judge Wallace could not ignore the many 
     witnesses that had testified to have successfully spoken 
     through various Meucci's telephones. But he disposed of all 
     such witnesses by ruling that the spoken words that they had 
     heard were from a string telephone, not an electric 
     telephone. As known, the ``string telephone'' is a toy used 
     by children to talk with the aid of two cans and a rope or 
     wire pulled stout between the cans. By ruling that way, Judge 
     Wallace discredited Meucci, as having fooled himself, adding 
     insult to injury.
       The thesis of Meucci's telephone being a string telephone 
     was advanced in affidavit sworn by one Prof. Charles R. Cross 
     from MIT--incidentally, a good friend of Bell, Prof. Cross 
     stated that he had carefully studied Meucci's deposition, in 
     order to faithfully reproduce Meucci's telephone layouts in 
     his Physics Laboratory. However, Prof. Cross had omitted to 
     mention in his affidavit a reel of wire that Meucci always 
     inserted in circuit to simulate a long distance. There are 
     three drawings and five different answers in Meucci's 
     deposition where this reel of wire is clearly shown or 
     quoted. Prof. Cross may have purposely omitted it. If he had 
     inserted a reel of wire in his test, the sound could by no 
     means mechanically traverse distance and reach the receiver. 
     It could only be electrically transmitted. if any expert had 
     raised that objection, Prof. Cross and Judge Wallace's thesis 
     of the string telephone could not but fail.
       Another obstacle to be surmounted by the Bell lawyers--and 
     next by Judge Wallace--was Meucci's caveat ``sound 
     Telegraph.'' This caveat was filed in the Patent Office on 28 
     December 1871, many years before the first Bell patent. 
     Though having expired on December 1874, Meucci not being able 
     any more to pay the $10 annual fee, yet it was a proof of 
     Meucci's priority of invention. Prof. Cross testified that 
     the caveat ``plainly and well describes what is known as a 
     lover's telegraph or string telephone.'' The Globe Company 
     called as their rebuttal witness Thomas Stetson, the patent 
     lawyer who had prepared Meucci's caveat. Surprisingly, Mr. 
     Stetson's testimony was largely in line with Prof. Cross's, 
     poles apart from an affidavit, five years before, which is 
     nothing less than a paean for Meucci as the true inventor of 
     the telephone.
       I took the trouble of comparing Mr. Stetson's affidavit of 
     July 1880 with his trial testimony; the latter was in sharp 
     contrast with his affidavit. Thus, Mr. Stetson's volte-face 
     turned out to be a hard blow on Meucci's defense.
       Mr. Stetson's false statements could easily have been 
     disproved by the written description that Meucci had provided 
     him in order to prepare the caveat. But Mr. Stetson testified 
     that he had lost it, together with some important letters on 
     the same subject that Meucci had written. He also testified 
     that he did not remember an important drawing, illustrating 
     Meucci's telephone system, drafted for him in 1858 by a 
     painter, Nestore Corradi, and accompanying Meucci's 
     description. Conversely, he exhibited a mysterious letter--
     that he said he had dictated but not sent to the Globe 
     Company--containing his (quite recent) detraction of Meucci's 
     caveat. He thus enabled Judge Wallace to rule that Meucci's 
     pretensions ``are overthrown by his own description of the 
     invention at a time when he deemed it in a condition to 
     patent, and by the evidence of Mr. Stetson.''
       Among others, the Bell Company called as their witness two 
     Italians, Frederico Garlanda and John Citarotto, who 
     testified that they owned a quite complete collection of 
     L'Eco d'Italia (an Italian newspaper of New York), running 
     from 1857 down to 1881. They stated, however, that their 
     collection lacked just the issues from 1 December 1860 to the 
     whole year 1863. We must recall that Meucci's invention was 
     testified as having been published in L'Eco d'Italia between 
     the end of 1860 and the beginning of 1861. If retrieved, it 
     would have rendered null the Bell patents. Those precious 
     issues of L'Eco d'Italia that lacked from said collection now 
     lack from all main libraries in the United States.
       Judge Wallace added some negative statements of his own 
     against Meucci. In fact, he stated in the closing paragraph 
     of his decision that ``his [Meucci's] speaking telegraph 
     would never have been offered to the public as an invention 
     if he had not been led by his necessities to trade on the 
     credulity of his friends; that he intended to induce the 
     three persons of small means and little business experience, 
     who became his associates under the agreement of December 12, 
     1871, to invest in an invention which he would not offer to 
     [knowledgeable]; men [. . .]; and that this was done in the 
     hope of obtaining such loans and assistance from them as he 
     would temporarily require.'' Evidently, Judge Wallace chose 
     to neglect the following trial evidence:
       First, Meucci's invention was offered, in 1861, to the 
     Telegraphs of Naples, who refused
       Second, Meucci offered his invention in 1872 to the 
     American District Telegraph Company.
       Third, the partners of the agreement signed on December 12, 
     1871, shortly before the filing of Meucci's caveat, were: S. 
     Breguglia, lessee of the Cigar Stand of the Hoffman Cafe in 
     Wall Street, A.Z. Grandi, Secretary of the Italian Consulate 
     in New York and A.A. Tremeschin, a contractor for civil 
     constructions. This would appear much like agreement that 
     Graham Bell stipulated on February 27, 1875, with T. Sanders, 
     a leather merchant, and G.G. Hubbard, an ex patent lawyer and 
     ex railway businessman. In addition, we must remark that 
     Meucci's agreement, instituting the Telettrofono Company, was 
     an event of great historical importance. It recited that the 
     company aimed ``to secure patent for [Meucci's invention] in 
     any State of Europe, or other part of the world, to form 
     copartnerships, to raise companies, to sell or assign, in 
     part, the rights of such invention.'' It proved that Meucci's 
     invention, unlike Bell's, was ripe to the point that, in 
     1871, he had envisaged a worldwide development of the 
     telephone.
       Fourth, no proof whatsoever is found in the record about 
     Meucci having traded on the credulity of his friends.
       From all of the above, we can conclude the analysis of the 
     Bell vs. Globe trial by recalling historiographer Giovanni 
     Schiavo's definition of the decision as ``unquestionably one 
     of the most glaring miscarriages in the annals of American 
     justice.''
       In fact, a few weeks after the New York trial was begun, 
     the Interior Secretary was writing to the Solicitor General, 
     recommending the institution of a suit against Graham Bell 
     and the Bell Company. He attached to his letter three reports 
     on the hearings, drafted by his two Assistant Secretaries and 
     the Commissioner of Patents, as well as all arguments and 
     exhibits presented during the hearings. All three reports 
     recommended the institution of a suit against the Bell 
     Company and Graham Bell, charging fraud and 
     misrepresentation. The Interior Secretary stigmatized in his 
     letter the inadequacy of patent infringement suits instituted 
     by the Bell Company: ``In none of these cases has there been 
     or can there be, as I think, such thorough investigation and 
     full adjudication as to the alleged frauds or mistakes 
     occurring in the Patent Office in the issuance of the patent, 
     as could be had in a proceeding instituted and carried on by 
     the Government itself.''
       Assistant Secretary George A. Jenks stated in his report:
       ``[.  . . ] There is also evidence that as early as 1849, 
     Antonio Meucci began experiments with electricity, with 
     reference to the invention of a speaking telephone [ . . . ]. 
     Up to 1871, [ . . . ] although much of the time very poor, he 
     constructed several different instruments with which in his 
     own house, he conversed with his wife, and others [ . . . ]. 
     His testimony is corroborated by his wife, and by affidavits 
     of a very large number of witnesses. He claims that in 1872, 
     he went to Mr. Grant, Vice President of the New York District 
     Telegraph Company, explained his invention, and tried 
     repeatedly to have it tried

[[Page E1582]]

     on the wires of the Company. This, it is claimed, was used by 
     the telegraph company, and was the basis of the contract 
     between the Western Union Telegraph Company and the Bell 
     Telephone Company, dated November 10, 1879. [ . . . ]''
       Assistant Secretary Henry Muldrow remarked, in his report, 
     that ``so many witnesses having sworn that the inventions of 
     Meucci, Reis, and others antedated those of Bell in the 
     speaking telephone,'' he recommended ``the institution of a 
     suit to cancel the [Bell's] patent of March 7, 1876.'' It 
     must be pointed out that Mr. Muldrow explicitly quoted Meucci 
     and Reis, out of the scores of inventors that had claimed to 
     precede Bell.
       In addition, the Chief Examiner of the Patient Office, Mr. 
     Zenas Wilber, in his affidavit of 10 October 1885, stated 
     ``had Mr. Meucci's caveat been renewed in 1875, no patent 
     could have been issued to Bell.'' In his other affidavit of 7 
     November 1885, he stated that Philipp Reis and Antonio Meucci 
     were the originators of ``the prototypes of all speaking 
     telephones.'' If we take into account that the Reis 
     transmitter was difficult to operate, as it was originally 
     conceived as a make-and-break device, we may gather from what 
     precedes that the point of force of the Government's action 
     was the invention of Antonio Meucci. Obviously, all of these 
     proofs were available, but regrettably not presented at the 
     Bell v. Globe trial.
       As already pointed out, the U.S. vs. Bell trial dragged for 
     twelve years, after which it was discontinued by consent, in 
     1897, after the death of Meucci and expiration of Bell's 
     patent(s). Here is a brief summary.
       On March 23, 1886, following the Secretary of the 
     Interior's recommendations, the Government refiled its bill 
     of complaint against Bell and the Bell Company in the 
     District Court of South Ohio. On December 7, 1886, the case 
     in Ohio was closed on jurisdictional grounds. On January 13, 
     1887, the Government filed a new bill of complaint in Boston, 
     Massachusetts, where the Bell Company had its headquarters. 
     On November 26, 1887, the court sustained a demurrer by the 
     Bell lawyers; the Government immediately appealed to the 
     Supreme Court of the United States. On November 12, 1888, the 
     Supreme Court reversed the dismissal, finding a meritorious 
     claim and viable issue, rejecting the Bell Company's 
     objections to the fraud and misrepresentation charges, and 
     remanded the case for trial. See 128 U.S. 315 (1888). On 
     December 6, 1889, the depositions began. Meucci, however, was 
     deceased on 18 October of the same year. When Bell's second 
     patent expired, on January 30, 1893, the Government at first 
     refused to close the
       It must be stressed that, as the case was not decided,, the 
     Bell Company could not claim, from the outcome of that trial, 
     that Antonio Meucci was not the inventor of the telephone, or 
     that it was Bell. It could only exult by the astuteness of 
     its lawyers, who were able to defer so long the decision of 
     the case, until the question of the patent(s) became moot 
     when they expired.
       We come now to the scientific proofs regarding Meucci's 
     priority in the invention of the telephone. Among the 
     exhibits at the hearings before the Secretary of the 
     Interior, is an affidavit, sworn on 28 September 1885 by 
     Michael Lemmi, a friend and lawyer of Meucci. It is an 
     accurate translation into English of Meucci's laboratory 
     notebook, known as Meucci's Memorandum Book, concerning his 
     telephonic experiments, including all of Meucci's original 
     drawings. From an accurate examination of this affidavit, as 
     well as of Meucci's aforesaid caveat ``Sound Telegraph,'' and 
     two drawings accompanying the caveat--the remaining original 
     drawings were omitted by Meucci's patent lawyer, nor were 
     they presented at the first trial--it can be demonstrated 
     beyond any doubt that Meucci antedated Bell and/or the Bell 
     Company in many fundamental telephone techniques, including, 
     inductive loading, wire structure, anti-side tone circuit, 
     call signaling, quietness of surrounding environment.
       Meucci's priority in the said techniques range anywhere 
     from six to forty-two years before Bell company development. 
     My paper ``Four Firsts in Telephony,'' published by the 
     European Transactions on Telecommunications (Nov.--Dec. 1999) 
     is more expansive on these techniques.
       From this we can gather that when, in 1871, had founded the 
     Telettrofono Company and was awarded his caveat, he had 
     already invented everything that was needed to start a high-
     quality public service. This is why, in 1872, he asked the 
     American District Telegraph Company--which later 
     ``misplaced'' all his models and notes--to test his system on 
     their lines; this is why he renewed his caveat up to December 
     1874; this is why, after Bell obtained his first patent 
     because Meucci's caveat had expired for inability to pay the 
     $10 fee, Meucci repeatedly claimed that the telephone was his 
     invention, not Bell's.
       The recognition of Antonio Meucci's merits in the invention 
     of the telephone and basic telephone techniques is attainable 
     today, thanks to sound proofs, largely of the U.S. Government 
     and embedded in the proceedings of the United States V. Bell 
     trial. This recognition is mandatory, not only for the honor 
     of the United States, of which Meucci was a worthy member of 
     its society, but also for the worldwide scientific community, 
     regarding a person who has so greatly fostered the 
     communication among peoples, yet unjustly remains buried in 
     the pages of American history.

     

                          ____________________