FOREWORD

After the US House of Representatives approved Resolution No. 269, recognizing the merits of Antonio Meucci in the invention of the telephone, scores of questions have been posed by both Italian Americans, who wanted to know more about their compatriot, and other persons or organizations that were either upholding other inventors or doubtful about the extent to which Antonio Meucci contributed to the invention of the telephone.

This page is aimed at answering the most frequently asked questions (FAQ) on the above subject. The answers reported below are mainly derived from Basilio Catania's work on Antonio Meucci, but are open to comments from any sources.

It was rewarding to this author the recognition of his role as "Vindicator" of Antonio Meucci, as bestowed by the Order Sons of Italy in America.

 

Antonio Meucci -- Questions and Answers

QUICK INDEX

Q. Where was Antonio Meucci born and where did he live?
Q. Why did he leave Florence in 1835 and Havana in 1850?
Q. How was Antonio Meucci as a person?
Q. Are there descendants of Antonio Meucci?
Q. Was Meucci really poor? How could he live?
Q. How bad was Meucci's English? Did he speak other languages?
Q. Was Antonio Meucci a "Staten Island candle maker"?
Q. In what other fields did Meucci make inventions?
Q. Which were the major milestones of Meucci's invention of the telephone?
Q. What did Meucci to bring his invention to the public?
Q. What happened of Meucci's description on L'Eco d'Italia of 1861 or 1862?
Q. What are the proofs of Meucci's priority in the invention of the telephone?
Q. Was Meucci's Memorandum Book "a forgery"?
Q. What is a "caveat"?
Q. Does Meucci's caveat completely describe Meucci's invention?
Q. Is it true that Meucci was defeated in court by the Bell Company?
Q. How about the many suits (600) won by the Bell Company?
Q. What was the outcome of the Pan Electric Investigation?
Q. Did the US Supreme Court rule in favor of Antonio Meucci?
Q. Did the US Supreme Court rule against Antonio Meucci?
Q. Why was Meucci not quoted in the Speaking Telephone Interference Cases?
Q. What is the relevance of the telephone invented by Philipp Reis?
Q. What is the relevance of the telephone invented by Innocenzo Manzetti?
Q. How about "truth" being relative to countries?
Q. Who stole Meucci's invention?

 


Q. Where was Antonio Meucci born and where did he live?

Antonio Meucci was born in Florence, Italy, on 13 April 1808 and lived there up to 7 October 1835, when he embarked (in Leghorn) on a brig bound for Havana, Cuba. He arrived in Havana on 17 December 1835.

He left Havana on 23 April 1850, bound for New York, where he arrived on 1 May 1850. After a few months, in early October 1850, he moved to Clifton (Staten Island), NY, where he lived up to 18 October 1889, when he died.

He became a citizen of the United States of America, his petition having been filed on 27 March 1854.

In conclusion, Meucci lived in Florence, Italy, about 27 years; in Havana, Cuba, about 15 years; and in Clifton, NY (USA), about 39 years. He died at 81.

For details on Meucci's life, please, read the Essential Chronology, in another page of this site.

 


Q. Why did he leave Florence in 1835 and Havana in 1850?

• He left Florence, in 1835, for two reasons:
1. because, having taken part in the conspiracies for the liberation of Italy, he was under constant surveillance by the police of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany (Hapsburg-Lorraine);

2. because it happened that a Spanish impresario residing in Havana, Cuba, came to Florence to recruit opera singers and offered Meucci the job of Chief Engineer and Meucci's wife, Esther, the job of Head of costumers of his Tacón Theater. The salary was twice as that they gained in Florence. Therefore, the Meuccis readily accepted.

• He left Havana, in 1850, basically for the following reasons:

1. because, in 1850, his impresario, Don Francisco Martí y Torrens, decided to withdraw from the theater business (also given his bad relations with the new Spanish Governor of Cuba) and therefore advised the Meuccis that he would not renew, for the third time, the 5-years contract with them.

2. because the Cuban government, alarmed by the separatist plots, did not trust Meucci, being a Mason and a supporter of Garibaldi, the "liberator" of many Spanish colonies.

3. because Meucci thought that he could better exploit his inventions in New York, as many of the new technologies started to come from the USA, instead of Europe.

* Note that the reason, related by some authors, according to which Meucci left Havana on account of a fire that had broken out in the Teatro Tacón, cannot be true, as no fire actually took place, according to the records of the theater.

 


Q. How was Antonio Meucci as a person?

In his adult age, he was more than 1.80 meter (about 6-foot) tall, strong as an oak tree,and weighed about two hundred pounds. He had a very large head with wide forehead and wonderfully intelligent, bright and penetrating, gray eyes (see photograph of 1885). His manner was gentle, frank, warm and magnetic, as described by several Staten Island newspapers of the time.


 

Q. Are there descendants of Antonio Meucci?

No, there are not. An accurate investigation was made by this author and it was found that he did not have sons, even natural, as maintained by would-be children, such as one Carlo Meucci and one Mathilda Grosch. The last descendant of Antonio Meucci's brothers or sisters was Bianca D. E. Meucci, the niece of Giuseppe Meucci, Antonio's brother. She died in Florence, unmarried and without sons, on 20 January 1962, thus extinguishing the whole branch of the family. See the complete family tree, originating from Amatis Meucci, father of Antonio.

This notwithstanding, many families by name "Meucci" exist today both in Italy and abroad. Even renowned painters named "Antonio Meucci" are reported, one at "La Scala" Theater of Milan, the other in Venezuela, who was the author of a portrait of Simon Bolivar. Whoever bears the name "Meucci" or claims some familiarity with Antonio Meucci, as handed down to him/her from his/her ancestors should be proud of it.

 


Q. Was Antonio Meucci a "Staten Island candle maker"?

Many authors synthetically refer to Meucci as a Staten Island candle maker. Robert Bruce, in his book presented Meucci as «a seventy-seven-year-old veteran of Garibaldi's army [which is not true] who had found peace in the making of candles and sausages on Staten Island»1 implying that these products could easily be done by an illiterate person, the stamp that Bruce would stick on Meucci.

Indeed, if one would wish to characterize Meucci with one only of his many jobs done in his life, the "theatrical chief engineer" should probably be the more appropriate one, a profession that Antonio Meucci served for 17 years, namely from 1833, in the renowned Teatro della Pergola in Florence, Italy, to 1850, in the largest Opera Theater of the Americas, the Gran Teatro de Tacón in Havana, Cuba. We remind the reader that running an Opera Theater requires the most technologically advanced apparatus and structures.

Meucci's creativity and skill, however, proved to be effective in a number of other technological fields, as shown below.

For what concerns the candle manufacture, it must be pointed out that Meucci set up the first stearic candle manufacture of the Americas in Clifton, NY, in 1850-51. Before, Americans either produced tallow candles or, starting from 1830, imported stearic candles from France or England. Only in 1854, Procter & Gamble started producing stearic candles in the USA. Meucci was also the first in the world to introduce the modern paraffin candle process in his "New York Paraffine Candle Co." in 1860. Hence, he was not a mere "Staten Island candle maker," he was a great inventor, even in candle manufacturing. An extended history of "Artificial Lighting" and of the "Stearic Industry" is reported in Basilio Catania's book, Vol. 2, p. 359-399.

Also, if Bruce had investigated on Meucci's life, he would have discovered that Meucci had never found peace in anything, since he was a vulcano of ideas and endeavors.

_______________

1 Robert V. Bruce, Bell - Alexander Graham Bell and the Conquest of Solitude, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 1973, p. 271


Q. In what other fields did Meucci make inventions?

Here is a brief chronological list of his inventions, innovations and discoveries, other than the telephone:

• 1825

Chemical compound to be used as an improved propeller in fireworks

• 1834

In the Florence's Teatro della Pergola, he sets up a "pipe telephone" to communicate from the stage to the maneuver trellis-work, at about eighteen meters height.

• 1840

Improved filters and chemical processing of waters supplying the city of Havana, Cuba.

• 1844

First electroplating factory of the Americas, set up in Havana, Cuba. Before, objects to be electroplated were sent to Paris.

• 1846

Improved apparatus for electrotherapy, featuring a pulsed current breaker with rotating cross.

• 1847

Restructuring of the Tacón Theater in Havana, following a hurricane. Meucci conceived a new structure of the roof and ventilation system, to avoid the roof to be taken off in like situations.

• 1848

Astronomical observations by means of a marine telescope worth $280.

• 1849

Chemical process for the preservation of corpses, to cope with the high demand for bodies of immigrants to be sent to Europe, avoiding decomposition during the many weeks navigation.

• 1849

First discovery of electrical transmission of speech (see detailed description and table ahead).

• 1850-1

First stearic candle factory of the Americas, set up in Clifton, NY.

• 1855

Realization of celestas, with crystal bars instead of steel, and pianos (one is on display at the Garibaldi-Meucci Museum, in Rosebank, NY)

• 1856

First lager beer factory of Staten Island, the Clifton Brewery, in Clifton, NY.

• 1858-60

Invention of paraffin candles. US Patent No. 22,739 on a candle mold for the same and US Patent No. 30,180 on a rotating blade device for finishing the same.

• 1860

First paraffin candle factory in the world, the New York Paraffine Candle Co., set up in Clifton, NY, early in 1860, then moved to Stapleton, NY. It produced over 1,000 candles per day.

• 1860

Experiments on the use of dry batteries in electrical traction and other industrial applications.

• 1860

Process to turn red corals into a pink color (more valued), as requested by Enrico Bendelari, a merchant of New York.

• 1862

US Patent No. 36,192 on a kerosene lamp that generates a very bright flame, without smoke, (therefore not needing a glass tube), thanks to electricity developed by two thin platinum plates embracing the flame.

• 1862-63

Process for treating and bleaching oil or kerosene to obtain siccative oils for paint (US Patents No. 36,419 and No. 38,714). "Antonio Meucci Patent Oil" was sold by Rider & Clark Co., 51 Broad Street, New York, and exported to Europe. See expert comment.

• 1864

Invention of new, more destructive ammunition for guns and canons, proposed to the US army and to General Giuseppe Garibaldi.

• 1864-65

Processes to obtain paper pulp from wood or other vegetable substances (US Patents No. 44,735, No. 47,068 and No. 53,165). Associated Press was interested in producing paper with this process, which was also the first to introduce the recovery of the leaching liquor. See expert comment.

• 1865

Process for making wicks out of vegetable fiber, US Patent No. 46,607.

• 1867

A paper factory, the "Perth Amboy Fiber Co.," was set up, in Perth Amboy, NY. The paper pulp was obtained from either marsh grass or wood. It was the first to recycle waste paper. See expert comment.

• 1871

US Patent No. 122,478 "Effervescent Drinks," fruit-vitamin rich drinks that Meucci found useful during his recovery from the wounds and burns caused by the explosion of the Westfield ferry. See expert comment.

• 1873

US Patent No. 142,071 "Sauce for Food." According to Roberto Merloni, general manager of the Italian STAR company, this Patent anticipates modern food technologies. See expert comment.

• 1873

Conception of a screw steamer suitable for navigation in canals.

• 1874

Process for refining crude oil (caveat)

• 1875

Filter for tea or coffee, much similar to that used in present day coffee machines.

• 1875

Household utensil (description not available) "combining usefulness to cheapness, that will find a ready sale." (*)

• 1875

US Patent No. 168,273 "Lactometer," for chemically detecting adulterations of milk. It anticipates by fifteen years the well-known Babcock test. See expert comment.

• 1875

Upon request by Giuseppe Tagliabue (a Physical Instruments maker of Brooklyn, NY), Meucci devises and manufactures several aneroid barometers of various shapes.

• 1876

US Patent No. 183,062 "Hygrometer," which was a marked improvement over the popular hair-hygrometer of the time. He set up a small factory in Staten Island for fabrication of the same. See expert comment.

• 1878

Method for preventing noise on elevated railways, a problem much felt at the time in New York.

• 1878

Process for fabricating ornamental paraffin candles for Christmas trees.

• 1881

Process for making postage and revenue stamps.

• 1883

US Patent No. 279,492 "Plastic Paste," as hard and tenacious to be suitable for billiard balls. See expert comment.

 
(*)
From a letter of Meucci to his Patent lawyer.

 


Q. Which were the major milestones of Meucci's invention of the telephone?

Here is a brief chronological list of Meucci's achievements in the field of the electrical transmission of speech and related technologies.

• 1834

In the Florence's Teatro della Pergola, he sets up a "pipe telephone" -- still existing today -- to communicate from the stage to the maneuver trellis-work, at about eighteen meters height.

• 1849

In Havana, he discovers the electrical transmission of speech during experiments on electrotherapy (see detailed description). Both an electrostatic and a variable resistance principle are exploited. A much worse result is obtained when using electrostatic transmitter and receiver.

• 1851

In Clifton, NY, he reproduces his Havana experiments, with like results.

• 1854-55

A telephone link is established between Meucci's two laboratories (one in the basement of his cottage, the other in the yard) and the bedroom of his wife, Esther, crippled by arthritis, located at the third floor of the cottage. Several telephone instruments were tested on this link, exploiting both electrostatic and electromagnetic effects, with marginal quality.

• 1856

Good quality is obtained with an electromagnetic telephone, featuring a horseshoe electromagnet and a diaphragm of animal skin, stiffened with dichromate of potash, and bearing an iron button, glued on its center.

• 1857-58

Improved quality is obtained by using a permanently magnetized magnet as a nucleus, a thin iron diaphragm and a screw for finely adjusting the air gap between the poles of the electromagnet and the diaphragm. In this way, he could eliminate the battery.

• 1858-59

In a sketch, redrawn by a painter, Nestore Corradi, Meucci shows the essentials of his telephone system. To be noted, the two-way communication with separate lines to avoid the so-called "sidetone" effect, the signaling system with telegraph keys, the long distance label.

• 1859

He develops a dry battery (nine years before Leclanché), to be employed in his telephone links.

• 1860-61

He entrusts his friend, Enrico Bendelari, setting out for Italy, to find backers of his telephone, to first introduce it in Italy. He also publishes on L'Eco d'Italia, an Italian newspaper of New York, a brief description of his invention. 1

• 1861

Meucci further improves his electromagnetic telephone, by using a linear nucleus, and a larger coil, placed very near to the diaphragm. Bendelari returns from Italy (then under heavy political and military upheavals) without succeeding in raising interest on the telephone.

• 1862

Meucci concentrates on the telephone transmission line, experimenting on various structures and coatings of the conductor, as well as on the grounding and the inductive loading of the line.

• 1864-65

Meucci's realizes his "best telephone ," using an iron diaphragm with optimized thickness and tightly clamped along its rim, which is one of the requirements of a modern telephone. The instrument was housed in a (then popular) shaving-soap box, whose cover, screwed on the top, firmly clamped the diaphragm.

• 1865-67

He explores other structures of his telephone (with magnetic nucleus shaped as either a "bent horseshoe," or corkscrew, or toroidal with magnetic shunt), without further improvements.

• 1870

(August) He obtains excellent transmission of speech at one-mile distance, using as a conductor a cotton-insulated copper braid. About one month later, improves performance by using inductive load, subdivided along the line. He thus anticipates Pupin's Patent by 30 years.

• 1871

During his long infirmity, following the explosion on board of the Westfield ferry (occurred on 30 July), his wife, Esther, sells all of his telephone models to a secondhand dealer, both to pay the medical expenses and cope with the necessities of life.

• 1871

(12 December) Still convalescent, Meucci founds in New York the "Telettrofono Company", with three distinguished Italian partners. It aims at performing field tests, obtain patents in the USA and abroad, and bring to the public Meucci's telephone 2.

• 1871

(28 December) The partners of Telettrofono Co. having furnished to Meucci only $20, Meucci could only file a caveat at the US Patent Office. Given the low fee received, Meucci's Patent lawyer, Thomas Stetson, made a concise description and did not include drawings. The caveat No. 3335: "Sound Telegraph," gives, therefore, only a partial idea of Meucci's invention.

• 1872

(summer) Together with his friend, Angelo Bertolino, he visits Mr. Edward B. Grant, Vice President of the American District Telegraph Co. of New York, to get permission for testing his telephone apparatus on the company's telegraph lines. To this end, he provides detailed description and prototypes of his telephone as well as a copy of his caveat.

• 1872-73

Upon request by a diver, William Carroll, Meucci constructed a special telephone, to allow him, when working underwater, to communicate with the mother-ship. A twisted insulated copper wire would feed the instrument, housed inside the mask of the diver, running inside the rubber tube conveying air to the diver, while the man on board the ship would wear two equal receivers fixed on his ears, in order to be able to use his hands freely (see Meucci's Marine Telephone). On 8 July 1880 he filed a Patent application for this device.

• 1874

Two years after reiterated visits (about every two weeks) paid by Meucci and/or Bertolino to Mr. Grant, the latter told Meucci that all his material had got lost and that he [Mr. Grant] could not pursue the matter any further.

• 1876

As soon as Alexander Graham Bell is granted a patent on the telephone, Meucci repeatedly protests, also sending letters to newspapers, claiming that the telephone was his invention.

• 1880

(2 July) Files an application "Wire for electrical purposes" for wideband telephonic wire, made with a plait of insulated copper wires. It was similar to RadioShack's Monster Speaker-Cable, featuring exceptionally good response at both low and high frequencies of the audio range.

1
Strangely enough issues of L'Eco d'Italia from 1 December 1860 to 31 December of 1863 now lack from all main libraries of the United States.

2 The word telettrofono used by Meucci was intended to stress the role of electricity in transmission of speech.

 

 

Meucci's "best telephone" of 1864-65 (The Electrical World, 28 November 1885)

 

Meucci's Marine Telephone to be used by divers working underwater
(from Meucci's Memorandum Book)


Q. What is a "caveat"?

A caveat, instituted by the US Patent Act of 1836, was a sort of pre-Patent in which the inventor gave a concise description of his invention, but sufficient to convince the Patent Office of the novelty of the same. The inventor filing a caveat had the right to be advised by the US Patent Office in case any other inventor would file an application on the same subject. This "notice to complete" would allow the caveator to file, within three months from said notice, a regular Patent application which, if passed by the examiner of interference, would ensure his priority. The caveat was to be maintained in secrecy by the Patent Office and lasted one year, but it could be renewed by paying a fee of $10 per year. The caveat was abolished in 1909.

 


Q. Does Meucci's caveat completely describe Meucci's invention?

Meucci's caveat does not contain the entire specification and drawings that Meucci had handed to his patent lawyer in order to apply for a regular patent. The patent lawyer asked for a $250 fee, that Meucci was not able to pay (see Meucci poverty). Therefore, Meucci opted for a caveat, that only cost $20 ($10 for the Patent Office and $10 for the lawyer's fee). Given the low fee received, the lawyer dictated the caveat specification in half an hour and did not include any drawings. He said that it assured enough protection as was.

As a consequence of the above the caveat only included description of the acoustic interface, the means for call signaling (not quoted in Bell's first telephone patent), the requirements for quietness of the environment, and the continuity of the line conductor. In addition, due to the lack of knowledge of the patent lawyer and Meucci's limited knowledge of English, the wording of the caveat was imperfect in some points. Meucci wrote a letter to his lawyer to try to correct some imprecision, but the lawyer did not take them wholly into consideration.

Meucci's invention, however, is more clearly and completely described in his Laboratory Notebook, as well as in his drawings, as explained elsewhere in this page.


 

Q. What are the proofs of Meucci's priority in the invention of the telephone?

We have extensively shown the scientific proofs that were recently uncovered by Basilio Catania. We give below a summary table of the many advanced system techniques, devised by Antonio Meucci well in advance of Bell or the Bell Company:

Innovations

Year(s) of introduction
by Antonio Meucci

Year(s) of introduction
by American Bell Telephone Co.

Anti-sidetone circuit

1857-1858 (*)

ca. 1900, 1918

Call signaling

(1854), 1871 (**)

1877-1878

Structure of the line conductor

1862, 1870, 1871 (***)

1878, 1881-1884

Inductive load of long-distance line

1862, 1870 (***)

ca. 1900

Quietness of the environment

1871 (****)

1877, 1883

(*) Corradi's drawing
(**) Corradi's drawing and Meucci's caveat
(***) Meucci's Memorandum Book
(****) Meucci's caveat


 

Q. What did Meucci to bring his invention to the public?

It has been stated by ill-informed authors that Antonio Meucci--contrary to Alexander Graham Bell--did not push his telettrofono to make it known and used by the public at large.

Benign statements such as «Meucci invented the telephone, but it was Bell who rendered it practical» or «Meucci invented the telephone, but it was Bell who conceived the system» have been offered by some authors trying to honor their fellow citizen without discrediting, at the same time, his more illustrious contender. Both statements, however, are incorrect.

In fact, Meucci tenaciously and repeatedly endeavored to bring his telettrofono to the public, since 1860-1861, and, for what concerns the system, he antedated Bell or the Bell Company in a number of advanced system techniques, as amply illustrated above. More precisely:

  1. 1860-1861 -- Wishing to introduce his invention first in his mother country, Meucci entrusted his friend, Enrico Bendelari, setting out for Italy on September 22, 1860, to find backers of his telephone. Bendelari proposed Meucci's telettrofono to Settimio Volpicelli, Deputy Postmaster of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies1, who declined the offer, also because in those days Garibaldi was at the gates of Naples and the Bourbon's regime was about to fall. It must be pointed out that the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies possessed the more extended telegraph network in Italy and, after the unification of Italy, the Director of Naples's Telegraphs was named Director of the Telegraphs of Italy.
  2. 1871, December 12 -- Meucci founds in New York the Telettrofono Company, with three distinguished Italian partners: Angelo Zilio Grandi, Secretary of the Italian Consulate in New York, Angelo Antonio Tremeschin, a contractor for civil constructions, and Sereno G. P. Breguglia, lessee of the cigar stand of the Hoffmann Café in New Street, facing the New York Stock Exchange. The agreement, sealed by Notary Public Angelo Bertolino recited among other:
    1. «[…] The said parties above named, have agreed and by these presents do agree to become copartners together under the firm of Telettrofono Company (speaking telegraph), in the business of making and trying all the necessary experiments for the accomplishment of the Telettrofono, i. e. of the transmission of the word (human voice), through electric wires, invented by the aforesaid Antonio Meucci. […] They promise and bind themselves to do their best endeavors to secure patent for the same 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, and to do all what can result to the benefit and good success of this enterprise. […]»

    It is interesting to compare this agreement with the like agreement stipulated, on February 27, 1875, by Alexander Graham Bell with Thomas Sanders, a leather merchant, and Gardiner Greene Hubbard, an ex patent lawyer and railway businessman, to promote Bell's patents on the harmonic telegraph (later including the telephone). It appears that Meucci's agreement was much more far-sighted, being Meucci's telettrofono fully developed to allow envisaging a worldwide expansion.

  3. 1872-1874 -- At the beginning of 1872, the Telettrofono Company was practically dissolved as Mr. Grandi, probably because of his other destination, withdrew from the partnership and sold his share to Mr. Breguglia. The latter passed away a few months afterwards, and, at about the same time, Mr. Tremeschin moved his business to Italy. Meucci tried in vain to replace them with other partners.

    In the summer of 1872, by no means discouraged, Meucci, accompanied by his friend, Angelo Bertolino, called to Mr. Edward B. Grant, Vice President of the American District Telegraph Co. of New York, to get permission for testing his telephone apparatus on the company's lines. To this end, he provided Mr. Grant with detailed description and prototypes of his telephone as well as a copy of his caveat. If the tests were successful, Meucci hoped that the American District Telegraph Co. or its parent company, the Western Union Telegraph Company could exploit his invention2. However, also this attempt turned out to be unsuccessful, since after two years of repeated visits and various excuses, Mr. Grant said that he could not fulfill the promise and, moreover, that he had lost all the material received. The suspicion was that he intended to exploit Meucci's invention on his own, also given that Meucci, in very destitute conditions, could not renew his caveat at the end of 1874.

The above proves that Meucci did his best to bring his invention to the public, repeatedly, and trying to exploit all possibilities. The failure of his attempts can be attributed in part to the lack of evaluation of the importance of the telephone by the telegraph managers of the time (the same encountered by Alexander Graham Bell many years afterward), and in part to the difficulties encountered by non anglosaxon entrepreneurs in the American industrial entourage of the eighteen century.

__________________
1
Affidavit of Enrico Bendelari, sworn January 13, 1880, National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, MD, Records of the Department of Justice (RG60), File 6921-1885, Box 10, Folder 1.
2Affidavit of Angelo Bertolino, sworn September 18, 1885, National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, MD, Records of the Department of Justice (RG60), File 6921-1885, Box 10, Folder 1.


Q. Was Meucci's Memorandum Book "a forgery"?

Well, it was defined "a forgery" by a lawyer of the opposing party. Though we have seen too many movies to believe to whatever insults proffered by lawyers towards the opposing party, this phrase is often taken up by some writers.

Meucci's Memorandum Book could not be a forgery, simply because it was notarized, in its English translation, on 28 September 1885 and contained inventions that were "rediscovered" only in 1900. This applies not only to the inductive loading, but also to the anti-sidetone circuit and to the structure of the line conductors.


 

Q. Is it true that Meucci was defeated in court by the Bell Company?

Meucci was directly or indirectly involved in three suits, strictly interconnected one to the other:
  1. United States Government vs. The American Bell Telephone Co. and Alexander Graham Bell (US/Bell)
  2. The American Bell Telephone Co. et al. vs. The Globe Telephone Company, Antonio Meucci et al. (Bell/Globe)
  3. The American Bell Telephone Co. et al. vs. The Meucci Telephone Co., S. R. Beckwith et al. (Bell/MTC)

    The US/Bell trial began first and was aimed at canceling Bell's patents on the telephone. Antonio Meucci and Philipp Reis were indicated as precursors of Alexander Graham Bell.

    The Bell/Globe trial was a sort of a countersuit started locally, in New York, NY, by the Bell Co., with the aim of disturbing the action of the US Government against the Bell Co.

    The Bell/MTC trial was started by the Bell Co. in New Jersey, later on, because, following the Government recommendation to proceed against the Bell Co. (14 January 1886), Meucci's supporters started building Meucci telephones and getting subscribers in Elizabeth, NJ.

    The full story of these trials is reported in a separate article The United States Government vs. Alexander Graham Bell -- An important acknowledgment for Antonio Meucci and extensively commented in Basilio Catania's lecture at the New York University of 10 October 2000.

 


Q. How about the many suits (600) won by the Bell Company?

The best answer to this question was given by Hon. Lucius Q. C. Lamar, Secretary of the Interior, in a letter to the Department of Justice, recommending to institute a suit against the Bell Company and Alexander Graham Bell, towards annulling Bell's two telephone patents (see The United States Government vs. Alexander Graham Bell -- An important acknowledgment for Antonio Meucci). In his letter Hon. Lucius Lamar stated, among other:
Such a case is presented as I think ought to undergo thorough judicial investigation. It appears that many suits have been pending and many are now pending between the corporation claiming this patent and others that assail it. 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. In a case involving such questions it seems to me especially imperative upon the Government, as duty to its own officers to vindicate or condemn, and duty to the people to set on foot and follow up a complete investigation.

In my opinion the proceeding should be in the name of and wholly by the Government, not on the relation or for the benefit of all or any of the petitioners, but in the interest of the Government and the people, and wholly at the expense and under the conduct and control of the Government.


 

Q. What was the outcome of the Pan Electric Investigation?

As soon as the trial of the US Government against the Bell Company was begun, the Bell Company started a harsh campaign in the press, accusing the Attorney General Garland of promoting the interests of the Pan Electric Company, of which he was a stockholder. To counteract these charges, on February 26, 1886, the House of Representatives resolved to institute a Committee "to investigate charges against certain public officers relating to the Pan-Electric Telephone Company and to suits by the United States to annul the Bell telephone patents."

On March 4, 1886 the Speaker appointed the Committee as follows: C. E. Boyle, Chairman, Pennsylvania; W. C. Oates, Alabama; John R. Eden, Illinois; Benton J. Hall, Iowa; John B. Hale, Missouri; A. A. Ranney, Massachusetts; Stephen C. Millard, New York; Lewis Hanback, Kansas; Seth C. Moffat, Michigan.

The Committee met from March 12 to May 27, 1886 and testimony was taken. The records were printed in a volume of almost 1300 pages (see US House of Representatives - 49th Congress-1st Session - Mis. Doc. No. 355).

At the end of the investigation two reports were prepared: one from the Majority (Democrat) and one from the Minority (Republican). Both were presented to the House of Representatives on June 30, 1886 (see US House of Representatives - 49th Congress-1st Session - Report No. 3142). The Majority report, signed by C. E. Boyle, Chairman, W. C. Oates, John R. Eden, Benton J. Hall, John B. Hale, in relation to the US Government suit, stated:

. . . . In view of the facts here stated, Mr. Goode [Acting Attorney-General] and Mr. Lamar [Secretary of the Interior] ought not to have been deterred from ordering the Government suit by the allegation that the questions involved in it had already been adjudicated.

In relation to the charges to public officers, it concluded as follows:

 Resolved, That a full, fair, and exhaustive investigation has failed to adduce any evidence which tends to show that Attorney-General Garland, Solicitor-General Goode, Secretary Lamar, Indian Commissioner Atkins, Railroad Commissioner Johnston, or Senator Harris (they being the officers named in the Pan-Electric publications of the newspaper press which gave rise to this investigation) did any act officially or otherwise connected with the matters investigated which was dishonest, dishonorable, or censurable.

As a consequence of this investigation, the trial of the US Government against the Bell Company and A. G. Bell could proceed. (see The United States Government vs. Alexander Graham Bell -- An important acknowledgment for Antonio Meucci).


 

Q. How about "truth" being relative to countries?

Truth is not a rubber thing that can be adapted to the beliefs of individuals or individual countries. This approach, of course, can be used to promote sales of books, newspapers, CDs, etc. in different countries. However, in the field of research, truth is like a magnificent lady, as beautiful as difficult to reach, but extremely worth to be approached as much as possible.


Q. How bad was Meucci's English? Did he speak other languages?

In about every article or book dealing with Antonio Meucci, is found a statement about his insufficient knowledge of English, to which were imputed his many failures during his ca. 40 years of life in America (1850-1889).

For example, the renowned Italian-American historian Giovanni Schiavo, in his book "Antonio Meucci, Inventor of the Telephone" wrote (see References): «he [Meucci] had never managed to learn enough of the English language to handle his private affairs.»

Even in the US House Resolution No. 269 of June 11, 2002, recognizing Meucci's merits in the invention of the telephone, is stated (see References): «. . . . Meucci never learned English well enough to navigate the complex American business community»

At the same time, many authors stated that Meucci was very fluent in French and Spanish. In fact, when adolescent, he had learned French in Florence, both because of the Napoleonic occupation of Tuscany and because French was the main language of arts and sciences, all over the nineteen century and all over the world. Later, after he moved to Havana, Cuba, where he resided 15 years (1835-1850), Meucci learned Spanish very well, also due to the many similarities of this language with Italian.

It is, therefore, hard to understand why a man of such an intelligence, as was Antonio Meucci, could not fluently speak English, at least after many years from his arrival in the USA. His own declarations on this subject, taken from his deposition at the Bell/Globe trial were (see References):

[Ans. 16] . . . . Not knowing well the English language, I was compelled to put my business, and the management, in the hands of a friend that I had known at Santiago de Cuba; his name was Jim Mason . . . .[1856]
[Ans. 94] . . . . I wrote the explanation in Italian, and Mr. Bertolino translated it in English, and then, together with copy of the caveat, we gave it to Mr. Grant. . . . [1872].

From the above we only gather that, in 1856 ( 6 years after his arrival in the USA), he felt as not having a sufficient knowledge of English to manage his affairs, and that in 1872 (22 years after his arrival in the USA) he asked the help of his friend Bertolino just to translate into English the description of his telephonic system, to be handed to the Vice President of the American District Telegraph Company of New York, Mr. Edward B. Grant.

When, on December 7, 1885 (35 years after his arrival in the USA) Meucci was called to testify at the Bell/Globe trial, his lawyers asked «that the witness be examined through an interpreter, on the ground that he is not sufficiently familiar with the English language», whereas the Bell Company's lawyers «insist that the examination proceed as far as possible without an interpreter». Obviously, the request by Meucci's lawyers was aimed to protect their client as much as possible from possible misunderstandings and was fully justified by the importance of the proceeding. Their motion was allowed by the US Commissioner and «The examination thereupon proceeded as follows: The question was put in English, translated into Italian by the interpreter, the answer given and written down by the interpreter in Italian, then read in Italian to the witness, and translated from Italian into English by the interpreter. By agreement of counsel the answers in both Italian and English appear upon the minutes, the original manuscript of answers in Italian being filed with the original deposition. . . . » (all quotations taken from the records of the deposition, see References).

One curious letter

Both in Antonio Meucci's and Thomas Stetson's (his Patent Counsel) depositions at the Bell/Globe trial was filed the following letter, dated January 19, 1872 (pink colored words ours):


CLIFTON STATEN
ILAND Januy 19 '72

J. D. STETSON Esq

DEAR SIR -- Your favor dated the 12th inst is at hand allowe me to thank you for your kindness, and for your incoragement to me so I may be successful in my new interprise. But now, I am to tell you the cause why I am not at liberty to proceed with my esperiments as you raccomend me to do.

The cause is this! On the 12th of December last for the insinuation of some of my friends that I know or I have been acquanteed for several years they all knew that I had the entention or knew that I hab some future days & where to form a Company for the purpose of carried on then my invention and so we had formed a Company of four person wthith me as one of the above said fourth the three beside me wher to pay for all the exsspenses and I am bound to make all the experiments as they may ask me until we get to successful end. But here is within a fues days two of the parties I cant say for what cause for not having enought money perhapts or for some reason unknown to me are willing to widraw from the contract. therefore there would be but one. I now ask you if you perhaps with your influence and acquaintance about the city if you would try to find some gentleman acquantance in Telegraphic bueseness and having some maens to jon in and replace the other two. In this away it would facilitate me very much in my exsperiments for having some interesting parties conected that are allready acquantens in Telegraphic buseness. I am sure that if you wish to take a part in it you can co-operate for me as much as any two men in the city together. I am sure mr Stetson that I must tank you for your kindness that you have shown me since I am your acquantance and I am almost sure that you will do for me as much as ever. if this should meet your approval I will remit to you the condition of our contract and at the same time all the Plan that I have in my possetion to today if it should meet your approbation.

Believe me sir your
Very respectfully your

ANTONIO MEUCCI.

Now, this letter would seem like a true shame. The 29 spelling errors (evidenced in pink) are so many and so rough, that one would be induced to think that the writer was a rather illiterate person. On the other hand, this letter was filed in both depositions as "Defendants' Exhibit 114" -- hence by Meucci's lawyers -- perhaps in view of offering a further confirmation of their thesis of Meucci's marginal knowledge of English.

But here comes the funny thing: this writer found by hazard, during his researches conducted at the US National Archives in Washington, DC, in 1990, the original manuscript of the above letter (see References), which the visitor of this site is invited to read carefully. He or she would find only 4 out of the 29 spelling errors affecting the printed reproduction of the above letter, as filed at the Bell/Globe trial by Globe lawyers. Moreover, the 4 errors left are of common occurrence, such as: encoragement (forgot a "u"), reccomend (double "c" instead of double "m"), maens (inverted "a" with "e"), and jon (forgot a "i"). Also worth to be noted is the elegant writing and the firm hand of Meucci, typical of a well educated person.

In conclusion, it seems to us that Meucci's lawyers purposely amplified his limited knowledge of English, in the belief of better serving his cause, but to the detriment of his standing as a cultured and intelligent person. His failures (such as his candle factory, piano manufacturing and brewery) -- mostly occurred during the first years of his residence in the United States -- were due, more than to his imperfect knowledge of English, to the utterly new environment with which he was confronted , and where his innate generosity and sincerity (and confidence into other's sincerity) conflicted with the unscrupulousness and rudeness required for doing business in the United States.

References
  1. Giovanni E. Schiavo, "Antonio Meucci, Inventor of the Telephone," The Vigo Press, New York, NY, 1958, p. 13
  2. Resolution "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives to honor the life and achievements of 19th Century Italian-American inventor Antonio Meucci, and his work in the invention of the telephone," passed June 11, 2002. House of Representatives, Proceedings and Debates of the 107th Congress, 1st Session, HRES 269 EH.
  3. Deposition of Antonio Meucci, Records of the U.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York --The American Bell Telephone Co. et al. vs. The Globe Telephone Co. et al., National Archives and Records Administration, Northeast Region, New York, NY. Also in New York Public Library, Annex.
  4. Deposition of Thomas Drew Stetson, Records of the U.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York --The American Bell Telephone Co. et al. vs. The Globe Telephone Co. et al., National Archives and Records Administration, Northeast Region, New York, NY.
  5. Letter from Antonio Meucci to Thomas D. Stetson, January 19, 1872 (original manuscript), kept at the National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, MD, Records of the Department of Justice (RG60), File 6921-1885, Box 10, Folder 3. 


Q. Who stole Meucci's invention?

This issue was extensively discussed in Chapter XV of Giovanni Schiavo's book "Antonio Meucci Inventor of the Telephone," The Vigo Press, New York, NY, 1958, that we have reproduced in this site, for convenience of the reader.

We wish, however to point out that, after unquestionable proofs on Meucci's priority have recently been unearthed, the issue of whether Bell (or Gray) did or did not "steel" Meucci's invention has become irrelevant.

 


Q. Was Meucci really poor? How could he live?

When Meucci arrived in New York from Havana, Cuba, he was a wealthy man, his patrimony being worth some $500,000 of today (see Essential Chronology). He employed good part of his money to help Italian exiles residing in New York, hosting, in particular, Giuseppe Garibaldi and his aide-de-camp, Paolo Bovi Campeggi from 1850 to 1854. However, in 1861, he lost all of his property, following nine trials set up against him by fraudulent creditors and the final one set up by his lawyer, who had a mortgage on his property. From then on, he was forced to accept working for $15-20 a week, sufficient for a modest living.

He became extremely poor following the Westfield explosion (30 July 1871), when he was seriously wounded, and lost even his modest income. There are plenty of testimonies on his poor financial conditions in that period. Frederick Bachmann, his neighbor, testified that Meucci's wife was "not able even to pay drug bill or Doctor" during his husband's illness (see  Bachmann's affidavit) and was forced to sell her jewels, furniture and Meucci's telephone prototypes (see affidavits of Maria Gregory and John Fleming). When Meucci filed his caveat (28 December 1871), he got $20 from Mr. Breguglia, one of the partners of the Telettrofono Co., and Bachmann gave him the money to buy the ticket "to cross on the ferry to New York". He lived on the generosity of his friends and was helped by the county's Overseer of the Poor.

From 1884 up to his death he was somewhat aided by the Globe Telephone Co. of New York.


 

Q. What happened of Meucci's description on L'Eco d'Italia of 1861 or 1862?

Soon after refusal of the Director of Naples Telegraphs, Settimio Volpicelli, to exploit Meucci's invention, the latter decided to publish a short notice in an Italian newspaper of New York, L'Eco d'Italia. Unfortunately, a fire destroyed the files of the newspaper and also the personal file of Meucci went destroyed by a fire.

At the time of the trial instituted in New York by the Bell Company against the Globe Telephone Co. and Meucci (1885-1887) advertisements were issued daily, for two months, by L'Eco d'Italia promising $100 reward to anyone that could furnish issues between 1859 and 1862, with no success. The Bell Co. did a similar search through their agents in the whole US territory, but they only found a collection missing the entire years 1861, 1862 and 1863. Strangely enough issues of L'Eco d'Italia from 1 December 1860 to 31 December of 1863 now lack from all main libraries of the United States (see letter by Rocco Lombardo of the New York Public Library).

During the aforesaid trial Meucci recalled by memory the content of that article, as follows:

[Answer No. 67] It is about what I have written; I don't remember the precise words, because it is many years; but the meaning is that : -- "Antonio Meucci living at Staten Island has invented the way to transmit the human word by means of the electricity trough an electric conductor. He was since a long time experimenting on it and has obtained an excellent result. His method consists in using two instruments, one to transmit the word and the other to receive it. These instruments are quite easy to make. In their interior they have a spool of metallic wire, with a bar of tempered and strongly magnetized steel in the center, and a diaphragm above. These instruments being put in connection with a battery of Bunsen or some other, transmit the human word exact, as it is spoken by the two persons that are in communication by means of the insulated metallic conducting wire."

If this paper would have been retrieved, the Bell patents would have become automatically void.

 


Q. Did the US Supreme Court rule in favor of Antonio Meucci?
A. No, it did not.

Comment

In the past, many authors (especially Italian) have mentioned alleged sentences of the US Supreme Court ruling in favor of Meucci, quoting, as the date of the same, either "1886," or "1888" (or even "1988," apparently a misprint of "1888," but picked up by subsequent authors), or "October 1888," or "December 1888," or just quoting a sentence without specifying the date (See Giovanni Schiavo's Foreword of his book).
The true facts and the origin of the equivocalness above can be understood from the following:

Fact #1

On January 14, 1886, the Hon. Lucius Q. C. Lamar, Secretary of the Interior--encouraged by the favorable opinions issued by his assistants, Henry L. Muldrow and George A. Jenks, as well as by the Commissioner of Patents, Martin V. Montgomery --wrote a letter to Hon. John Goode, acting Attorney General, recommending that the Department of Justice institute a suit to annul the two principal Bell patents on the telephone, on the ground that they were fraudulently obtained. In their reports, both G. A. Jenks and H. L. Muldrow positively commented on Meucci's pioneering work on the telephone. Hon. Lamar attached to his letter the three aforementioned reports as well as 60 documents exhibited during the public hearings held before him between 9 and 15 November, 1885. Note that most of the 60 attachments to Lamar's letter were affidavits supporting Meucci's priority in the invention of the telephone.

Obviously, Hon. Lamar's letter raised Meucci's and his supporters' enthusiasm to the sky, as they thought that now, with the open support of the government of the United States, the victory of Meucci over Bell and his company was guaranteed, although the suit was still to begin (and, regrettably, it would be closed as moot in 1897, after twelve years of trial).

Meucci himself, in an affidavit sworn on July 23, 1886 (about six months after Lamar's letter), stated that «the Interior Department of the United States has practically decided in his favor, giving him priority of invention of telephony over all others. (See decisions of Assts. Secretaries, Muldrow and Jenks.)»

Meucci's words--quite a bit overstated--were by subsequent authors further mistaken and inflated, as appears from the few samples below.

  • Treccani Encyclopedia 1961 (see References), article on "Meucci, Antonio" (translation from Italian): «… After a lengthy trial and many appraisals, in 1886 the Supreme Court declares as definitely ascertained Meucci's priority, but it was a moral victory, as his patent had expired since 1873.»
  • Microsoft Encyclopedia Encarta 2000, Italian version (see References), article on "Meucci, Antonio" (translation from Italian): «… Only in 1886 the Supreme Court of the United States acknowledged that he [Meucci] was first to have constructed a mechanical telephone, whose patent, however, had already expired in 1873.»

As can be seen, in both quotations the Secretary of the Interior became the Supreme Court, and Meucci's caveat became a patent. As for the mechanical telephone, it was only mentioned in the sentence of July 21, 1887 issued against Meucci by judge W. J. Wallace of the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York.

It must be noted that the 2001 version of the Microsoft Encyclopedia Encarta (in Italian) was entirely correct and amply documented with the most recent findings.

References

The following references support our statements above:

  1. "Letter from Lucius Q. C. Lamar, Secretary of the Interior, to Hon. John Goode, Acting Attorney General," January 14, 1886, with attachments, National Archives and Record Administration, College Park, MD, Records of the Department of Justice (RG60), Year files 6921-1885, No. 479 of 1886.
  2. "Report from Assistant Secretary of the Interior, George A. Jenks, to Lucius Q. C. Lamar, Secretary of the Interior," December 22,1885, National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, MD, Records of the Office of the Secretary of the Interior (RG48), Patents and Miscellaneous Division, File 1885-4390.
  3. "Report from Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Henry L. Muldrow, to Lucius Q. C. Lamar, Secretary of the Interior," December 22,1885, National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, MD, Records of the Office of the Secretary of the Interior (RG48), Patents and Miscellaneous Division, File 1885-4390.
  4. "Report from Hon. M. V. Montgomery, Commissioner of Patents, to Hon L. Q. C. Lamar, Secretary of the Interior," December 12, 1885, reported in the Pan Electric Investigation of the US House of Representatives - 49th Congress-1st Session - Mis. Doc. No. 355, Washington, DC, Government Printing Office, 1886, p.1268-1271.
  5. "Affidavit of Antonio Meucci," sworn 23 July 1886, National Archives and Records Administration, Northeast Region, New York, NY, Records of the US Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey--American Bell Tel. Co. vs. The Meucci Tel. Co. et al. of New Jersey.
  6. Basilio Catania, "The U. S. Government Versus Alexander Graham Bell: An Important Acknowledgment for Antonio Meucci," Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 22, No. 6, December 2002, p. 426-442.
  7. Dizionario Enciclopedico Italiano, article on "Meucci, Antonio," Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana di G. Treccani, Roma, 1961, p. 136-7
  8. Microsoft Enciclopedia Encarta® 2000 on CD-ROM (Italian version), article on "Meucci, Antonio," Microsoft Corporation, 2000.
  9. Microsoft Enciclopedia Encarta® 2001 on CD-ROM (Italian version), article on "Meucci, Antonio," Microsoft Corporation, 2001.

Fact #2

On November 12, 1888 a decision was taken by the Supreme Court of Washington, DC, relating to the trial instituted in the Circuit Court of Massachusetts by the US Government against the Bell Company and A. G. Bell, to annul the two principal Bell patents on the telephone. Prior to that date, on September 26, 1887, the judges of said Circuit Court had sustained a demurrer filed by the Bell Company's lawyers and had dismissed the case. The Government immediately appealed to the decision of the Court and the case was taken to the Supreme Court in Washington. This court, on the aforementioned date of November 12, 1888, reversed the verdict of the Circuit Court and forced the latter to reject the demurrer of the Bell Company and to resume the trial, finding it meritorious because of the likelihood of government success in nullifying the Bell patents.

This sentence (very much like Lamar's letter mentioned above) lifted Meucci's spirits and was considered by his supporters as a victory for him, though interlocutory, to the point that, subsequently, they erroneously referred to it as a "Supreme Court decision for Meucci." This was utterly incorrect, also because, in the above sentence, Meucci was only mentioned as one of the six principal inventors who had anticipated Bell.

As known, Meucci died on October 18, 1889, before he could find out the outcome of the government case. A few months before his death, he wrote a letter to his friend, Prof. Carlo Paladini of Lucca, where he stated (translation from Italian, see References):

«… As for the Government against the Bell Co. … I can state that after very minute examinations, on 12 November [1888] Justice Miller [of the Supreme Court in Washington] issued his opinion, that you will find with comments in the World of November 13, that I am mailing to you today with registered mail, so that you will surely get it.
As for the future decision, which is expected at any moment, given that the trial of the Government toward proving the truth on the merits of the Bell invention has already begun, I can assure you that it will be definitive, as no appeal is feasible to the Washington's Supreme Court.»

After all, Meucci's letter was fairly correct in every word. However, subsequent authors once more mistook and inflated the facts outlined above, as appears from the samples below.

  • Brunelli & Longo's book (see References), 1906 (translation from Italian): «… In October, 1888, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that "the Bell telephone ought to be called Meucci telephone, having the Bell Telephone Company fraudulently acquired the patent.»
  • Alfredo Bosi's book (see References), 1921 (translation from Italian): «… in 1888 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled « that the Bell telephone had to be called Meucci, because the Bell Telephone Company had illegally acquired the patent.»
  • Umberto Bianchi's book (see References), 1923 (translation from Italian): «… the Supreme Court ruled "that the Bell telephone ought to be called Meucci telephone, having the Telephone Bell Company illegally acquired the patent." … However… the Bell Company appealed, and justice--perhaps influenced by foreign interventions--got lost in the meanders of its own procedural snags.»
  • Francesco Savorgnan di Brazzà (see References), 1927 (translation from Italian): «… the legal proceedings, through numerous sentences and a large mobilization of lawyers, dragged with divers outcomes up to December of 1888, when the Federal Court of the United States issued a sentence affirming the absolute priority of Antonio Meucci in the invention of the telephone. It was a glorious victory, but purely moral. [In fact] Meucci's lawyers, worn out by the prolonged trials, had withdrawn from the case [and], on the other hand, he [Meucci] had no rights since his patent was not renewed and had expired since 1873.»
  • Favoino di Giura's book (see References), 1940 (translation from Italian): «… in October of 1888 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that "the Bell telephone had to be called Meucci telephone, because the Bell Telephone Company had fraudulently acquired the patent."»
  • Roversi's paper (see References), 1942 (translation from Italian): «… the telephone … was attributed to him [Meucci] only eight years after his death [therefore, in 1897], when the Supreme Court of the United States, in a trial instituted by the Government itself to break down the arrogance of the Bell Telephone Company, ruled: "that the Bell telephone had to be called Meucci telephone, having the aforesaid company acquired the patent of invention by fraud."»
  • Treccani Encyclopedia (see References), 1961, article on "Telephone" (translation from Italian): «… Following a trial instituted by an American company against the Bell Company, in October of 1888 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that "the Bell telephone had to be called Meucci telephone, because the Bell Telephone Company had fraudulently acquired the patent."»
  • Nuovissimo Melzi (encyclopedic dictionary, see References), 1990s, article on "Meucci, Antonio" (translation from Italian): «… [Antonio Meucci] rightly recognized (sentence of the Supreme Court of the United States of America against the Bell Telegraph Company under date 1988) as inventor of the telephone.»

We can see from the above, that the origin of the myth about the alleged Supreme Court decision of 1888 (ruling that the Bell telephone had to be called Meucci telephone), goes back even beyond the date of Bosi's book (as maintained by Schiavo), given that it is found in a book of 1906 (Brunelli & Longo). It also appears that it could not be imputed to Meucci, since he exposed the relevant facts correctly. Of course, the erroneous dates of "October 1888" or "December 1888" do not have the slightest motivation and were--together with the tale of the Bell telephone that had to change name into Meucci telephone--a poetic license of the writer. The date of 1897, mentioned in Roversi's paper, corresponds to the consensual closing of the Government trial as moot, and therefore not to a Supreme Court sentence.

On the other hand, we must praise some Italian authors (such as Luigi Respighi and Mondadori's encyclopedic work, both referenced below), for having correctly reported the facts.

References

  1. Opinion by Justice William H. H. Miller, Supreme Court, District of Columbia, in the case United States, appellants, vs. American Bell Telephone Co., from a decree of the US Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, reversed, argued October 9, 10, 1888, decided November 12, 1888, 128 U. S. 450-464, S. C. Reporter's ed. 315-373
  2. Basilio Catania, "The U. S. Government Versus Alexander Graham Bell: An Important Acknowledgment for Antonio Meucci," Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 22, No. 6, December 2002, p. 426-442.
  3. Dizionario Enciclopedico Italiano, article on "Telefono," Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana di G. Treccani, Roma, 1961, p. 405
  4. Nuovissimo Melzi, article on "Meucci, Antonio," Antonio Vallardi Editore, Milano, Vol. II, p. 831, ca. 1990
  5. Microsoft Encarta 2000 Encyclopedia, Italian Edition for Macintosh, Microsoft Corporation, ©1996-2000
  6. Microsoft Encarta 2001 Encyclopedia, Italian Edition for Macintosh, Microsoft Corporation, ©1996-2000
  7. Antonio Meucci, "Letter to Carlo Paladini of Lucca," January 7, 1889, Archivio di Stato di Lucca, ASL Legato Cerù 197, Letter #123.
  8. Alfredo Bosi, Cinquant'anni di vita italiana in America, Bagnasco Press, New York, 1921, p. 79
  9. Francesco Savorgnan di Brazzà, "Tre Grandi Inventori Italiani Misconosciuti - II. Antonio Meucci," Nuova Antologia, Rivista di Lettere, Scienze ed Arti, Rome, Vol. 255, No. 333, September-October 1927, p. 385-394 (quotation on p. 393).
  10. Favoino Di Giura, G., Il Vero Inventore del Telefono: Antonio Meucci, Cocce Press, New York, NY, 1940
  11. Umberto Bianchi, La Rivendicazione di una Gloria Italiana: A. Meucci, Tipografia Camera dei Deputati, Roma, 1923, p. 27
  12. Brunelli I., Longo E., Trattato di Telefonia, Tipografia Scotti, Rome, 1906, p. 9.
  13. Roversi, L., "Ai margini della storia: Antonio Meucci a Staten Island," La Follia di New York, May 3, 1942, p. 5.
  14. Scienziati e Tecnologi--Dalle Origini al 1875 [Encyclopedic work on Scientists & Technologists from the Origins to 1875], article on "Meucci, Antonio," Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, Milan, 1975
  15. Luigi Respighi, Per la priorità di Antonio Meucci nell'invenzione del telefono, Pubblicazione CNR, Rome, 1930 [reissued and extended in 1939].


 

Q. Did the US Supreme Court rule against Antonio Meucci?
A. No, it did not.

Comment

Some authors refer to a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, issued March 19, 1888, that ruled in favor of Alexander Graham Bell with a 4-3 majority, the 3 dissenting judges being in favor of Daniel Drawbaugh. This decision had nothing to do with Antonio Meucci, since it only concerned the appeals of six cases -- also known as "Telephone Cases" -- that were joined together by the Supreme Court, given their many similarities and which, thereafter, were known as the "Telephone Appeals." The above cases were the following:

  1. Amos E. Dolbear et al. vs. The American Bell Telephone Co., an appeal from the US Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts;
  2. The Molecular Telephone Co. et al. vs. The American Bell Telephone Co. et al., a cross-appeal from the US Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, together with:
  3. The American Bell Telephone Co. et al. vs. The Molecular Telephone Co. et al., a cross appeal from the US Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York in the same case;
  4. The Clay Commercial Telephone Co. et al., vs. The American Bell Telephone Co. et al., an appeal from the US Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania;
  5. The People's Telephone Co. et al., vs. The American Bell Telephone Co. et al., an appeal from the US Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York;
  6. The Overland Telephone Co. et al., vs. The American Bell Telephone Co. et al., an appeal from the US Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York.

It must be remarked that the Globe Telephone Company, owner of Meucci's rights, had filed an appeal against the decision of the US Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York in favor of Bell (July 21, 1887), but this appeal was taken by the Supreme Court as a separate case from the aforementioned "Telephone Appeals." The Globe appeal was allowed November 18, 1887, was then filed at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on October 12, 1888 as case No. 13271, and was dismissed by the same Supreme Court March 10, 1892, without having been ever tried. In fact, the Globe Company dropped it, being more confident in the favorable outcome of the trial instituted by the US Government against the American Bell Telephone Company and Alexander Graham Bell, to annul Bell's patents on the telephone.

References
  1.  (Editorial) "Supreme Court of the United States--The Telephone Appeals" [full text of the Supreme Court decision], The Electrical Engineer, Vol. VII, Supplement, March 22, 1888, p. 141-152
  2. (Editorial) "Correspondence--Boston" [Refusal of Supreme Court to rehear the Telephone Cases] , The Electrical Engineer, June 1888, p. 266-267
  3. "Appeal of The Globe Telephone Company et al. vs. The American Bell Telephone Company et al.", allowed by Judge Henry Lacombe, November 18, 1887, filed at the Supreme Court October 12, 1888. National Archives and Records Administration, Northeast Region, New York, NY, Records of the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, "American Bell Telephone Company et al. vs. Globe Telephone Company et al."
  4. "Dismission with costs of the appeal of The Globe Telephone Company et al. vs. The American Bell Telephone Company et al. by Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller, March 10, 1892. " National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, MD, Records of The Supreme Court of Washington, DC (RG267) - Case No. 13271, Appeal No. 1281/1888, October term 1891.


Q. Why was Meucci not quoted in the Speaking Telephone Interference Cases?

The so-called Speaking Telephone Interference Cases originated from several patent applications filed after the two basic telephone patents were granted to Alexander Graham Bell. According to the law (US Patent Act of July 8, 1870), the US Patent Office declared them in interference with Bell's patents.

The parties involved (see table below) were, in addition to Alexander Graham Bell: J. W. McDonough, T. A. Edison, E. Berliner, G. W. Richmond, Elisha Gray, A. E. Dolbear, A. G. Holcombe, C. E. Chinnock, C. A. Randall, Francis Blake, J. H. Irwin, G. M. Phelps and W. L. Voelker. All these gentlemen had filed patent applications in the period between April 10, 1876 (McDonough) and May 19, 1879 (Voelker), which interfered with Bell's two patents on the telephone.

Antonio Meucci could not be a party to the Speaking Telephone Interferences, since his caveat, which was filed before Bell's two patents, had expired in December, 1874, he not having the means to pay the Patent Office the $10 renewal fee. As a consequence, the Patent Office could not declare interference with Meucci at the time Bell filed his patents, nor, later, when the above parties filed their applications. This was a very unfortunate circumstance since, as noted by the Patent Office Examiner, Zenas F. Wilber (see References), "had Mr. Meucci's caveat been renewed in 1875, no patent could have been issued to Bell."

Subjects and parties to the Speaking Telephone Interferences

Name
Subject of interference
Parties
A

The art of electrically transmitting speech

Gray, Bell, Edison, Berliner, Dolbear and Holcombe; Voelker added later

B

A resistance-varying transmitter

Gray, Bell, Edison, Richmond and Berliner; Voelker added later

C

A liquid transmitter

Gray, Bell, Richmond and Edison

D

A liquid transmitter with the fluid-holding receptacle adjustable to or from the diaphragm

Gray and Edison

E

A telephone apparatus with the electro-magnet in a closed circuit with the transmitter

Holcombe, Edison, Dolbear, Gray and Bell

F

1. A transmitter with a magnet with one core
2. A transmitter with a magnet with two cores
(including by implication a receiver)

Holcombe, Edison, Dolbear, Gray, McDonough and Bell

G

A telephone receiver

Holcombe, Edison, Dolbear, Gray, McDonough and Bell

H

(merged into F) The combination of a transmitter and receiver

Holcombe, Dolbear and Bell

I

A transmitter with a metallic diaphragm supported at his edges (including by implication a receiver)

Holcombe, Dolbear Gray and Bell

J

Combination of an electro-magnet, diaphragm and resonant case

Edison, Richmond, Dolbear, Gray, Holcombe and Bell

K

(merged into I) An electro-magnet with two permanently magnetized cores in combination with a diaphragm secured at its edges but free at its center

Dolbear and Bell

L

A telephone with a polarized armature

Gray, Edison and Bell

M

A telephone with a contact point of inferior conductor whereby change in electric tension is proportionate to pressure on said point

Edison and Berliner

No. 1

A spring-carried electrode

Edison, Blake, Irwin, Chinnock, Randall and Phelps; Voelker added later

 Chronology
  1. Deposition of Alexander Graham Bell, Records of the Circuit Court of the United States, District of Massachusetts, "United States of America vs. American Bell Telephone Co. and Alexander Graham Bell," printed by American Bell Telephone Co., Boston, 1908, reprinted by Arno Press, New York, 1974 ("Speaking Telephone Interferences" treated on p. 158-160)
  2. Charles H. Swan, The Narrative History of the Litigation on the Bell Patents, 1878-1896, Boston, 1903, p. 1-101
  3. (Editorial), "The Telephone Decision", The Electrical World, New York, July 28, 1883, p. 470
  4. "Telephone Litigation in America" [ Decision of Examiners-in-chief on Interference Cases ], The Telegraphic Journal and Electrical Review, November 22, 1884, p. 415.
  5. "Affidavit of Zenas. F. Wilber," sworn October 10, 1885, reported in Testimony taken by the committee appointed by the House of Representatives to investigate charges against certain public officers, relating to the Pan Electric Company, and to suits by the United States to annul the Bell telephone patents, 49 Cong. Sess. 1, Mis. Doc. No. 355. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, p. 1226-1228


 Q. What is the relevance of the telephone invented by Philipp Reis?

The telephone invented by Johann Philipp Reis in Friedrichsdorf, Germany, between 1858 and 1865, was complementary to that invented by Antonio Meucci. In fact, the latter was essentially concerned with electromagnetic types of transmitter and receiver, whereas the former essentially devised magnetostriction receivers and make-and-break transmitters.

The U. S. Government claimed that Antonio Meucci and Philipp Reis were the progenitors of all subsequent telephone models. It claimed, in particular, that the make-and-break transmitter devised by Philipp Reis could be adjusted to work as a microphone, namely as a "variable resistance transmitter."

For further details see "The Telephon of Philipp Reis."


 © 1990-2004 Basilio Catania

 

 MORE TO COME .....


made with FileMaker Home Page

Top of Page || My Curriculum || Antonio Meucci || Physics/Information/Bible ||