Antonio Meucci - Questions and Answers
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:
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.
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:
«[…]
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.
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.
__________________
1Affidavit 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:
United States Government vs. The
American Bell Telephone Co. and Alexander Graham Bell
(US/Bell)
The American Bell Telephone
Co. et al. vs. The Globe Telephone Company, Antonio Meucci
et al. (Bell/Globe)
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
Giovanni E. Schiavo, "Antonio
Meucci, Inventor of the Telephone," The Vigo Press, New
York, NY, 1958, p. 13
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.
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.
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.
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:
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
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.
Dizionario Enciclopedico
Italiano, article on "Meucci, Antonio," Istituto della
Enciclopedia Italiana di G. Treccani, Roma, 1961, p.
136-7
Microsoft Enciclopedia
Encarta® 2000 on CD-ROM (Italian version), article on
"Meucci, Antonio," Microsoft Corporation, 2000.
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
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
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.
Dizionario Enciclopedico
Italiano, article on "Telefono," Istituto della
Enciclopedia Italiana di G. Treccani, Roma, 1961, p.
405
Nuovissimo Melzi,
article on "Meucci, Antonio," Antonio Vallardi Editore, Milano,
Vol. II, p. 831, ca. 1990
Microsoft Encarta 2000
Encyclopedia, Italian Edition for Macintosh, Microsoft
Corporation, ©1996-2000
Microsoft Encarta 2001
Encyclopedia, Italian Edition for Macintosh, Microsoft
Corporation, ©1996-2000
Antonio Meucci, "Letter to
Carlo Paladini of Lucca," January 7, 1889, Archivio di Stato di
Lucca, ASL Legato Cerù 197, Letter #123.
Alfredo Bosi, Cinquant'anni
di vita italiana in America, Bagnasco Press, New York,
1921, p. 79
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).
Favoino Di Giura, G., Il
Vero Inventore del Telefono: Antonio Meucci, Cocce Press,
New York, NY, 1940
Umberto Bianchi, La
Rivendicazione di una Gloria Italiana: A. Meucci,
Tipografia Camera dei Deputati, Roma, 1923, p. 27
Brunelli I., Longo E.,
Trattato di Telefonia, Tipografia Scotti, Rome, 1906, p.
9.
Roversi, L., "Ai margini della
storia: Antonio Meucci a Staten Island," La Follia di New
York, May 3, 1942, p. 5.
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
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:
Amos E. Dolbear et al. vs. The
American Bell Telephone Co., an appeal from the US Circuit
Court for the District of Massachusetts;
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:
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;
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;
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;
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
(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
(Editorial)
"Correspondence--Boston" [Refusal of Supreme Court to
rehear the Telephone Cases] , The Electrical Engineer,
June 1888, p. 266-267
"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."
"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
1878, March 26-- Declaration of
Interferences A to M (No. 1 added
later)
1883, July 21-- J. B. Church,
Examiner-of-Interferences filed his opinion, finding for Bell in
A, B, C, E, F, I, J, and L, for Edison in D
and No. 1, and for McDonough in G.
1884, October 23-- The Board of the
Examiners-in-Chief filed its opinion, sustaining the Examiner of
Interferences in all his findings except on issue G, where
they reversed his findings for McDonough and found for
Bell.
1885, March 3--Commissioner Benjamin
Butterworth filed his opinion, sustaining the findings of the
Board of the Examiners-in-Chief.
1889, February 23-- All cases were finally
disposed of by Commissioner Benton J. Hall, who denied Gray's and
McDonough's motions to reopen the Interferences.
References
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)
Charles H. Swan, The Narrative
History of the Litigation on the Bell Patents, 1878-1896,
Boston, 1903, p. 1-101
(Editorial), "The Telephone
Decision", The Electrical World, New York, July 28, 1883,
p. 470
"Telephone Litigation in America"
[ Decision of Examiners-in-chief on Interference Cases ],
The Telegraphic Journal and Electrical Review, November 22,
1884, p. 415.
"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
Date last
modified: 15 November 2004
Top
of Page
||
My
Curriculum ||
Antonio
Meucci
||
Physics/Information/Bible
||
|
|
