~ START MICROFILMED 1985 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - BERKELEY GENERAL LIBRARY BERKELEY, CA 94720 COOPERATIVE PRESERVATION MICROFILMING PROJECT THE RESEARCH LIBRARIES GROUP, INC. Funded by ~ THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES THE ANDREW W. MELLON FOUNDATION Reproductions may not be made without permission. CUB SN oowé.s THE PRINTING MASTER FROM WHICH THIS REPRODUCTION WAS MADE IS HELD BY THE MAIN LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY, CA 94720 FOR ADDITIONAL REPRODUCTION REQUEST MASTER NEGATIVE NUMBER 7S- 37 0) AUTHOR: Cable rai (way Compan S21 Francisco. TITLE: Cable vai (way company ont PLACE: L San Francisco] DATE : [1294] VOLUME 36 : CALLS MASTER > NO. en X NEG. NO. 376° LL oy Cable railivay compasy, San Francisco. Cubic railway company in reply to the pamphlet jssued by the market street cable company. : San Francisco, 1834a £0 po. 250m. Rocq 496. 77676 - )) 3 . PEL LIS! FILMED AND PROCESSED BY LIBRARY PHOTOGRAPHIC SERVICE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY, CA 94720 JOB NO. 86 0/60 2 DATE 11 l 8 | 5 REDUCTION RATIO RQ 2 DOCUMENT ‘SOURCE THE BANCROFT LIBRARY Oo On 2 flag Is i le ll22 e le "= J fl .4 fle MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIAL 1010a (ANSI and ISO TEST CHART No. 2) LLL ELL LL I T 1] ! I RE I | 1 | 3 | EA rloaiDl oy OL ESS iediO ue , TT TT TT TT TTT TT TT TT TTT TTT TT TTT CLC LE LLL fT TY re BRE BANCROFT LIBRARY THE UNIVERSITY DF CALIFORNIA Retake of Preceding Frame ~ Cable Railway Company IN REPLY BANCROFT LIBRARY To the Pamphlet Issued by the THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Fay Market Street Cable Company. RI ACY on Ref 2 * ailway Company t Cable Companty, fe SRR Cable Railway Company IN REPLY To the Pamphlet Issued by the Market Street Cable Company. TO THE PUBLIC. On the first day of May, 1884, the Market Street Cable Company of San Francisco published a pamph- let of 68 pages, with the evident purpose of trying the present litigation between the Cable Railway Com- pany as plaintiff and the Market Street Cable Rail- way Company as defendant, before the public, instead of before the Courts of Justice, where it is now pend- ing. It appears by this pamphlet that the Market Street Cable Company is owned and controlled by the chief owners of the Central Pacific and Southern Pa- cific Railroad Companies, namely: Leland Stanford, Charles Crocker and others; and that the Market Street Cable Railway was built under its auspices. The connection between these railroad companies and the Market Street Cable Company is ostentatiously paraded on the very first page of the pamphlet. The officers and counsel of the cable company are men whose connection with the railroad companies is well known, and the principle place of business of the cable company is put in unusually large letters *Rail- road Building, corner Fourth and Townsend streets.” It would almost seem as if the author of the pamphlet felt that he needed the entire power and influence of the railroad companies to give credence to his state- ments. No reply to this pamphlet would be made, were it not that the statements therein contained are, with very few exceptions, garbled and distorted state- ments of the real facts, and many of them are abso- [ 4) lutely false. The pamphlet, taken altogether, shows a clear intention to deceive the public, and although it would undoubtedly fail of its object here in San Fran- cisco, where the truth is too well known to permit of such a perverted statement carrying any weight, yet its circulation abroad might mislead those who were ignorant of the facts. The undersigned, the plaintiff in the litigation re- ferred to, does not propose to tryits case in pamphlets. It is entirely content with the tribunal which it has already chosen, and prefers to rely upon the depositions of witnesses and the exhibition of models, and upon evi- dence which can stand sifting and cross-examination rather than upon reckless assertions and large type, which seem to answer the purposes aimed at in the «Railroad Building, corner of Fourth and Townsend streets.” It will therefore content itself here with simply pointing out some of the misstatements and suppressions of the truth contained in the pamphlet put forth by the Market Street Cable Company, leav- “ing the legal issues between that company and this to be adjudicated and determined in the forum where they belong. 1. Even the inhabitants of the railroad building " do not deny that the first cable railway ever successfully built and operated in the world was the one built and operated by the-grantors of the undersigned, under the Hallidie patents. They are constrained to admit it as a part of the history of the art. It appears on page 14 of their pamphlet : « The first cable railroad in San Francisco was the « Clay Street Hill Railroad. It was built in 1873, the [5] * promoters of it being A. S. Hallidie, Henry L. “ Davis, Joseph Britton and James Moffitt.” Everybody knows that the first successful cable road ever built in the world was in the City of San Fran- cisco. For many years the Clay Street Hill Road was one of the sights of the city, and every stranger was taken there to see the only cable railway in the world. The Market Street Cable Company did not com- mence the construction of their road until late in 1882 and completed it in August, 1883, nearly ten So after the Clay Street Road commenced operations under the Hallidie patents. This is admitted by the infringers themselves. See page 31 of their pamphlet, where they say: oi Work was commenced during that year (1882), * and in August, 1883, the Market, Valencia and Haight “ street lines were put into successful operation, fol- “lowed by that of the McAllister street line a few ‘“ months later.” Briefly reviewing the situation then, we have the fol- lowing facts clearly established, not only by public knowledge but by the admissions contained in the in- fringers’ pamphlet itself: : I. The Clay Street Hill Road was built under the Hallidie patents by Hallidie and his associates in 1873-4. 2 This road has been in successful operation ever since, and was the first successful cable railway ever built in the world. 3. The infringers’ road, The Market Street Cable Railway, was built nearly ten years afterwards, in 1882-3. 6] And yet this pamphlet is printed and circulated with the evident purpose—apparent on every page of it— of leading the public to believe that all the important features in this new and popular method of transporta- tion were introduced by and belong to the infringers— The Market Street Cable Company—and that itis the owner of all the patents which cover anything of value in the cable system. The theory of the infringers seems to be, that al- though the Clay Street Hill Road was built and ope- rated long before any of the others, yet somehow it made use of inventions which had not then been in- vented, and was an infringement on patents which were not granted until years after its success had been demonstrated. The simple statement of this proposi- tion leaves nothing to refute. II. The California Street Railroad Company built their cable road in San Francisco in 1877, and it has been in successful operation ever since. The principal stock- holders, at the time of the construction of this road and for a long time afterwards, were Leland Stanford and others, who are now among the principal owners of the Market Street Cable Company. The engineer under whose direction the road was built, was Henry Root, the present engineer of the infringers, and patentee of several of the patents claimed by them to embrace the most valuable improvements in cable railways. This California Street Company first obtained an agreement for a license and then bought and paid for a license from Mr. Hallidie and the Clay Street Hill Company (who had in the meantime incorporated un- der the name of the « Traction Railway Company,” to L711 which corporation the Hallidie patents had been trans- ferred), and their road was constructed under the authority of the Hallide patents. Roof /imself never obtained a patent for any device connected with the cable railway system until Fuly, 1881. The following is a copy of this license: ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the Traction Railway Company, a corporation, duly incorporated and organized under the laws of the State of Califor- nia, the party of the first part, and the California Street Railroad Company, a corporation, duly incorporated and organized under the laws aforesaid, the party of the second part ; WiTNESSETH : That whereas the said party of the first part is the owner of certain patents, to wit : Patent No. 100,140, issued to A. S. Hallidie on the 22d day of February, 1870, for improvements in Grip Pulleys. Patent No. 127,690, issued to A. S. Hallidie on the 11th day of June, 1872, for improvements in Gripping Pulleys. Re-issue Patent No. 7,607, issued to A. S. Hallidie, April 17th, 1877, for improvement on Gripping Attachment for Ropeways. Patent No. 163,865, issued to A. S. Hallidie, June 1st, 1875, for : improvement in Endless Rope Traction Ways. Patent No. 179,016, issued to A. S. Hallidie, June 20th, 1876, for improvement in Endless Rope Traction Railways. Patent No. 179,786, issued to A. S. Hallidie, July 11th, 1876, for improvement in Railway Tubes and Cars. : Patent No. 182,663, issued to A. S. Hallidie, September 26th, 1876, for improvement in Railways. Re-issue Patent No. 7339, issued to A. S. Hallidie, October 10th, il for improvements in Underground Tubes for propelling cars ; an Patent No. 181,717, issued to Joseph Britton on improvement in Turn Tables for Endless Traction Ways. And whereas, the said party of the second part has been incor porated for the purpose of constructing a street railroad in the City and County of San Francisco, commencing at California street on the west line of Kearny street, running thence along California street to First avenue in said city and county. And whereas, the said party of the second part may hereafter | 8] right to extend its said proposed road and make branches procure the thereto. And whereas, the said party of the second part desires to obtain the right to use the aforesaid patented inventions and improvements, and each and every thereof, in working and operating its said road- extensions and branches, which it may hereafter obtain the right to establish and operate. Now therefore, the said parties of the first and second part do hereby agree, each with the other, as follows, to wit: the said party of the first part hereby grants, assigns and sets over unto the said party of the second part, its successors and assigns, the right to con- struct and use upon and for its said railroad, extensions and branches to the full end of the term for which said letters patent have been granted, all and every of the inventions and improvements secured by the letters patent aforesaid, and all and every improvement and addition to the said inventions or any thereof, for which the said party of the first part may hereafter procure letters patent, or rights under letters patent, or rights by reason of the re-issue of, or the extension of the said patents or any thereof. The said party of the second part hereby agrees to pay said party of the first part hereby agrees to accept in full compensa- tion for said grant, the sum of ten thousand dollars in gold coin of the United States of America, to be paid within sixty days after the said party of the second part shall have commenced to carry passen- gers over its said railroad, or the first section thereof. In testimony whereof, the said parties hereto have caus presents to be signed by their respective Presidents and Secretaries, and their corporate seals to be hereunto attached, on this the 6th day of June, 1877. , and the ed these JAMES MOFFITT, President Traction Railway Co, [Seal] C.P. CAMPBELL, Sec’y Traction R’y Co. . LELAND STANFORD, President California St. R. R. Co. |Seal] E. J. ROBINSON, Sec’y California St. R. R. Co. [9] The case then stands as follows: In 1873, the Clay Street Hill Road was built under the Hallidie system and successfully operated in 187 Now either the Hallidie patents covered im an features in the new improvement, or they did A Since it was the very first success in this dreiion it would be natural to suppose that the inventor i have made some important steps in advance, and that he had covered his inventions by the patents which h is admitted to have obtained. The California i Company evidently thought so in 1877, or it would not have paid $10,000 for a license to operate under these patents. Of course, if the Hallidie patents are worth less, then there is no use in paying royalties to an body, for since these earlier roads are admitted to or been successful from the start, then if they are not covered by patented inventions there is no reason wh : road may not be equally successful hereafter hors infringing on anybody’s patent rights; and en would be as true of roads which run on level streets, as of those which are constructed over steep hills The statement made in the infringers’ pamphlet a e and emphasized with small caps, that calle Le when first built in San Francisco, were thought to x & adapted only to steep hills,” is simply a falsehood The inventor, Mr. Hallidie, publicly and often declaed that these roads were fully as applicable to level streets as to steep hills and high grades, and there are hun dreds of people in San Francisco to-day, who will r member hearing him make the stalearent. > [ 10] II. Referring to the Eppelsheimer and Beauregard pa- tents, mentioned on pages 5 and 6 of the infringers’ pamphlets, we have this to say: In 1872 and 1873 Eppelsheimer was the draftsman and assistant engineer of A. S. Hallidie in the construc- tion of the Clay Street Railroad, and whatever patents Eppelsheimer subsequently obtained he obtained chief- ly by using information furnished by Hallidie, and ap- propriating copies of drawings made and caused to be made by Hallidie, many of which drawings are still in existence. In June, 1877, Eppelsheimer commenced "a suit in the United States Circuit Court for the Ninth Circuit, District of California, against the Clay Street Hill Railroad Company and A. S. Hallidie on the Beauregard patent, then owned by said Eppelsheimer, and on June 27th, of the same year, the defendants filed their answer and pressed the case for trial. The present attorney of the Market Street Cable Company was the attorney for Eppelsheimer. He was never ready for trial (though the defendants at all times urged a trial), until March 19, 1878, when the case came on for a hearing and the plaintiff dismissed the suit, at his own cost. This same Eppelsheimer commenced another suit in 1878 against the Clay Street Hill Rail- road Company and A. S. Hallidie in the United States Circuit Court for the Ninth Circuit, District of Cali- fornia, also on the Beauregard patent; this case was also brought to issue. Defendants were ready and pressed for trial, when the same attorney, M. A. Wheaton, Esq., who is now attorney for the Market Street Cable Company, dismissed that suit also at the cost of plaintiff. No suits have been brought by this plaintiff since that time. It will thus be seen: [ 12] 1st. That Eppelsheimer has been twice in Court as plaintiff against roads using the Hallidie patents, and that each time, though the Hallidie people were ready and anxious for trial, he dismissed his suits. 2d. That these suits were brought over six years ago and dismissed, one six years ago and the other more than four years ago. 3d. That Eppelsheimer never ventured to bring a suit on his own patents. Very recently Eppelsheimer has assigned his patents to the Market Street Cable Company and they have brought a suit on one of his patents, evidently thinking that by so doing they might counteract the effects of the suits commenced against them by the Cable Rail- way Company, on the Hallidie-Hovey patents, and their pamphlet is intended as a tail to that kite. IV. The opinion of M. A. Wheaton, Esq., fills a con- spicuous place in the infringers’ pamphlet. The value of this opinion may be more fully appreciated when read in the light of the following statement made by Mr. Wheaton's former clients in the litigation of the Traction Railway Company, the then owner of the Hallidie patents, against the Geary Street Park and Ocean Railroad Company and the Sutter Street Rail- road Company: “ The undersigned Directors and stockholders of the Sutter Street Railroad Company of San Francisco, California, and of the Geary Street Park and Ocean [ 12 ] Railroad Company of San Francisco, California, re- spectfully represent that M. A. Wheaton, Esq.,attorney- at-law, San Francisco, California, was the attorney of the defendants in the suits in which the above named companies were defendants, and the Traction Railway Company, the then owner of the Hallidie patents, was plaintiff, in the Ninth Circuit Court, District of Cali- fornia, of the United States. That the said Whea ton, as said attorney, advised and represented to the undersigned that of all the suits brought by the said Traction Railway Company against said companies, the suit on the so-called dummy patent was the easiest for us to win. That case was tried in the United States Circuit Court, and our companies were defeated. We were then advised by our said at- torney, M. A. Wheaton, Esq., to settle with the Hal- lidie people (constituting the Traction Railway Com- pany), and we did so settle at his suggestion and upon his advice. Our two companies then combined the patents we had, namely, the. Hovey patents with the Hallidie patents and formed the Cable Railway Com- pany, and we were then advised by the said M. A. Wheaton, Esq., that with these patents it was impos- sible to defeat us in the Courts or prevent us from maintaining a monopoly of the cable railway system. Mr. Wheaton was then our attorney, in our employ and under our pay. Since then we learn that Mr. Wheaton has accepted employment from the Market Street Cable Railway Company, and that he has given said company a written opinion that he can defeat our patents. - We further state that the said M. A. Wheaton instructed us that the so-called Eppelsheimer patents were of no value, because they were issued to the said Eppels- heimer while he was in the employ of the Clay Street [13] ou Railroad Company and A. S. Hallidie, and were or inventions made and suggested by Hallidie himself during such employment. F. F. LOW, President Sutter Street Railroad Company. JOS. L. SCHMITT, Director Sutter Street Railroad Company. R. F. MORROW, Director Sutter Street Railroad Company. JOSEPH NAPHTALY, Director and Attorney Sutter Street Railroad Company. JAMES McCORD. Superintendent Sutter Street Railroad Company. R. F. MORROW, Vice President Geary Street, Park and Ocean Railroad Co. MAURICE SCHMITT, Treasurer Sutter Street Railroad Company.” IV. The most contemptible attempt at deception con- tained in the infringers’ pamphlet, because it is the smallest and the meanest, is the statement of the dis- missal of the patent suits brought on the Hallidie patents. This statement is accompanied with a certifi- cate of the Clerk of the United States Circuit Court Ninth Circuit, District of California, to that ohiel, naming the suits so dismissed, so as to give it an a pearance of authority. The obvious purpose of this elaborately prepared statement is to lead people to su . pose that the Cable Railway Company or its fr the Traction Railway Company, had never dared 0 bring its patents to the test of a trial, but had dismissed its suits, whenever they came up for hearing in Court. What are the facts ? [ 14 ] When those suits were dismissed the defendants and each of them had paid the royalty demanded of them by the Hallidie people, on the advice of M. A. Wheaton, Esq., who was the attorney for the defendants in those suits. They had been beaten in one suit and were just ready for argument in the others. The suits were dismissed, because the defendants had settled and for no other reason. No one from that time, until the completion of the Market Street Cable Railway, was infringing our patents. When that road was completed the ownership of the Hallidie and Hovey patents was in the Cable Railway Company, and that company im- mediately commenced suit against the Market Street Cable Company and Leland Stanford, Charles Crocker, et al. These suits have not yet been reached on the trial calendar. The answer in the equity suit has just been filed, and the same attorney, M. A. Wheaton, Esq., has appeared in all those suits for defendants. See following certificates of the Clerk of the Court: In the Circuit Court of the United States, in and for the District of California, Ninth Circuit. CaBLE RaiLway Company, Plaintiff, VS. THE MARKET STREET CABLE RarLway CoMmPANy, Leland Stanford, Charles Crocker, Charles F. Crocker, W. V. Huntington and Nicholas T. Smith, Defendants. No. 3183. I, Lorenzo S. B. Sawyer, Clerk of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California, in the Ninth Circuit, do hereby certify that the above entitled action was commenced in the said Circuit Court on the rgth day of December, A.D. 1883, for an alleged infringement on letters patent of the United States, in the complaint said to have been granted June 20th, 1876, to Andrew S. Hallidie for “an improvement in underground tubes for the propulsion of cars,” and to have been thereafter assigned to plaintiff. [ 13] I further certify that defendants filed an answer herein en the 2d day of January, A.D. 1884, and the said action is still pending and undetermined. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Circuit Court, this 21st day of May, A.D. 1884. [Seal] L. S. B. SAWYER, Clerk. In the Circuit Court of the United States, in and for the District of California, Ninth Circuit. VS. THE MARKET STREET CABLE RAILWAY Corpany, No, 319 Leland Stantord, Charles Crocker, Charles ‘| CaBLE RarLway Company, Plaintiff, | Crocker, W. V. Huntington and Nicholas T. Smith, Defendants. I, Lorenzo S. B. Sawyer, Clerk of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California, in the Ninth Circuit, do hereby certify that the above entitled action was commenced in the said Cir- cuit Court, on the 4th day of December, A.D. 1883, for an alleged infringement on letters patent of the United States in the complaint said to have been granted on the 16th day of July, a.p. 1872, to Andrew S. Hallidie for “an improvement in gripping attachments to ropeways and endless traction railways,” and to have been there- after assigned to plaintiff; and also for an alleged infringement on letters patent of the United States, in the complaint said to have been granted on the 4th day of March, A.n. 1876, to Asa E. Hovey for “an improvement in rope gripping devices for propelling vehicles,” and to have been thereafter assigned to plaintiff. I further certify that defendants filed an answer herein on the 27th day of December A.p. 1883, and that said action is still pend- ing and undetermined. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Circuit Court, this 21st day of May, A.D. 1884. [Seal] L. S. B. SAWYER, Clerk. [ 16 ] In the Circuit Court of the United States, in an! for the District of California, Ninth Circuit. CaBLE RaiLway Company, Complainant, vs. THE MARKET STREET CABLE Railway COMPANY Leland Stanford, Charles Crocker, Charles F. Crocker, W. V. Huntington and Nicholas T. Smith, Defendants. +No. 3176. . I, Lorenzo S. B. Sawyer, Clerk of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California, in the Ninth Circuit, do hereby certify that the above entitled suit was commenced in the suid Circa Court on the 7th day of December, A.D. 1883, for an alleged infringe- ment on letters patent of the United States in the complaint ey have been granted on the 26th day of September, 1876, to Andrew S. Hallidie, for a new and useful invention in cable viva and t have been thereafter assigned to complainant. 8 I further certify that defendants filed an answer herein on the 3oth day of April, A.D. 1884, and thereafter on the 1st day of Ma A.D. 1884, complainant filed a replication thereto. I further fin that said suit is still pending and undetermined. i In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Circuit Court, this 21st day of May, A.D. 1834 : [Seal] L. S. B. SAWYER, Clerk. Lv} Before léaving this subject, we may as well call at- tention to another statement made in the infringer’s pamphlet which, while it correctly states a fact, never- theless presents it in such a way that it would naturally mislead and deceive the reader. On page 11 of the pamphlet, referring to the suits commenced against the Sutter and Geary Street roads, they say: ‘ Only one case has ever reached a trial in which case judgment was entered for plaintiff for one dollar damages and costs.” They regard the words italicised as of so much im- portance that they directed the printer to put them in small caps. Now it is undoubtedly true that only one case reached a trial and the reason was as has been already shown, that the defendants paid royalty and settled before the other cases could be tried. Again, it is an admitted fact, that in the case which ‘was tried the verdict was for one dollar damages only. But these infringers know very well that this suit was tried not to recover large damages, but simply to establish the v lidity of the patent, and for this pur- pose a verdict of one dollar, was as good as a verdict for a million. Everybody who knows anything about patent litigation, knows the truth of this statement— the great majority of patent cases decided in favor of the patentees in this circuit have resulted in similar verdicts—and it is impossible to resist the conclusion that this statement was made in the way in which it appears in this pamphlet, with the deliberate intention of deceiving the public. Of course after the validity of the patent has been once established in this manner, a suit in equity can be commenced to recover all the profits derived by the infringer throu gh the use of the patented invention i ; i [ 18 ] from the time when the validity of the patent had been established. Such a suit had in fact been commenced against the defeated parties in this case and as the re- sult of this verdict when the settlement was made. V. Up to the present date there have been seven cable railways built and operated in the United States. The first was the Clay Street Hill Railroad, already referred to, which was built by Hallidie and his asso- ciates in 1873-4, under and in accordance with his patents. The second was the Sutter Street Railroad, built in January, 1877. The owners of this road at first con- tested the claims of the Hallidie patents, but after one suit had been decided against them and several others were ready for trial they surrendered, paid royalty to the owners of the Hallidie patents and took out a license under them. The third was the California Street .Railroad, built in 1877, under license from the Hallidie patents. The fourth was the Geary Street Railroad, com- pleted February, 1880, which, like the Sutter Street road, at first refused to acknowledge the claims of the Hallidie patents, but subsequently and after the litiga- tion, paid royalty and purchased the Hallidie license. The fifth was the Presidio and Ferries Railroad, built in 1881, under license from the Hallidie patents. The sixth was the Chicago City Railroad, built in 1882, under license from the Cable Railway Com- pany, then the owner of both Hallidie and Hovey patents. The seventh was the Market Street Cable Railway, gg [ 19] built in 1882-3, by the publishers of the pamphlet now under discussion. In addition to the American cable roads others have been built in New Zealand and one is now in course of construction in the city of London, England, all under the authority of and licensed under the foreign patents taken out by Mr. Hallidie. It thus appears that of all the cable railroads here- tofore built and in successful operation, all but this one have purchased the Hallidie license. From the time when the pioneer cable railway was first built on Clay Street Hill down to the present time, every cable road which has been built and operated anywhere in the world, has acknowledged its indebtedness to Hallidie, the first inventor and introducer, except this one, the Market Street Cable Railway. The facts speak for themselves. For months the information has come to the under- signed that Stanford, Crocker and the Market Street Cable Company intended to use our patents without paying for them, and that by reason of their great wealth and resources they could tire us out with litiga- tion before we could collect any portion of the amount justly due us. The spectacle of a powerful corporation striving to carry through its selfish ends without regard to the private rights of individuals is not wholly unknown on this coast, but we had regarded the reports which had hitherto reached us in regard to these patent suits as merely the idle vaporings of irresponsible subordinates until the appearance of this pamphlet leads us to believe that a serious attempt will be made to carry out the vain boast so often repeated. Here we have a delib- erate attempt to forestall the decision of the Court by [ 20] means of statements which are either wholly unfounded or so perverted as to mislead those not familiar with the actual facts. We decline to follow these infringers into such a controversy. : The issues between them and us are now before a court which is amply able to deal with them. We await with confidence its decision. CABLE RAILWAY COMPANY. "END OF REEL. PLEASE ~ REWIND.