Dr. Basilio Catania, is a world wide recognized expert on Telecommunications, and THE undisputed expert on the invention of the Telephone, all the various claimants, and a "champion" of Antonio Meucci, as the Telephone's "rightful" inventor.

Mr. Grovenor recently sent an indignant letter to Dr. Catania repeating the two claims that Bell defenders rely heavily upon in attempting to discredit Meucci's rights.  

Dr. Grovennor's communication, and Dr. Catania's reply are reproduced below.

First however, allow me to mention that, Dr. Catania is the author of the first two published volumes, of an authored four volume set on "Antonio Meucci---Inventor of the Telephone". If you are not familiar with Dr. Catania's credentials, and/or would would like to further confirm Meucci's rightful claim, please visit:   
Basilio Catania: a lifelong researcher in telecommunications 
http://www.esanet.it/chez_basilio/index.html

Also, Dr. Catania is seeking a Publisher for the final 2 volumes of his 4 volume set. This would be an IDEAL collaborative project for NIAF, OSIA, UNICO, & AIHA.!!!!??? 
========================================================
From: Mr. Edwin S. Grosvenor 
To: Dr Basilio Catania

Regarding your essay "Antonio Meucci -- Questions and Answers" http://www.esanet.it/chez_basilio/meucci_faq.htm)...

I'm afraid there is much evidence that contradicts your view of Meucci's "invention" -- please look at "Memo on Misstatements of Fact in House Resolution 269" at http://www.alecbell.org/MeucciMemo.html

The identify of the true inventor of the telephone is the single most litigated fact in U.S. history -- and Bell never lost any of the 600 patent infringement cases.

Because millions of dollars were involved, many dishonest promoters used unscrupulous means to "grab a piece of the pie."  The "evidence" they submitted at trial was often contradicted by much more credible evidence.

It is wrong to take the evidence out of context. 

For example, the claim that Bell committed fraud in obtaining his patent was testimony that the infringers paid $1,000 for, and was contradicted extensively.  That trial became one of the biggest government scandals of the time, because it was revealed that the US Attorney General who started it, Augustus Garland, owned 500,000 shares of a company that was infringing on the Bell patents.

Meucci was defeated very decisively in the courts.  the judge was very critical of Meucci’s claims and behavior, and concluded from the evidence that he was involved in attempts to cheat investors.  

(The court’s findings in American Bell Telephone v. Globe Telephone are reported in 31Fed. Rep. 729, and reproduced at http://www.alecbell.org/BellvGlobe.html.)

After looking at Meucci's equipment and hearing testimony from Meucci himself, his patent lawyer, investors, partners, etc., the judge wrote that "the defense, so far as it rests upon the priority of invention by Meucci, may be briefly disposed of."

Have you read Meucci's patent???  It does not make any sense. The judge wrote that "It is idle to contend that an inventor having such conceptions could at that time have been the inventor of the Bell telephone."

Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone.  The U.S. Congress can no more change that fact than it can overturn the claim of a famous Italian explorer that the earth is round.
  
Edwin S. Grosvenor
Founder and EVP
KnowledgeMax, Inc.
7900 Westpark Drive, T-300
McLean, VA  22102-4233
Tel: 703-893-1800 ext 225
Fax: 703-893-1868
Cell: 301-674-0819
====================================================
From: Dr. Basilio Catania
To: Mr. Edwin S. Grosvenor

Mr. Grosvenor,

Thank you for your message, in which you addressed two concerns: 

(1) The 600 patent infringement suits (2) The Garland Matter/ The "Pan Electric Investigation".

Your inquiry has prompted me to address your concerns by making the following additions to my Web Site, at  "Antonio Meucci - Questions & Answers" (http://www.esanet.it/chez_basilio/meucci_faq.htm), which I am transmitting as follows:

Question #1. 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 http://www.esanet.it/chez_basilio/us_bell.htm). 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.
 
 

Question #2 . 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 http://www.esanet.it/chez_basilio/us_bell.htm).

I hope this puts to rest your concerns.

Sincerely,
Dr. Basilio Catania 
=====================================================

RAA NOTE: Well Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, what is your  verdict????