ubbornly contested throughout a series of intense
legal conflicts that raged in the courts for a great many years. Both
sides of the controversy were represented by legal talent of the
highest order, under whose examination and cross-examination volumes
of testimony were taken, until the printed record (including exhibits)
amounted to more than six thousand pages. Scientific and technical
literature and records in all parts of the civilized world were
subjected to the most minute scrutiny of opposing experts in the
endeavor to prove Edison to be merely an adapter of methods and devices
already projected or suggested by others. The world was ransacked for
anything that might be claimed as an anticipation of what he had done.
Every conceivable phase of ingenuity that could be devised by
technical experts was exercised in the attempt to show that Edison
had accomplished nothing new. Everything that legal acumen could
suggest--every subtle technicality of the law--all the complicated
variations of phraseology that the novel nomenclature of a young
art would allow--all were pressed into service and availed of by the
contestors of the Edison invention in their desperate effort to defeat
his claims. It was all in vain, however, for the decision of the court
was in favor of Edison, and his lamp patent was sustained not only by
the tribunal of the first resort, but also by the Appellate Court some
time afterward.

The first trial was had before Judge Wallace in the United States
Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, and the appeal was
heard by Judges Lacombe and Shipman, of the United States Circuit Court
of Appeals. Before both tribunals the cause had been fully represented
by counsel chosen from among the most eminent representatives of the
bar at that time, those representing the Edison interests being the
late Clarence A. Seward and Grosvenor P. Lowrey, together with Sherburne
Blake Eaton, Albert H. Walker, and Richard N. Dyer. The presentation of
the case to the courts had in both instances been marked by masterly and
able arguments, elucidated by experiments and demonstrations to educate
the judges on technical points. Some appreciation of the magnitude of
this case may be gained from the fact that the argument on its first
trial employed a great many days, and the minutes covered hundreds
of pages of closely typewritten matter, while the argument on appeal
required eight days, and was set forth in eight hun