ry clinging to the inside of the
chamber, and for that reason he constructed a Geissler pump after he
moved to 468 Grand Street, which was in 1877. Again, if this lamp has
been in his possession since before 1872, as he and his son swear, why
was it not shown to Mr. Crosby, of the American Company, when he visited
his shop in 1881 and was much interested in his lamps? Why was it not
shown to Mr. Curtis, the leading counsel for the defendants in the New
York cases, when he was asked to produce a lamp and promised to do so?
Why did not his son take this lamp to Mr. Bull's office in 1892, when
he took the old fiddle-bow lamps, 1, 2, and 3? Why did not his son take
this lamp to Mr. Eaton's office in 1882, when he tried to negotiate
the sale of his father's inventions to the Edison Company? A lamp so
constructed and made before 1872 was worth a large sum of money to those
interested in defeating the Edison patent like the American Company, and
Goebel was not a rich man. Both he and one of his sons were employed in
1881 by the American Company. Why did he not show this lamp to McMahon
when he called in the interest of the American Company and talked over
the electrical matters? When Mr. Dreyer tried to organize a company in
1882, and procured an option from him of all his inventions relating to
electric lighting for which $925 was paid, and when an old lamp of this
kind was of vital consequence and would have insured a fortune, why was
it not forthcoming? Mr. Dreyer asked Goebel to produce an old lamp, and
was especially anxious to find one pending his negotiations with the
Edison Company for the sale of Goebel's inventions. Why did he not
produce this lamp in his interviews with Bohm, of the American Company,
or Moses, of the Edison Company, when it was for his interest to do so?
The value of such an anticipation of the Edison lamp was made known to
him. He was desirous of realizing upon his inventions. He was proud of
his incandescent lamps, and was pleased to talk about them with anybody
who would listen. Is it conceivable under all these circumstances, that
he should have had this all-important lamp in his possession from 1872
to 1893, and yet no one have heard of it or seen it except his son? It
cannot be said that ignorance of the English language offers an excuse.
He knew English very well although Bohm and Dreyer conversed with him
in German. His children spoke English. Neither his ignorance nor his
simplicity prevented