1. Bliss’s dispute with the Western Electric Manufacturing Co., which manufactured electric pens under contract with Edison (Doc. 817), dated back to the fall of 1878 (see Docs. 1425 and 1486). By January 1879 Bliss was running out of pen supplies, and on 26 March he reported that “Pen matters are at a stand still just now owing to the fact that the Western Electric refuse to deliver any more goods unless their account is paid in full. I claim damages for the quality of goods furnished and the repeated hindrances in my getting goods which have caused me great loss.” Bliss to TAE, 13 Jan. and 26 Mar. 1879, DF (TAEM 50:383, 432; TAED D7923M, D7923ZAV).

2. In his 26 March letter (see note 1), Bliss stated that he wanted to “go ahead and make Electric Pens and any other kinds which will sell regardless of them [Western Electric] if they do not withdraw from their present position.” He told Edison that “If you have that Reed pen in shape I wish you would send me a sample. Or if the Gramme pen, which I saw when there, is better than the old form send one of those.” There are two notebook drawings by Edison from 15 February and another from the following day that show a perforating device operated by a small Gramme dynamo run as an electric motor; Charles Batchelor made two measured drawings of this device on 22 February. The “Reed” pen may be related to a faint sketch that Edison made on 14 February of an “Electric Pen vibrator” designed “To utilize a current by breakingPage 163 the connection and having a jump spark” pass between two electrodes, presumably burning a small hole in the paper. N-79-02-15.2:1, 3, N-78-12-15.1:175, Machine Shop Drawings (1879–1880), N-78-12-31:183, all Lab. (TAEM 31:776–77, 29:1030, 45:49; 30:467, TAED N029:1–2, N009:90, NS7986C:8, N014:91).

Bliss reported in another 4 April letter to Edison that he had concluded the purchase on Edison’s behalf of the Griest mechanical duplicating pen patent (see Doc. 1654). Bliss received a license to manufacture the device on which Edison was to receive a five dollar royalty; Bliss asked that Edison waive this royalty on the first 400 outfits. He additionally wanted an unrestricted license to manufacture mechanical pens under the Huffman patent he had acquired in January (see Doc. 1559 esp. n. 3). Edison refused both requests, the latter because he feared it might be used against Western Electric and draw him into Bliss’s troubles with the company. Edison and Bliss had to agree on terms of the licenses before the patents could be assigned to Edison and they negotiated through Lemuel Serrell, who informed Edison on 11 May that agreement had been reached. However, the matter had not been closed up by 17 May, when Bliss wrote that he planned to visit Menlo Park to complete the arrangements, and it is not known when the transfers were executed. Bliss to TAE, 4 Apr. and 26 Mar. 1879; Bliss to Lemuel Serrell, 4 Apr. 1879; Serrell to TAE, 29 Mar., 8, 9, and 25 Apr., 8 and 10 May 1879; Bliss to TAE, 17 May 1879; all DF (TAEM 50:442, 436, 449, 440, 448, 450, 461, 465, 467–68; TAED D7923ZBC, D7923ZAX, D7923ZBH, D7923ZBB, D7923ZBG, D7923ZBJ, D7923ZBT, D7923ZBU, D7923ZBV, D7923ZBW).

3. On the reverse of another letter from Bliss on this date, Edison wrote: “I am thoroughly disgusted with the pen biz and all at sea about it— You had better fix up with the WE Mfg Co somehow” (Bliss to TAE, 4 Apr. 1879, DF [TAEM 50:442; TAED D7923ZBC]). After having been forced by a lack of supplies to close his pen agencies in mid-April, Bliss and his partner, Charles Holland, agreed in May with Western Electric on terms for paying $14,200 they owed the company. Bliss secured his portion of the debt with his entire interest in the 1877 contracts with Edison regarding European telephone and phonograph rights (see TAEB 3:678 n. 5) and reported the settlement to Edison on 17 May. Edison formally assented to this transfer on 13 June 1879, with the stipulations that the first $600 due Bliss from the sale of French telephone patents be applied to the payment of foreign electric pen royalties, and that Bliss accept twenty-five shares in the Edison Telephone Co. of Europe in lieu of cash as payment for his telephone interests on the Continent outside of France (Bliss agreement with Western Electric, 14 May 1879, Box 92, NjWAT; Bliss to TAE, 17 Apr. and 17 May 1879, both DF [TAEM 50:457, 468; TAED D7923ZBQ, D7923ZBW]; Bliss agreement with Western Electric, 22 May 1879 with TAE addendum of 13 June 1879, Miller [TAEM 86:20–21; TAED HM790065]).

1. Edison’s dominant line of work on generator design during 1879 concentrated on machines with drum armatures, but for several months he continued to design machines with ring armatures similar to those found in the Gramme machine used at Menlo Park at the time. These sketches for a patent model show a generator with a ring armature that differed significantly from prior generators of this type in both its spatial and electrical configurations. Edison arranged the armature so each loop of the coil passed through the center of the field magnet pole pieces in contrast to most ring dynamos in which the coils rotated within the space between the poles. Although probably envisioned as a way to increase the effect of the field on the armature, this resulted in the coils moving parallel to rather than cutting across the lines of force and thus induced very little current. The electrical connections specified in the patent application (U.S. Patent 219,393), which was not executed until 7 July, indicate two significant variations from other ring generators. In an effort to reduce the circulation of extraneous currents Edison constructed his ring so that it was not a continuous circuit. This required a special arrangement for the commutator to compensate for the breaks.Page 165 The other difference was the use of an intermittently connected shunt around part of the field magnet coils that repeatedly cut and restored the strength of that magnet. It was this latter feature that made the design at all operative. In a standard generator the weakening of the field would make the cutting of the lines of force by the armature less effective in inducing current, but by changing the field in this case Edison was providing an alternative means than motion to induce the current, similar to that employed by Faraday in his seminal experiment on induction.

Drawings from Edison’s patent application for a ring dynamo (U.S. Patent 219,393).

Click for larger view
View full resolution

Edison’s drawing of his ring dynamo.

Click for larger view
View full resolution

The first sketches showing a generator with a ring armature passing through the pole pieces date from 16 February. On 7 March measured drawings were prepared and a machine ordered that embodied a version of this arrangement. In this design each magnet pole was composed of a single electromagnet coil with the armature at right angles to the mass of the magnet. It is unclear if this machine was actually built. Although a completion date of 12 April was recorded, the sketch accompanying it shows two coils for each pole of the magnet similar to the design shown in Edison’s 4 April sketches for the patent model. Since Edison had continued to explore alternative designs, it is possible that the 12 April date refers instead to the completion of the patent model, the order and measured drawing for which are both dated 5 April. Cat. 1308:117, 133 (Order Nos. 53, 105), Batchelor (TAEM 90:725, 733; TAED MBN003:32, 40); Machine Shop Drawings (1879–1880); N-79-02-15.1:53–59; N-78-12-04.2:178–81; N-78-12-20.3:47–53; N-79-01-14:49–57, 87; N-79-02-10:57–63, 77, 94; N-79-04-03:3–9; all Lab. (TAEM 45:51–52, 58; 31:684–87; 29:416–17; 30:542–45; 31:285–89, 300; 32:1170–73, 1180, 1189; 31:343–46; TAED NS7986C:10–14; NS7986C:22; N028:27–30; N004:89–90; N015:24–27; N024:26–30, 41; N046:30–33, 40, 49; N025:3–6).

.

X, NjWOE, Lab., N-79-03-25:21 (TAEM 32:150; TAED N034:11). Written by Charles Batchelor; document multiply signed and dated. ^aDate taken from document, form altered. ^bParagraph preceded and followed by dividing marks. ^cFollowed by dividing mark. ^dAfter this andPage 168 each subsequent entry Batchelor left space for recording results; followed by dividing mark. ^e“2 cells” interlined above. ^fObscured overwritten text. ^gInterlined above. ^h“Chloride Mag. . . . in between” enclosed by wavy line on left. ⁱCanceled. ^j“Pipe clay” interlined above. ^k“No good” multiply underlined.

Charles Batchelor’s 1 April drawing of a device for coating wires.

Click for larger view
View full resolution

1. Charles Batchelor dated the first page of this entry, comprising the first two paragraphs, on 6 April. At noon the next day he began experimenting and drawing up the subsequent list of pyroinsulator coatings and processes to be tried, dating the remaining pages 7 April. Probably at a later time, Edison signed and dated several of these pages 6 April. Batchelor left space after each item coating and process to indicate the results of his experiments; it is not clear when he recorded these results.

2. On 1 April, Batchelor had sketched another device for “covering wire” by heating it with a candle flame pulled by clockwork along a track below the wire. N-79-03-25:11, Lab. (TAEM 32:145; TAED N034:6).

3. A drawing dated 5 April and labeled “No 102 Lime mould E. light” may be the mould in question (Vol. 16:384, Lab. [TAEM 4:821; TAED NV16:343]). Batchelor’s order for No. 102 gives dimensions and describes it as a punch and die for limes “to be made on Edison’s plan”; Kreusi dated this 10 April, which may be the date of completion (Cat. 1308:132 [Order No. 102], Batchelor [TAEM 90:733; TAED MBN003:40]).

4. That is, to wrap the silk fiber tightly to keep it from unraveling. OED, s.v. “Serve,” 1(54).

1. Puskas cabled again four days later, “When shipping motographs urgent Answer” to which Edison replied the same day, “Soon as can manufacture.” On 21 April, after receiving this and another letter from Puskas inquiring about the receiver, Edison wrote that he had “hoped to have it out before this time but find by experimenting that it is susceptible of much improvement. My men are now working at 4 or 5 new styles which will be far superior to those exhibited in England. . . . Now while these refinements are being added it would be poor policy to put out the inferior insts such as I sent Gouraud.” Puskas to TAE, 7, 9, and 11 Apr.; TAE to Puskas, 11 Apr. 1879; all DF (TAEM 52:265, 268–69; TAED D7940L, D7940N, D7940O, D7940P); TAE to Puskas, 21 Apr. 1879, TP (TAED Z400BP).

2. Frederick Allen Gower, New England agent of the Bell TelephonePage 171 Co., had adapted the Bell instrument to produce louder speech by employing a large and heavy diaphragm and a stronger electromagnet, which in some demonstrations was reportedly energized by a Gramme dynamo. Its other novel feature was a tube connected to a metallic reed below the diaphragm; blowing air into the tube produced a call signal in the receiving instrument. The telephone was powerful enough to be used at a distance of several feet at both the transmitting and receiving ends and had been successfully exhibited to the Académie des Sciences in Paris in February. John Tyndall lectured on it in London a few days after introducing the electromotograph, prompting George Gouraud to urge Edison to hurry his commercial model. Gouraud cautioned that Gower’s was “apparently an important improvement,” at least temporarily overshadowed by enthusiasm for the Edison receiver. Bruce 1973, 227, 235; “Gower’s Telephone,” Teleg. J. and Elec. Rev., 7 (1879): 75; “A New Telephone,” Times (London), 25 Feb. 1879, 10; “Gower’s Telephone,” English Mechanic 29 (1879): 206; “Recent Improvements in Bell’s Telephone,” ibid, p. 209, Cat. 1241, item 1192, Batchelor (TAEM 94:485; TAED MBSB21192X); Gouraud to TAE, 22 Mar. 1879, DF (TAEM 52:501; TAED D7941R).

3. Puskas probably meant the Société des Ingénieurs Civils de France, the first and foremost French professional engineering organization. Shinn 1980, 194–96.

4. The Académie des Sciences was officially created in 1816 and remains the most prestigious general scientific society in France and a unit of the national government. Its lecture and meeting rooms are in Paris on the left bank of the Seine. Crosland 1992, 14–19, 50–56, 83.

5. Charley Edison had cabled Puskas four days earlier, “Adams very sick for week past and no improvement in his condition Dont expect telephone for exhibition Have written.” His letter has not been found. TP ( TAED Z400BN).

6. A resort town on the English Channel. WGD, s.v. “Bournemouth.”

7. A. L. Fleury was connected with an Innsbruck mining firm. During the previous year he had kept up such a voluminous correspondence of suggestions and queries to Edison that Stockton Griffin “designated him the ‘Terror of the Tyrol’ on account of his being sadly afflicted with the Caeoethes Scribendi ,” and Griffin docketed his letters with that nickname. On 18 March, Fleury had written Edison that he was planning to inquire of Puskas “at once” about the electric light. In reply to Puskas, Edison stated that Fleury “is a perfectly competent person to act as agent in the countries named and I strongly advise you to procure his services. He has been recommended to me by strictly first class parties, and I have corresponded with him frequently during the past year.” Griffin to James Redpath, 5 Sept. 1878, ESP Scraps. 7:25; Fleury to TAE, 18 Mar. 1879, DF (TAEM 49:172; TAED D7903ZCH); TAE to Puskas, 21 Apr. 1879, TP (TAED Z400BP); for Fleury’s correspondence with Edison see TAEM-G1, s.v., “Fleury, A. L.”

8. See Doc. 1625. Puskas advised Edison on 19 March that patent attorneys in Germany had informed him “that nothing further has been decided about your Patent for Phonograph and Telephone in that country and the matter is still pending.” Puskas to TAE, DF (TAEM 52:256; TAED D7940F).

1. An incomplete autograph draft of this letter dated 9 April that was torn from an unidentified laboratory notebook is in WJH (box 25, folder 8).Page 172

2. The basis of this estimate is uncertain; see Doc. 1707.

3. Edison presumably meant to differentiate the essential principle of his incandescent burner from the details of its construction, and also from ancillary apparatus such as the regulator. In a newspaper interview published on 23 March he reportedly claimed that the only thing remaining was “to do away with mechanical defects. . . . The burner is no longer affected by chemical action and it acts perfectly well in the sealed globe.” “Edison Altogether Serene,” New York World, 23 March 1879, Cat. 1241, item 1146, Batchelor (TAEM 94:463; TAED MBSB21146).

1. This statement may have been added after Edison and Batchelor began to experiment with different numbers of cells.

2. These notes evidently represent the resumption of tests of the electromotograph receiver. No record of experiments from the previous day(s) have been found but Charles Batchelor had ordered all of these materials except one (sulphide copper) to be prepared as electromotograph contact springs on 13 March (see Doc. 1700 n. 1).

3. That is, stannic sulfide, also known as artificial gold, mosaic gold, and tin bronze.

4. The next day Charles Batchelor recorded tests with five additional chalks (Nos. 4–8) and also ordered fabrication of “Platina faced springs for new receiver” in five widths. N-79-04-08.2:20–33, Lab. ( TAEM 31:905–10; TAED N030:10–16); Cat. 1308:135 (Order No. 119), Batchelor ( TAEM 90:734; TAED MBN003:41).

1. This notebook entry describes procedures and some results of Edison’s experiments on thermoelectric batteries which began on or before 8 April. Edison re-numbered four pages of these notes, which he apparently wrote after the “resumption” of these experiments at 7:15 that evening, whose results are on the pages immediately following. No earlier dated records have been found. N-79-04-08.1:29–63, Lab. ( TAEM 30:1115–32; TAED N021:11–28).

2. Francis Upton suggested Edison’s rationale for these experiments in undated notes probably made about this time: “In thermo piles, current does not cost directly it is the E.M.F. that costs. The heat that is required for a thermo must be so much in excess of that required that if a fraction only can be used the thermo must be very profitable on low resistance” (N-78-12-20.3:58, Lab. [TAEM 30:548; TAED N015:30]). According to the preliminary specification of the British electric light patent he filed in June 1879 (Brit. Pat. 2,402 [1879], Batchelor [TAEM 92:118; TAED MBP017]), Edison planned to use the heat radiated by the surface condensers of the compound condensing steam engines that would drive the generators at a large central station to produce sufficient current in the thermoelectric piles to energize the field magnets. He described the arrangement of surface condensers and thermoelectric piles as consisting of “a great number of iron pipes whose surfaces are painted with a thick coating of a non-conducting substance. The pipes after painting are about five inches in diameter. Over these pipes are slipped rings of the double sulphide of lead and copper. These rings are cast in a mould, and both the inner and outer edges are either covered or plated with copper. The inner copper ring of one disk connects with the outer copper ring of the adjoining disk throughout the entire series of disks.” By using these thermoelectric piles to control the strength of the field magnets he could combine them with variable resistances to regulate the strength of the outgoing current. Although he claimed that “owing to the exceedingly low resistance of these disks and the considerable electro motive force which they give between the low range of temperature very powerful currents are obtained, and nearly as much energy is thus obtained in the form of an electric current from the waste heat of the enginePage 178 as can be obtained from the engine itself through the medium of the Faradic machines,” Edison very likely found it impossible to scale the effect sufficiently to power his generators and never employed thermoelectric piles in his system. An undated measured drawing of Edison’s “Electric Thermo Battery” is in Oversize Notes and Drawings (Undated), Lab. (TAEM 45:36; TAED NS7986B:43).

Copper-covered rings placed around steam condenser pipe, forming a thermoelectric battery; shown in Edison’s British Patent 2,402 (1879).

Click for larger view
View full resolution

3. Francis Upton made preliminary calculations related to thermopiles and notes on a cadmium-antimony-copper thermopile on 9 March; preparations for systematic experiments evidently began about two weeks later. On 25 March Edison drew a thermopile arrangement and prepared a list (labeled “No 75”) of several dozen metals and alloys to be tried in thermopiles, including many already designated for telephone experiments (see Doc. 1700 n. 1). John Kruesi then entered an order for these in the laboratory order book. In a series of undated notes from about the same time Edison identified approximately a dozen metallic sulfides to be alloyed with metals and other sulfides in proportions varying by 10%, then specified dozens of permutations of triple alloys. He also listed other “special compositions” to be cast in large and small bars, the latter about the size indicated in this document. Laboratory assistant C. E. Munsell spent the second half of March researching metallic sulfide compounds and eventually summarized the opinions of chemical authorities and his own findings in an indexed notebook entry dated 15 March to 12 April. The casting of metal bars began on or before 31 March, when John Lawson prepared alloys of copper and zinc. Lawson listed other metals including lead, iron, zinc, cadmium and antimony to be compounded in 10% gradations. His notes describe his method of fusing the metals and also refer to various authorities regarding their composition and characteristics. Lawson continued this work for an unspecified period, at some time shifting his attention to metallic sulfide compounds. N-78-12-20.3:56–59, N-79-02-10:47, N-78-11-21:129–33, all Lab. (TAEM 30:547–48, 32:1165, 29:291–93; TAED N015: 29–30, N046:25, N003:64–66); N-79-01-12:7–55, N-79-03-10.2:25–55, N-79-03-31:1–67, all Lab. ( TAEM 30:858–80, 31:1137–51, 32:607–31; TAED N018:4–28, N032:11–25, N040:2–25).

Edison’s new clamp design for the thermocouples.

Click for larger view
View full resolution

4. William Thomson developed this type of galvanometer for submarine telegraphy. It consisted of a small mirror, with a magnetized needle on its back, suspended vertically in a thin circular coil of insulated wires. Passage of a current through the wires deflected the needle, causing a beam of light reflected by the mirror to move along a horizontal graduated scale. DSB, s.v. “Thomson, William”; Prescott 1877, 148–54.

5. This arrangement differed from the apparatus employed for thePage 179 “resumption” of tests that evening, in which the clamp held a single bar and Edison “use[d] the copper cell itself as the other bar.” N-79-04-08.1:29–31, Lab. (TAEM 30:1115–16; TAED N021:11–12).

The new test arrangement for the thermoelectric experiments in which the metal bar was clamped to the copper cell.

Click for larger view
View full resolution

6. It is not clear how tests of this and other numbered bars in this document are related to those made with bars of the same composition and identifying number that Edison recorded in his other notes this day. The latter reflect substantially smaller galvanometer deflections, perhaps due to a different experimental arrangement. In most instances Edison tested two bars of each compound. In one case he attributed substantially different results from two ostensibly identical samples to variations in the homogeneity of the bars, a conclusion consistent with John Lawson’s prior remarks on the difficulty of obtaining some of these alloys. N-79-04-08.1:33, Lab. (TAEM 30:1117; TAED N021:13).

7. On 9 April Edison made “Miscellaneous Experiments with rough Masses not very reliable” on dozens of other materials, including electromotograph telephone points and various ores and minerals; he continued this work the next day (N-79-04-8.1:65, Lab. [TAEM 30:1133 TAED N021:29]). There are no further dated records of thermoelectric experiments until John Lawson returned to the subject in October 1879. All of these notes by Edison and Lawson, as well as some undated notes by an unknown experimenter on sulphide and sulphate of copper alloys, take up the remainder of this notebook (N-79-04-8.1:65–285, Lab. [TAEM 30:1133–1208; TAED N021:29–105]).

1. Earlier in the day Prescott had written Edison that because they had already “paid so much for our Continental patents I feel unwilling to give the matter up without another effort. I have therefore requested Mr. Serrell to pay the French & Italian annuities, and if you agree will write to Herz to dispose of them upon the best terms he can get and we will give him half. What do you say?” In March Lemuel Serrell had advised Edison that the fifth annuity on his French duplex and quadruplex patents would come due on 28 April; Edison indicated on this letter that “Prescott should be notified.” Prescott to TAE, 10 Apr. 1879; Serrell to TAE, 19 Mar. 1879; both DF (TAEM 49:207, 51:442; TAED D7903ZDE, D7929ZAR).

2. A year earlier Cornelius Herz had tried unsuccessfully to sell the quadruplex in Italy. A promoter and confidence man who was reputedly also a physician and member of the San Francisco Board of Health, Herz and inventor Stephen Field had bought rights to the quadruplex in Austria, Spain, France and Belgium from Edison and Prescott in September 1877. See TAEB 3:526 n. 7, 4:23 n. 16; Docs. 1043 and 1236.

3. See Doc. 1726 n. 3.

4. In his letter of this date (see note 1) Prescott had asked, “What is the reason that we dont get your new telephone receiver which is spoken so well of in London?” Edison’s response here is substantially the same as his draft reply on Prescott’s letter.

1. Gouraud cabled on 18 April that he was sailing for New York. He also urged Edison to hurry a reply to his 9 April message (see note 3). The telephone contract was not completed until mid-May, pending continuing negotiations with the English investors (see Doc. 1743). Gouraud to TAE, 18 Apr. 1879, DF (TAEM 52:529; TAED D7941X).

2. Gouraud and Charley demonstrated Edison’s receiver at this annual Royal Society function on 30 April before Society Fellows and British and foreign dignitaries. The previous morning, Charley and Arnold White, in Gouraud’s stead, operated it for the president of the Royal Society, the Speaker of the House of Commons, and other notables over a line from the Royal Institution lecture room to the Royal Society. “The Soirée of the Royal Society,” Teleg. J. and Elec. Rev., 7 (1879):164; “The House of Commons and the Telephone,” London Globe and London Standard, both 30 Apr. 1879, Cat. 1241, items 1177 and 1183, Batchelor (TAEM 94:481–82; TAED MBSB21177X, MBSB21183X).

3. Gouraud had cabled the previous day, “Quote price 2000 Telephones complete and when deliverable.” Gouraud to TAE, 9 Apr. 1879 DF (TAEM 52:516; TAED D7941U).

1. This is the order number; see Doc. 1687 n. 1.

2. This was order No. 58 (see Doc. 1702), which was completed this day. They apparently decided to incorporate the arrangement of an odd number of coils and commutator blocks that Edison had arrived at in mid-February (see headnote, p. 76) before experimenting with it. A measured drawing of the new generator, dated 15 April, is in Machine Shop Drawings (1879–1880), Lab. (TAEM 45:59; TAED NS7986C:23–24); it was finished at the end of April. This may be the machine designated as “Edison first Faradic machine” that was installed on the Jeanette (see Doc. 1706 n. 2; Vol. 16:430, Lab. [TAEM 4:864; TAED NV16:385–386]).

The New York World reported that during the first test this machine generated so much force that it tore apart the coil of the armature and a new one had to be made (“What Edison Has Done,” New York World, 30 Apr. 1879, Cat. 1241, item 1174, Batchelor [TAEM 94:480; TAED MBSB21174]). There are no dated tests of this machine prior to the second week of May (N-78-12-20.2:154–91, Lab. [TAEM 29:875–93; TAED N008:77–95]), but according to newspaper accounts of a 2 May test reported in the English Mechanic,

Wires were connected with five of Wallace’s voltaic lamps, and the moment steam power was applied the lamps were lit. The machine did not become hot, but it gave off a few sparks. The lamps gave a steady light, although currents of air were not excluded, and the five lamps were lit with one machine with one-half of 1-horse power for each lamp. The experiment, although imperfectly made, was entirely satisfactory, and showed that Edison’s generator would allow of nine lamps in a circuit, or would develop more dynamo-electric power per horse-power than any machine yet constructed. . . . These results are obtained by getting a larger magnetic field, and employing a superior method of winding the bobbin with the insulatedPage 184 wires. Edison will now have 30 of these machines constructed for the formation of his model station, which will probably be at Menlo-park. It is estimated that he can get at least 400 lights by means of his 80-horse power steam-engine and 30 of his dynamo-electric machines. He will now devote his time to producing a lamp which will be without flaw. [“The Electric Light,” English Mechanic, 16 May 1879, Cat. 1241, item 1203, Batchelor (TAEM 94:488; TAED MBSB21203X)]

The only order at this time was for one new machine “same stile as improved 58 but larger” that had longer field magnets (3 feet long and 6 inches in diameter) and a bigger armature (9 inches long and 9 inches in diameter); the brushes were also altered (Cat. 1308:143 [Order Nos. 149–50], Batchelor [ TAEM 90:738; TAED MBN003:45]). Measured drawings of the new machine are in Machine Shop Drawings (1879–1880), Lab. (TAEM 45:62–65; TAED NS7986C:27–35).

1. Robert L. Cutting, Jr., a wealthy New York broker, was among the incorporators of the Edison Electric Light Co. Cutting was also a municipal reformer who had participated in the removal of the Tweed Ring from Tammany Hall. Articles of Incorporation, DF (TAEM 18:38; TAED D7820ZAM); Obituary, New York Times, 14 Jan. 1879, 7.

2. Edison’s response has not been found but Cutting wrote again on 19 April that he would “communicate the substance of your letter to the other members of the Committee who will doubtless be content to await your convenience in the matter.” Green further explained that “it was not proposed to in any way interfere with the proposed practical exhibition of the light at Menlo Park, but to consider the expediency of obtaining Page 185 a foothold in Public Buildings before they are occupied by rivals; which is said to be the case with the Post Office.” Beginning on 26 April five Maxim arc lamps were used to light the main room of the New York Post Office in place of gas jets. Green to TAE, 19 Apr. 1879, DF (TAEM 50:253; TAED D7920ZAG); “The Electric Light in the Post Office,” New York Herald, [27 April 1879, p. 8], Cat. 1241, item 1173, Batchelor (TAEM 94:479; TAED MBSB21173b); “Electric Lights in the New York Post Office,” Scientific American 24 (1879): 330.

3. Like his father, Western Union president Norvin Green, James Green was a physician who left that profession to enter the telegraph business. Around this time he superintended the Western Union office responsible for railroad contracts. His stake in the Edison Electric Light Co. is unknown. Obituary, New York Times, 11 Mar. 1924, 19; Reid 1879, 560–61; Green to TAE, 7 Feb. 1880, DF ( TAEM 54:460; TAED D8033O).

1. Not found.

2. Johnson Matthey had been experimenting for Edison with high concentrations of iridium in platinum alloys since late 1878 (see TAEB 4:762 n. 5) and in early February had written Edison that they were sending “a specimen containing 30% Iridium and we shall hope to work up to 40% if not to 50% but the cost of labour and destruction of tools will be enormous.” Later in the year he asked them to draw wire from an alloy of platinum and osmium, which they had great difficulty in doing, and also asked them to examine a piece of platinum-iridium wire so that they could overcome the defects in its manufacture. Johnson Matthey to TAE, 7 Feb., 7 July, and 13 Sept. 1879, DF (TAEM 50:21, 82, 125; TAED D7919O, D7919ZBE, D7919ZCH).

3. At the contemporary exchange rate of somewhat less than five U.S. dollars for one British pound sterling, the offered prices equal approximatelyPage 187 $28 and $15, respectively (Ency. Brit., s.v. “Money”). One troy ounce of ⁹⁰⁄10 platinum-iridium wire is equivalent to approximately 378 feet of this diameter wire, or about 86 miles per hundred pounds troy (105 miles per hundred pounds avoirdupois).

4. This would constitute a substantial portion of the world’s production of the metal which, as Edison noted in his 1874 paper on platinum for the Operator (Doc. 489), “does not exceed two tons per year,” principally from the Ural Mountains.

5. The London firm of Johnson Matthey & Co., refiners of precious metals and manufacturers of platinum apparatus, advertised that its fusion process produced alloys “of the most perfect compactness, strength, and durability, and of increased resistance to the action of acid.” The company continued its experiments for Edison during the summer on platinum alloys with iridium and osmium. Johnson Matthey & Co., Paris Universal Exposition circular, Cat. 30,102, Scraps. (TAEM 27: 951 – 52; TAED SB796B:2 – 3); Johnson Matthey & Co. to TAE, 7 July

1879, DF (TAEM 50:82; TAED D7919ZBE).

6. Unidentified; presumably a clerk.

7. Edison had sent this telegram at 5:50 P.M. the previous day. Johnson and Matthey did not ship the alloys until 5 May. TAE to Johnson Matthey, 18 Apr. 1879; Johnson Matthey to TAE, 5 May, 1879; both DF ( TAEM 50:40, 49; TAED D7919X, D7919ZAD).

1. Five days previously, Upton had reported to his father that he was “busy now with measuring currents, using two instruments that have just been made after my drawings. You see I have a chance to learn how to make instruments; and see them made. I shall be an expert on dynamo-electrical machines in the course of a short time for I see so many various trials of different devices Nearly each week there is a new experiment to be tried.” Upton’s experiments were probably related to his effort to determine the voltage of a standard cell for use in dynamometer tests of generators. Upton to Elijah Upton, 22 April 1879, Upton (TAEM 95:525; TAED MU013); Upton 1880b, 180; Cat. 1308:139 (Order Nos. 134 – 35), Batchelor (TAEM 90:736; TAED MBN003:43); N-79-04-21:50 – 153, N-78-12-20.2:16 – 35, both Lab. (TAEM 30:748 – 96, 29:807 – 16; TAED N017:23 – 75, N008:9 – 18).

2. The New York Herald reported that Edison had been confined to bed by a severe cold. His principal assistants continued to work under Batchelor’s direction but the Herald likened his absence to that “of the star performer from the cast of the play—the performance may go on, but the life of the acting is not there.” “Edison’s Electric Light,” New York Herald, 27 April 1879, p. 8, Cat. 1241, item 1173, Batchelor (TAEM 94:479; TAED MBSB21173a).

3. Probably Louisa Farley, the twenty-year-old daughter of Upton’s sister, Maria. Vinton 1874, 432 – 33.

1. This was notarized the same day by Stockton Griffin; agreements notarized in New York used notaries located in the city.

2. Samuel White headed a successful and highly respected Philadelphia firm of the same name that manufactured artificial teeth and other dental appliances. In recent years he had invested heavily in the telegraph and telephone inventions of Elisha Gray and was also a large stockholder in the American Speaking Telephone Co. DAB, s.v. “White, Samuel Stockton”; Davis 1995, v – vi, xxii – xxiii.

3. Joshua Bailey owned rights to the telephone inventions of George Phelps; he also had authority to represent both Puskas and Elisha Gray. Bailey agreement with Edison Telephone Co. of Europe, Ltd., 15 May 1879, SSW (TAED X078AG4).Page 192

4. George Phelps devised several variations on the Gray magneto telephone employing a single mouthpiece with two diaphragms and various arrangements of permanent or electro-magnets. See TAEB 4:26 n. 3; Prescott 1878b.

5. Elisha Gray was a noted electrical inventor connected with Western Electric. His claim to the invention of the telephone provided one basis for Western Union’s entry into the telephone business. See TAEB 1:402 n. 5 and Hounshell 1975.

6. The electrician Frederick Fitch owned a New York electrical supply shop, successor to the firm of Fitch and Meserole, which Edison had patronized. Fitch devised a telephone transmitter employing carbon plates which he claimed worked with the speaker standing several feet away. At this time he was also at work on a carbon receiver. TAEM-G1, s.v. “Fitch, Frederick K.”; Fitch to Samuel White, 21 May 1879, SSW (TAED X078AI).

7. This agreement superceded the December 1877 contracts with Puskas regarding telephone rights in Continental Europe (see TAEB 3:678 n. 5). Sometime in April Edison had prepared an agreement with Puskas amending those contracts, which stipulated that Puskas receive one half of the proceeds remaining after the payment to Edison of a onetime royalty on the sale of each patent; it was never executed. In May, after completing arrangements for his European electric light patents (Doc. 1736), Edison agreed with Puskas (through Bailey) to annul the 1877 contracts. Draft agreement between TAE and Puskas, April 1879, DF (TAEM 52:274; TAED D7940Q); TAE agreement with Puskas, 14 May 1879, Legal (TAEM 144:1197; TAED HK203AAA).

8. Under terms of an unsigned contract dated May 1879, this paragraph also would have required White and Bailey to give Banker a certain share of their British rights to the Gray, Phelps and Fitch telephones. SSW (TAED X078AG5).

9. The Edison Telephone Co. of Europe Ltd. was incorporated in New York on 14 May 1879 by Edison, White, Banker, Robert L. Cutting, Jr. and his father, Robert L. Cutting. Certificate of Incorporation, DF ( TAEM 52:278; TAED D7940R1).

10. Bailey subsequently sold to White five thousand dollars of his stock in the European telephone company. Bailey agreement with White,

14 May 1879, SSW (TAED X078AG3).

11. An executed copy of this addendum written by Edison is with the contract in SSW.

12. Handyman George Carman had worked for Edison since about April 1877, doing odd jobs and some experimental work in the laboratory. See TAEB 4:30 n. 6.

1. The numbers 144, 145, and 146 are the order numbers; see Doc. 1687 n. 1.

2. This was a machine that had been altered from a small magneto, identified as “Bentleys”; possibly a device designed by Henry Bentley or given by him to Edison. They had begun to work with it on 20 April and two days later it was modified to “be just like our Dynamo,” with 5 inch long field magnets of 1½ inch diameter. Cat. 1308:141 (Order Nos. 140 – 41), Batchelor (TAEM 90:737; TAED MBN003:44).

3. Charles Flammer was one of the laboratory machinists. See TAEB 4:135.

4. George Carman did odd jobs around the laboratory. See TAEB 4:30 n. 6.

5. Earlier in the month the laboratory had begun using wooden cylinders to experiment on the best method for winding the armature. Francis Jehl later recalled that the difficulty of drawing the armature windings on paper had led Edison to suggest that “Kruesi make up a few small wooden models of the drum. . . . Then you can take string and actually wind it round the block, instead of drawing imaginary lines.” Jehl remembered that the laboratory staff then had winding competitions. Cat. 1308:136 (Order No. 126), Batchelor ( TAEM 90:735; TAED MBN003:42); Jehl 1937 – 41, 292 – 94.

6. In September Edison applied for a patent specifying a wooden cylinder with a helix of iron wire over which the copper wire was wound longitudinally. He described this as a means to “increase the effectiveness and cheapen the construction of the revolving armature.” U.S. Pat. 222,881.

Charles Batchelor’s drawings of the “Bentley” magneto and the alterations made to it on 22 April 1879 incorporating the long field magnets and armature from Edison’s dynamo.

Click for larger view
View full resolution

1. Charles Batchelor’s drawing is the first extant 1879 design of a complete meter, though there are some drawings from 2 February of an electrolytic cell for a meter. The design drawn by Batchelor is similar in principle to one Edison had conceived in December 1878 (see Doc. 1622). Edison himself made similar drawings on 4 May and John Kruesi entered an order to make the meter on 8 May; the measured drawings date from the next day. There are no dated records of tests of this meter until the end of July. These tests continued until mid-September and then resumed briefly in mid-November. N-79-03-25:117, 120 – 21; Cat. 1146; N-79-04-03:101 – 16, 167 – 70, 197 – 205; all Lab. (TAEM 32:197, 199; 6:639 – 40, 643, 645; 31:392 – 400, 422 – 24, 437 – 42; TAED N034: 58, 60; NM014:17 – 18, 21, 23; N025:53 – 61, 84 – 86, 98 – 104); Cat. 1308: 143 (Order No. 151), Batchelor (TAEM 90:738; TAED MBN003:45).

Edison had included this basic design in a February 1879 U.S. patent application but the description and claims related to the meter as well as part of a drawing showing the meter were deleted before the patent issued (Pat. App. 227,227). He did include the same description and the full drawing of the meter in a final British specification filed in April 1879 (Brit. Pat. 4,226 [1878], Batchelor [TAEM 92:107; TAED MBP013A]). According to that specification, the apparatus consisted of a box containing a “coil of very large wire, whose resistance is proportioned to the number of burners used in the house. This resistance is but the fractional part of the resistance of a single lamp.” The actual measuring device was an electrolytic cell

which contains a solution of copper, [and] has two electrodes of copper, one of which is very thick, while the other is very thin.

Page 195 The meter box shown in Edison’s British Patent 4,226 (1878) appears at left in the drawing; the resistance coil is R10 and the electrolytic cell is C8.

Click for larger view
View full resolution

The small portion of the current which passes through the cell carries over copper and deposits it upon the thin plate. If one lamp is placed in connection, it draws current from the main, and a proportionate quantity passing through the cell effects a deposit upon the thin plate; if another lamp is connected, double the quantity is deposited, and so on. At the end of any period, say one month, the plate is taken by the inspector to the central office and accurately weighed. As the deposit of copper upon the thin plate will be proportioned to the total amount of current passing into the house, the same becomes a correct measure or standard for the charge for the electricity supplied. [Brit. Pat. 4,226 (1878)]

In a variation Edison described in the U.S. application, one plate could be suspended from a spring balance and its weight read from an external dial “but this requires delicate mechanism in every house, which is rendered unnecessary by weighing the plates” (see Doc. 1622 for this design). The May design includes a feature that was not included in either the U.S. or British applications. This was a circuit breaker (the magnet and lever shown at bottom in Batchelor’s drawing) that would interrupt the circuit in case of an unusually heavy current, such as that caused by a short circuit.

1. Although Edison had received by this date letters from two individuals responding to newspaper stories about his need for platinum, this circular letter marks the beginning of his intensive and highly public search for the mineral. He may have been prompted to write it by Doc. 1729, which he would have received at the end of April. The New York Sun subsequently reported that he sent approximately 2,000 copies to “Postmasters and other public men in mining regions” around 1 May, enclosing with them specimen cards sprinkled with platinum and iridosmine. Edison wrote the circular in his fine telegraphic hand and had it reproduced with the electric pen; the first extant reply to it, dated 7 May from the Dakota Territory, was addressed to Edison on the copy from which the text of this document is taken. William Ross to TAE, 3 Apr. 1879; Fred Gerhard to TAE, 8 Apr. 1879; A. J. Cogan to TAE, 7 May 1879; all DF (TAEM 50:581, 583, 589; TAED D7928A, D7928B, D7928H); “Wanted, A Platinum Mine,” New York Sun, 7 July 1879, Cat. 1241, item 1224, Batchelor (TAEM 94:494; TAED MBSB21224X).

2. Edison received scores of letters about platinum throughout the late spring and summer, some replying to this circular and others to specific inquiries. On 14 May he instructed Stockton Griffin to “get a box marked Platina & keep all the correspondence etc in it.” Many of the incoming letters include Edison’s marginal comments, some of them extensive and illustrative of the extent of his search. Marginalia on A. R. C. Selwyn to Edwin Pope, 14 May 1879; DF (TAEM 50:593; TAED D7928L); for a sample of the replies see the folder “Mining – Platinum Search,” DF (TAEM 50:580; TAED D7928).

Edison, who was familiar with existing sources of platinum (see Doc. 489), made numerous personal inquiries regarding as-yet-undeveloped supplies. He solicited help on 30 April from Wexel & De Gress, a munitions firm operating in Central and South America, and the next day from Edison Electric Light Co. secretary Calvin Goddard. He contacted other acquaintances, including A. E. Foote, a Philadelphia mineral dealer, James Dwight Dana, and George Barker. Barker replied that the amount of platinum produced from known sources “is very limited at least for general use,” and cautioned that “An indiscriminate examination for it in all possible rocks, would therefore be a great waste of time.” Wexel & De Gress to TAE, 3 May 1879; Goddard to TAE, 2 May 1879; Dana to TAE, 28 May 1879; Barker to TAE, 30 May 1879; all DF (TAEM 50:587, 586, 605; 49:252; TAED D7928E, D7928D, D7928U, D7903ZEM); TAE to Foote, 26 May 1879, Lbk. 4:358 (TAEM 80:80; TAED LB004358A).

Somewhat later, Edison contacted state officials concerning geological surveys. In July, after having turned his attention to ferrous black sands found in California and coastal Oregon and Washington (see Doc. 1767), he ordered detailed maps of those states as well as Nevada, Mexico, Canada, and other countries. He also wrote to the U.S. Minister to Russia in St. Petersburg that he was “endeavoring to collect statistics regarding the product of platinum from all parts of the world” and desired answers to four specific questions about the production, price, and export of it in Russia, “which at present is the only market in the world.” TAE to G.W. & C.B. Colton & Co., 9 and 15 July 1879, Lbk. 4:456 and 482; TAE to U.S. Minister, Russia, 18 July 1879, Lbk. 5:2 (TAEM 80:93, 104,126; TAED LB004456, LB004482, LB005002); replies from statePage 197 officials and publishers concerning survey maps include Howard Chauncey to TAE, 4 June 1879; Joseph Miller to TAE, 5 June; E. H. Gove to TAE, 5 June; William Strong to TAE, 6 June; Frank Putney to TAE, 6 June; J. A. T. Hull to TAE, 6 June; George Martin to TAE, 6 June; W. E. Woodruff to TAE, 6 June; Bowen & Kingsbury to TAE, 7 June; John Collett to TAE, 7 June; James Galloway to TAE, 9 June; George Drew to TAE, 9 June; James Gaines to TAE, 9 June; A. M. Nelson to TAE, 10 June; John Proctor to TAE, 11 June; and F. P. Thompson to TAE, 11 June 1879; all DF (TAEM 50:628, 633 – 45, 651 – 52, 656 – 57, 661, 663 – 66; TAED D7928ZAJ, D7928ZAM, D7928ZAN, D7928ZAN1, D7928ZAO, D7928ZAP, D7928ZAQ, D7928ZAR, D7928ZAS, D7928ZAT, D7928ZAX, D7928ZAY, D7928ZAZ1, D7928ZBD, D7928ZBF, D7928ZBG).

1. Edison probably authored this draft during the first week of May. It contains a meter design that dates from 1 May (see Doc. 1733) but does not include the 9 May version of the regulator (see note 8), which was included in the final specification. It is unclear what Lemuel Serrell, Edison’s patent attorney, had in hand when he wrote on 8 May, “Shall I enter provisional specification on the new electric light patent in England and then finish up specification, as quick as possible so as to get the seal immediately without waiting for the completion of the specification?” DF (TAEM 51:483; TAED D7929ZBW).

2. Under British patent law, an applicant could obtain a patent by filing either a very general “provisional specification” or a more detailed “complete specification” of an invention. A provisional specification provided patent protection until the submission of the complete specification, which had to be done within six months after the filing of the provisional (Davenport 1979, 30). Edison’s draft is the text for the more detailed complete specification of British Patent 2,402 (1879), Batchelor (TAEM 92:118; TAED MBP017). The provisional specification was filed on 17 June and the final specification on 17 December.

3. The preceding discussion is based on lamp experiments that took place between mid-January and mid-February (see Docs. 1665, 1666, 1669, 1670, 1672, and 1675) and the following discussion of improvements in lamp technology are based on Edison’s 9 February draft caveat (Doc. 1676) and his 1 March draft patent (Doc. 1695).

4. An approximate way to gauge the degree of evacuation, extensively used and reported by William Crookes and his assistant Charles Gimingham, is by the strength of spark discharge that a vacuum will inhibit. A three inch induction coil was one that produced a spark powerful enough to extend that far through air at normal pressure and temperature. As Edison wrote in his notes on Crookes’s vacuum technique and designs: “The nearer he gets to a vacuum the more power it requires to drive the spark through the tube.” Spark gauges usually involved not only extra wires as noted here but also a subsidiary chamber on a branch off the main space being evacuated. N-79-04-21:3, Lab. (TAEM 30:727; TAED N017:2).

5. This is Edison’s “electric light law” (see Doc. 1577). Edison’s “law” appears to have been rediscovered by Irving Langmuir during his early twentieth century investigation into the problem of lamp blackening in connection with tungsten lamps. According to Reich 1985 (p. 121), Langmuir showed “that the light radiated from a filament was a direct function of its surface area, but that filament shape significantly affected heat loss. Knowing this, he designed a closely spiraled filament that emitted light from its total surface but lost heat only from the surface of the spiral.”

6. See Doc. 1608.

7. Figure labels, clockwise from left, are “2,” “2,” “1,” “x,” “1,” and “g.”Page 211

8. Prior to developing vacuum lamps Edison had focused his efforts on thermal regulators designed to prevent the metal filaments (primarily platinum and platinum-iridium) from reaching their melting point. Beginning in late February he began to develop regulators of the type shown in this patent designed to prevent a sudden increase in current from damaging the lamp. Edison made two sketches on 20 February of an incomplete device, similar in principle to the one described in this document, consisting of a spring-loaded rod moved by an armature responding to two electromagnets. In March he drew several regulators employing a magnetic motor to turn a governor which would interrupt the lamp circuit at a particular speed. In early April Edison briefly considered interposing variable resistances in the circuit; one design of a “Sunflower regulator for Electric Light” consisted of loops of wire that could be switched into the circuit although this drawing does not show any mechanism for doing so automatically. Edison returned to the idea of a solenoid regulator on 4 April and in the next few days he also sketched several designs apparently intended to operate by thermal expansion; he had four of these and one solenoid built. He drew two regulators of the design shown in this document on 7 April and John Kruesi made a measured drawing ten days later. In the completed provisional and final specifications of this patent, however, Edison replaced this regulator with one actuated by a governor driven by a magnetic motor. That design was essentially complete by 9 May and a regulator of that design built two days later. N-79-03-10.1:41 – 51; N-79-01-14:73 – 81; N-79-04-03:31 – 35; N-79-01-21:129 – 33, 143 – 49; N-78-12-04.2:201 – 205; Vol. 16:386; N-79-01-21:159 – 67; N-79-04-03:75; all Lab. (TAEM 31: 23 – 28, 293 – 97, 356 – 58; 30:650 – 52, 656 – 59; 29:427 – 29; 4:822; 30: 663 – 67; 31:379; TAED N022:21 – 26; N024:34 – 38; N025:16 – 18; N016: 66 – 68, 73 – 76; N004:100 – 2; NV16:344; N016:81 – 85; N025:40); Cat. 1308:132 – 33 (Order Nos. 99, 156), 145; Brit. Pat. 2,402 (1879); both Batchelor (TAEM 90:733 – 34, 739; 92:118; TAED MBN003:40, 46; MBP017); see also note 12 and Doc. 1770 n. 9.

A lamp with governor regulator based on Edison’s 9 May design, from his British Patent 2,402 (1879).

Click for larger view
View full resolution

9. Should be “W.”

10. Edison apparently meant by “reciprocal accumulation” that the field magnet was in the same circuit as the lamps.

11. That is, a separately excited field.

12. In the regulator design of 9 May that was included in the final specification, Edison replaced this device for minimizing sparks with a circuit-opening lever. When the collar of the regulator governor moved up, a block on the end of this lever would push against a set of springs causing them to break contact with a metal block and open the circuit. Brit. Pat. 2,402 (1879), Batchelor (TAEM 92:118; TAED MBP017).

13. For the meter, see Doc. 1733.

14. The specifications resulting from this draft are Edison’s first detailed description of his distinctive dynamo design. The armature consisted of a wooden cylinder with an iron head at each end, between which fine iron wire was wound until flush with the edge of the heads. Over this the insulated induction wire was wound longitudinally, “the ends of which are connected to the commutator. The wire of the parallel induction helix is substantially endless, and it is wound with reference to obtaining a continuous current. The number of parallel coils may be more or less in number, but I find the desired object can be obtained by using an even number . . . and an odd number of the commutator plates.” Brit. Pat. 2,402 (1879) (p. 6), Batchelor (TAEM 92:118; TAED MBP017).

Arrangement for breaking the dynamo circuit.

Click for larger view
View full resolution

Edison’s explanation of the large field magnets depended on an analogy between magnetic and electrical circuits. At this time there was little theoretical understanding of the behavior of the magnetic circuit but there was a growing body of design practices on which he could draw, as did later theoreticians. Based intellectually on Faraday’s analogy between lines of magnetic force and battery current flowing through an electric circuit, this knowledge was developed by what has been called “dynamo theory,” or the semi-empirical tradition of machine design (Jordan 1990, 131 – 38, 161 – 69, 172 – 73). This analogy guided some of Francis Upton’s early dynamo work (see TAEB 4:768 n. 3) and was elaborated upon by Edison in an undated table in which he developed an extended comparison between magnetic and electrical circuits (Oversize Notes and Drawings [1879 – 1886], Lab. [TAEM 45:32 – 34; TAED NS7986B:36 – 41]). It seems to have led Edison to conceptualize the iron parts of the dynamo as the magnetic equivalent of electrical conductors, suggesting that greater mass and good surface contacts would reduce the “resistance.” He explained that by the large magnet cores he was “enabled to reduce the resistance of the magnetic circuit to a very low point, and at the same time by reason of this large mass of iron of great magnetic conductivity the use of a single layer of wire is possible, thus obtaining the maximum economy.” He also noted the iron bar connecting the magnet cores “is greater in mass than in the same length of core. The surface of both the back and the end of each core are ground together,Page 213 and are permanently secured by bolts and nuts. By thus employing a large mass of iron for the back, and grinding the faces of contact to a point where air suction becomes powerful, I reduce the resistance of this point to a minimum and prevent the appearance of free magnetic poles” (Brit. Pat. 2,402 [1879] [p. 6], Batchelor [TAEM 92:118; TAED MBP017].

Edison did not attempt to secure a U.S. patent on his field magnet design until 1880 (see Doc. 1890). His September 1879 application for an improved armature (Case 184, which issued as U.S. Pat. 222,881) illustrated but did not describe the complete dynamo with its distinctive magnets, and he was later obliged to make an explicit statement limiting that application to the armature alone (see Doc. 1851). Edison’s reluctance was evidently due to concern that the Patent Office would hold the design to be merely an alteration in the proportions of well-known machines. In October Zenas Wilber reported that he thought first assistant examiner Henry “Townsend and his ass’t Buckingham are inclined to my view about the magneto machine, viz that when change of proportion between the parts is attended by a new result or marked increase of old result, then is involved invention and patentability” (Wilber to TAE, 24 Oct. 1879, DF [TAEM 49:454; TAED D7903ZJR]).

15. It is unclear to which patent application Edison refers. He executed a U.S. application (Case 177) on 21 April but it was not filed until

12 May and covered his earlier, entirely different dynamo design in which the field magnet rotated within the stationary induction windings, the whole surrounded by an iron shell (see Doc. 1694). There are no other known generator patents originating at this time but there is an undated drawing with figure labels, possibly for a patent, showing the three major Edison generators designed up to 1 May—the one shown in Case 177, the first bipolar design with 2 foot field magnets (see Doc. 1702) and the modification of this with 3 foot magnets (see Doc. 1727 n. 2). Oversize Notes and Drawings (1879 – 1886), Lab. (TAEM 45:29; TAED NS7986:33).

16. This caveat has not been found; it was completed by 15 April, when Serrell sent it (and Caveat 88 and extra copies of the drawings) to Edison for his final signature. Serrell to Edison, 15 April 1879, DF ( TAEM 51:469; TAED D7929ZBK).

1. Although Edison’s signature to this agreement was later notarized by Stockton Griffin in Menlo Park, on 2 May Edison was in New York where he signed a separate agreement regarding the formation of the Edison Telephone Co. of Europe. Agreement with Robert Cutting, Samuel White, Robert Cutting, Jr., and James Banker, 2 May 1879, CR (TAEM 97:527; TAED CH001AAA).

2. An unsigned copy of an undated addendum to this agreement (p. 6; not transcribed) stipulated that Sweden and Norway had been inadvertently omitted from this list, and that they were to be considered in the same respects as the other countries named.

3. Shortly afterwards, Bailey sold Samuel White one-half of his interest in this agreement. Bailey agreement with White, 14 May 1879, SSW (TAED X078AG1).

4. An ancillary agreement executed eight days later gave Banker the option to purchase in addition, at par value, ¹⁄10 of Edison’s interest in the company formed under this contract. This option was to expire in DecemberPage 217 but Edison later extended it to 1 January 1880. Banker subsequently paid Edison $15,000 for this interest. Agreement between TAE, Banker, Puskas, and Bailey, 10 May 1879; agreement between TAE and Banker, 29 Nov. 1879; TAE receipt to Banker, 10 Jan. 1880; all DF (TAEM 50:314, 316; TAED D7921222, D7921333, D7921444).

5. This contract superseded Edison’s prior commitments to Puskas regarding the electric light, from which Bailey, acting as Puskas’s attorney, had released Edison on 28 April. Edison subsequently agreed to transfer Banker’s interest to Puskas if Banker failed to fulfill the terms of the contract. TAE agreement with Puskas, 14 May 1879, Miller (TAEM 86:15; TAED HM790062). For the original manuscript copy of this agreement, see Kellow (TAEM 144:1197; TAED HK203AAA).

6. Banker paid the balance of the twenty-five thousand dollars on 29

November 1879; the Edison Electric Light Co. of Europe, Ltd. was incorporated in January 1880. Banker to Bailey and Banker to Puskas, both 29 Nov. 1879; Certificate and Articles of Incorporation; all DF ( TAEM 52:430, 54:139; TAED D7940ZDJ, D7940ZDK, D8024A).

7. The 10 May agreement with Banker (see note 4) referred to the fact that Puskas had not yet signed. It is not clear why Bailey did not sign this contract on behalf of Puskas, who instead had to await its arrival in Paris.

8. Randolph Hurry was an attorney in New York City. Wilson 1879, 702.

9. The addendum was apparently unsigned at the time this copy was made.

1. Joseph Murray had been Edison’s manufacturing partner between 1872 and 1875, after which he established his own firm in the shop at 10 – 12 Ward St. in Newark where he continued to make instruments for Edison. See TAEB 1:282 n. 1, 3:642 n. 1, 4:34 n. 2.

2. Edison retained an undetermined financial interest in Murray’s business and in 1878 had advanced about $1,100 on his behalf to forestall eviction and seizure of his machinery but at this time Murray was selling off his machinery (see Docs. 1294 and 1306). After the landlord again requested a settlement of the account in August 1879, Edison instructed Stockton Griffin to verify that Murray had taken down the shop’s overhead equipment because “Kirk wants me to pay his bill—& I will not until that is removed” (Murray to TAE, 6 Sept. 1879; William Kirk & Co. to TAE, 7 Aug. 1879; both DF [TAEM 49:364, 860; TAED D7903ZHN, D7912F]).

3. This firm was owned by William Kirk, a Newark builder and landlord (see Doc. 157).

1. Not found.

2. Charley cabled from London on 5 May “Adams dead Cable transfer me Brown Shipley 100 pounds immediately Unprocurable here.” Edison did so the same day, noting that the sum should be charged to Adams’s account. DF (TAEM 49:220, 52:531; TAED D7903ZDN, D7941ZAA).

3. On the morning of 2 May Edison had wired Theodore Puskas in Paris, “Tell Adams return immediately to America Gouraud and Bailey having engaged experts here.” DF (TAEM 52:277, 530; TAED D7940Q1, D7941Z).

4. See Doc. 1742 n. 4.

5. Cf. Doc. 1693. Batchelor recorded a different understanding in a notebook entry on 19 May: “The best theory of the motograph that we can give to account for the action is this:— That the passage of the current has such an effect on its capillary power as to draw the solution to surface and lubricate it.” He remarked that a chalk cylinder, after having dried out, could be restored only by turning it on a lathe, which he attributed “to the fact that the NaO crystallizes on the surface and these crystals must be turned off or dissolved out, in order to get good talking.” This led Edison to consider at the end of May how capillary action might be applied to what he termed a “Motograph Engine ie Capilliary Motor.” It is not clear how this device would operate. On 1 June, however, Batchelor reported that “We have accidentally found out that one spring we used (which was much better than any other) was made of Paladium instead of Platina and taking into consideration the fact that Palladium occludes 700 times its own bulk of Hydrogen and the motograph shows itself at the pole where Hydrogen is, we think it is nothing more than a battery action.” Cat. 1304:55, 57, Batchelor (TAEM 91:54 – 55;Page 220

Edison’s sketch of an engine working on the capillary principle of the motograph receiver.

Click for larger view
View full resolution

TAED MBN004:51 – 52); N-79-02-24.1:41, Lab. (TAEM 30:990; TAED No20:21).

In a portion of Batchelor’s 19 May notebook entry that he probably added several weeks after that date, he observed that rubbing a platina point across the surface of the chalk caused current to flow through a galvanometer. Presumably about this time Francis Upton made several pages of notes on “Chalks Test of E.MF on” (N-79-02-24.2:152 – 63, Lab. [TAEM 31:1068 – 73; TAED N031:76 – 81]). The Scientific American reported in its 26 July issue that

Mr. Edison discovered some peculiar freaks in the receiving instrument which at first puzzled him; but on connecting the binding posts of the telephone with a galvanometer, he found to his surprise that the chalk and platinum rubber of the telephone formed a generator of electricity of no mean order, as it equaled in electromotive force a half of a Daniell cell. He therefore arranged four of the chalk cylinders upon a non-conducting shaft, and connected the platinum rubber of one chalk cylinder with the metallic boss of the next, the terminals being a rubber on one end, and a spring touching the metallic boss of the chalk cylinder at the other end. A series of four chalk cylinders thus mounted and connected . . . is equivalent to two Daniell cells, but the power varies somewhat with the speed at which it is rotated. . . . Whether the current is due to the decomposition of the solution with which the chalk is moistened, or whether it is due to capillarity or some other cause, has not been definitely determined. [“Progress at Menlo Park,” Sci. Am. 41 (1879): 52]Page 221

Scientific American illustration of an electromotograph arrangement for producing electric current.

Click for larger view
View full resolution

6. In June, in the first of a series about Edison’s inventions that appeared in Scribner’s Monthly (Fox 1879c), Edwin Fox described Edison’s receiver and prospective applications of the electromotograph principle to machine bearings, the Atlantic cable, and stethoscopes. The accompanying engraving of the receiver had been published by Scientific American in its 26 April issue (“Edison’s Electro-Chemical Telephone,” Sci. Am. 40 [1879]: 260).

7. Figure labels are “LINE,” “Bat.,” “Transmitter,” and “X 12 cell battery.” There is no evidence about the development of this particular battery. On 9 May Batchelor made repeated galvanometer measurements with a “10 couple Leclanche” battery; between then and 5 June, he and George Carman tested almost two dozen different batteries, having some of them ring call bells hundreds of times over many hours. Batchelor instructed the laboratory shop to make “65 10 cell batteries for new receiver order” on 23 May. N-78-11-28:154 – 214, Lab. (TAEM 29: 97 – 127; TAED N001:79 – 109); Cat. 1304:51 – 52, 56, Cat. 1308:147 (Order No. 168), Batchelor (TAEM 91:50 – 51, 55; 90:740; TAED MBN004: 48 – 49, 53; MBN003:47).

8. This arrangement was completed on or before 1 May, when Batchelor made several related drawings, including one of “connections for each station when worked with Central Station.” The same day he also sketched the locations of the connections in each telephone set. Edison’s notation on this latter page indicates that the call bell, induction coil, key, switch and binding post were to be made by Western Electric, and the transmitter itself by Sigmund Bergmann’s shop. N-79-03-25:85, 90 – 95, 99, Lab. ( TAEM 32:182, 185 – 87, 189; TAED N034:43, 46 – 48, 50); Cat. 1304:47, Batchelor (TAEM 91:46; TAED MBN004:44).

9. On Edison’s rationale for a constant battery current over the line to each receiver, see Doc. 1693. Batchelor made more distinct drawings on 1 May of these connections from “Central Station battery.” N-79-03-25: 95, Lab. (TAEM 32:187; TAED N034:48); Cat. 1304:47, Batchelor (TAEM 91:46; TAED MBN004:44).

10. See Doc. 1660.

11. English editions of Count Theodose du Moncel’s 1878 book, Le Telephone, le Microphone, et la Phonographe, were separately published in 1879 in London and New York; the two versions were not identical (du Moncel 1879b, 1879c).

12. The New York Herald reported that Adams had died in Paris on 4 May, at age thirty-three. It stated that he had left his native ScotlandPage 222 as a youth and principally made his living at sea for fourteen years until beginning his association with Edison. “James Adams,” New York Herald, 6 May 1879, Cat.1241, item 1186, Batchelor ( TAEM 94:483; TAED MBSB21186).

1. Doc. 1722.

2. See Doc. 1727 n. 2.

3. See Docs. 1727 n. 2 and 1749.

4. Press accounts from the previous year reported that Menlo Park at that time was “composed wholly of Edison’s laboratory and half a dozen houses where his employes live” (Doc. 1277). Other sources refer to an inn, a tavern, and a store in the village. “The Tally-Ho’s Journey,” New York World, 5 May 1878, Cat. 1240, item 582; “A Night with Edison,” Scribner’s Monthly, Nov. 1878, p. 95, Cat. 1241, item 973; both Batchelor (TAEM 94:194, 390; TAED MBSB10582X, MBSB20973X); Jehl 1937 – 41, 1:25 – 28, 285, 3:1121 – 22.

1. Not found.

2. Edson had written to Edison on 1 May informing him that he and Hamilton Twombly, possibly accompanied by James Banker, were planning to come to Menlo Park on 3 May and that he would bring the new receiver contract at that time. As Edson requested Edison replied the following day by telegram that they could come out. The agreement between Edison and Western Union assigned the electromotograph receiver to the company in exchange for a royalty of one dollar per year for each receiver put into use up to the amount of $3,000. The contract specified that the receiver would be “at least six times louder than any electro-magnetic receiver now in use. . . . be as simple and durable and not more expensive to construct than the best magnetic receivers now in use,” and would work with Edison’s carbon transmitter. On 21 May, George Walker wrote Edison to ask “when are we to have your wonderful receiver? . . . There are a great many inquiries about it & we want it here as soon as possible.” He also informed Edison that the contract executed by Western Union had been sent him several days previously. The contract was dated 12 May and signed by company president Norvin Green; a copy is in Miller (TAEM 86:11; TAED HM790061). Edson to TAE, 1 May 1879; TAE to Edson, 2 May 1879; George Walker to TAE, 21 May 1879; all DF (TAEM 52:37 – 38, 56; TAED D7937ZAC, D7937ZAD, D7937ZAW).

3. Clarence Cary, a Western Union attorney, headed the company’s Claim and Legal Bureau. Reid 1879, 560.

4. See Doc. 1731 n. 6.

5. Francis Blake had been for many years an officer in the United States Coast Survey where he had been involved in the electrical determination of longitudes. In the summer of 1878 he devised what became known as the Blake transmitter; he filed a patent application for this design on 3 January 1879. This was a form of inertia transmitter with twoPage 224 spring-mounted electrodes—a platinum bead and a carbon disk—that remained in contact with each other while being vibrated by the diaphragm. This arrangement eliminated the need for frequent adjustment of the pressure on the carbon button and also reduced the mechanical vibration from the transmitter mounting. After Emile Berliner made several improvements to this design, most notably by substituting a harder carbon disk, it was used extensively by the American Bell Telephone Co. Edward Johnson had tested the Blake instrument in April and reported to Edison that it did not produce “the natural tone of the Edison proper or the Bell magneto” but “only a pure vibration when its low— It’s horrible when loud.” Brief for Francis Blake, 338; Blake’s Patent Specification; both TI (TAEM 11:850, 935; TAED TI4:76, TI6540); ANB, s.v. “Blake, Francis”; “The Blake Transmitter,” Sci. Am. 41 (1879): 274; Wile 1974, appendix 2; Fagen 1975, 70 – 71; King 1962b, 330; Prescott 1972 [1884], 368 – 70; Johnson to TAE, 19 Apr. 1879, DF (TAEM 49:211; TAED D7903ZDI).

The patent model was probably for Edison’s patent application Case 178, which he filed on 2 June 1879. This application was subsequently placed in interference with Blake’s 3 January 1879 application (see Doc. 1792). When Edson wrote again on 27 May that he thought it “of great importance that you press your application for your Patent on the ‘Blake’ and the ‘Fitch’ Transmitting Models,” Edison noted on the letter that “Blake & Fitch cant come out till theres an interference then I will have pat Blake have none & Fitch annulled.” Two days later Edison, apparently in reference to this application, wired Lemuel Serrell to “Hurry up last telephone case should be in office immediately to stop another application.” During his testimony in the interference proceeding Edison testified that he had made an instrument like that shown in Case 178 in September 1877 and he produced both an instrument and a sketch from October 1877 of a modification of this design. Edson to TAE, 27 May 1879; TAE to Serrell, 29 May 1879; both DF (TAEM 49:246, 51:496; TAED D7903ZEI, D7929ZCI); Edison’s Patent Specification Case 178; Edison’s testimony, 12 – 13, 16 – 17; both TI (TAEM 11:985, 1002, 1004; TAED TI7:8, 25, 27).

6. Edison is probably referring to the subject of Telephone Interference No. 1 between his Case 141 (filed 20 July 1877, which was later divided and issued as U.S. Patents 474,231 and 474,232) and Francis Blake’s 3 January 1879 application. Edison claimed to have reduced this design to practice by 5 March 1877. Brief in Behalf of Thomas A. Edison, 19, 26 – 35, Miscellaneous Interferences, TI (TAEM 11:870, 874 – 78; TAED TI5:18, 22 – 26).

1. Conrad Cooke was an engineer known at this time chiefly as the author of an Engineering article describing the first demonstration of the Bell telephone in Britain in 1876. Cooke had also designed an electric light system for the clock tower of the Parliament buildings and later helped introduce incandescent gas lighting in London. A frequent contributor to Engineering, he co-authored the first volume of Dredge 1882 – 85. Obituary, Teleg. J. and Elec. Rev. 98 (1926): 109; Obituary, Journal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers 66 (1926): 1203.

2. Sir John Lubbock was a member of Parliament and a prominent banker. He was also a noted entomologist and member of the Royal Society. DNB, s.v. “Lubbock, Sir John.”

3. Not found.

4. White’s letter to the editor of the Times described the widespreadPage 226 adoption of the telephone in American cities and extolled the benefits of the exchange system for British life and commerce. In a lengthy editorial comment the same day, the Times cautiously endorsed White’s optimistic outlook and expressed its hope that Parliament would not readily grant telephone monopolies to private companies. “The Economics of the Telephone” and untitled editorial, Times (London), 10 May 1879, 6 and 11.

5. News of difficulties involving Charley reached Edison on 6 May, when Gouraud telegraphed from New York that White had cabled him “implying that Charley is giving trouble Please cable him immediately to implicitly obey White.” Edison may have done so; Charley wired from London on 9 May that he had returned from two days in Paris and would “run things smoothly” in the wake of Adams’s death but that White was “exasperated.” Edison did cable his nephew on 12 May to “Return here immediately.” Charley protested that his recall was “premature some misrepresentation await explanatory letters enroute [Prof. William] Barrett upholds me” (Gouraud to TAE, 6 May 1879; Charles Edison to TAE, 9 and 13 May 1879; TAE to Charles Edison, 12 May; all DF [TAEM 52:533, 535, 537, 536; TAED D7941ZAD, D7941ZAF, D7941ZAK, D7941ZAI]). Those letters have not been found, but a few days later Charley sent a detailed defense of his recent actions:

The only reason that I can attribute for your cable is that Mr White, as I have heard from outside parties also, has conveyed to you the idea that when I left London for Paris I deserted the telephone in England. I wish it distinctly understood I did not. Had no such intentions, notified Mr White twice by cable that I would be in London the day before the Prince of Wales exhibition he knowing I was in London & waiting for him at Lombard St nevertheless he took the instruments and put them in other people’s hands, thereby giving me no chance whatsoever. now if he persists that in saying that I deserted the telephone, I will leave it to your good reason to judge for yourself It is plain for me to understand the course taken by Mr White as I have seen enough of this man since Gouraud left to be convinced that he is a perfect failure in his position, and if I had went on and done everything he wanted me to do there would have been reports of some discouraging reports of the telephone. [Charles Edison to TAE, 15 May 1879, DF (TAEM 52:546; TAED D7941ZAR)]

6. This refers to a purported September 1878 agreement between George Gouraud and William Butcher concerning the use of Edison’s telephone on railroads and in factories. Gouraud and Edison repudiated the contract over the summer and took steps to indemnify the company from claims based on it; Butcher was jailed on forgery charges. Gouraud to Edward Bouverie, 14 July 1879; TAE agreement with Bouverie, 1 Aug. 1879; Renshaw & Renshaw to Gouraud, 20 Sept. 1879; all DF (TAEM 52:616, 648, 800; TAED D7941ZCU, D7941ZDF, D7941ZFV).

7. Not found.

8. Arnold Henry White was a London journalist who contributed to a number of newspapers and magazines. He was apparently recommended to George Gouraud by William Barrett and became manager ofPage 227 the Edison Telephone Co. of London. White later stood for Parliamentary elections several times and achieved considerable recognition as an outspoken proponent of eugenic principles. Charles Edison to TAE, 15 May 1879, DF (TAEM 52:546; TAED D7941ZAR); Searle 1976, 118.

1. Dillwyn Parrish, a London merchant, was the largest investor in the Edison Telephone Co. of London, Ltd. Edison Telephone Co. of London list of stockholders, 28 June 1879, DF (TAEM 52:603; TAED D7941ZCK).

2. Much of the cable correspondence regarding Edison’s telephone in England was addressed or signed in code. This is the only known use of the “Brunswick” cipher; the Edison Telephone Co. of London was designated as “Quephone.” Gouraud’s secretary transcribed the signatures on the reply to this cable as “Parrish White,” which suggests that “Brunswick” was registered in both their names on the company’s behalf. Copy of Dillwyn Parrish and Arnold White to Gouraud, 17 May 1879, appended to Gouraud to TAE, 17 May 1879, DF ( TAEM 52:553; TAED D7941ZAU).

3. Earlier in the day Gouraud had telegraphed Edison from New York, “London negotiations closed I am on five fifteen train with contract.” The provisional agreement signed this day provided for the formation of the Edison Telephone Co. of London, Ltd. Neither this version of the agreement nor Gouraud’s cable has been found. Two days later Gouraud wrote Edison that he had received a reply from London advising him to “Consider the matter finally settled.” The agreement was modified after Gouraud’s return to England and finally executed in London on 14 July (see Doc. 1765). The company was capitalized at £200,000 in 2,000 shares. The contract assigned Edison a 20% royalty on each telephone sold or leased by the company, with an advance of £5,000. On 24 May, William Carman recorded the payment from Gouraud of $24,500 (equivalent to £5,000) for Edison’s advance, which was to have been contingent upon assignment of patents to the company and completion of the first 50 of 500 telephones. A copy of the receipt for this advance was written on the cover of an undated printed copy of the contract. Gouraud to TAE, 15 and 17 May 1879; Agreement with Edward Bouverie, 14 July 1879; Agreement with Edison Telephone Co. of London, Ltd., n.d.; all DF (TAEM 52:544, 553, 617, 1046; TAED Page 228 D7941ZAP, D7941ZAU, D7941ZCV, D7941ZKV); Ledger #3:397, Accts. (TAEM 87:165; TAED AB001:159).

4. Gouraud had reported to Edison the day before that he was pressing Arnold White to complete the negotiations and had “concluded that by cabling them [the London investors] that I had ordered 50 instruments which are soon to be finished & fwd quite independently of any negotiations they are having that it wd give confidence in the belief that the definite instruments are not a myth.” Edison drafted a reply stating that “Its all nonsense to talk about 50 instruments by 21st= it will be about the 28 or 30th= Again these instruments should be all put up or at least a part in a system here & to do that we have to make switchboards indicators batteries etc.” The laboratory shop was instructed on 15 May to make “65 Complete Telephones” but this was probably superceded by Charles Batchelor’s orders on 23 May for the construction of “central station switch complete for 50 fifty subscribers with 12 exchange strips as per sketch” and “65 new Edison Telephones complete for Central Station system.” Edison received fifty telephone boxes from Sigmund Bergmann by 31 May and on 2 June he wired Bergmann to “make up the complete supply for sixty five Telephones.” Several of the instruments were damaged in transit to London. Gouraud to TAE, 14 May 1879; TAE to Gouraud, 15 May 1879; both DF (TAEM 52:541, 543; TAED D7941ZAN, D7941ZAO); Cat. 1308:145 – 49 (Order Nos. 160, 168 – 172), Batchelor (TAEM 90:739 – 41; TAED MBN003:46 – 48); Bergmann to TAE, 31 May 1879; TAE to Bergmann, 2 June; both DF (TAEM 52:62, 63; TAED D7937ZBB, D7937ZBC).

5. The contract permitted the formation of independent Edison companies to operate in Parliamentary boroughs or postal districts outside London’s East Central Postal District. These firms were to lease or buy telephones from the London company, to which Edison would give 10% of the royalties he received. Agreement with Edward Bouverie, 14 July 1879, DF (TAEM 52:617; TAED D7941ZCV); see Doc. 1765.

1. On 23 May, Edison paid for half of the £1,000 worth of shares in the Edison Telephone Co. of London to which Gouraud was required to subscribe. The same day he signed a power of attorney that nominated Gouraud to the company’s board of directors and gave him voting power for Edison’s shares. Edison also agreed to give Gouraud first option to buy any of his shares. Gouraud’s receipt, 23 May 1879, DF (TAEM 52:560; TAED D7941ZAX); Power of Attorney, 24 May 1879, Miller (TAEM 86:23; TAED HM790067).

2. For the agreement regarding subsidiary companies see Docs. 1742 n. 5 and 1765.

3. Griffin notarized this agreement.

4. On 24 May a similar clause was also added to the 23 May power of attorney (see note 1). Power of Attorney, 24 May 1879, Miller (TAEM 86:23; TAED HM790067).

1. Established in 1754 as the Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (later the Royal Society of Arts), this was a leading institutional supporter of popular scientific, and at this time, technical education. Cardwell 1972, 75 – 76, 80 – 86, 126 – 29.

2. The previous day, Charley protested Edison’s recall order (see Doc. 1741 n. 5) and wrote that Conrad Cooke, with whom White had made arrangements for the upcoming demonstration, had approached him for assistance but “I told him that as it was I was powerless to do anything but if I could get the instruments I would do all I could to make it a success I just wrote a note to Mr White asking him for the use of the instruments for that occasion, but up to closing of Post I have nothing from him and am very anxious.” Charles Edison to TAE, 15 May 1879, DF (TAEM 52:546; TAED D7941ZAR).

3. In Charley’s stead, Conrad Cooke surveyed the history of various telephonic instruments at the Society on 21 May, giving considerable attention to the explication and demonstration of Edison’s receiver. Cooke sent Edison a copy of his lecture from the Society’s journal; he intended to republish the lecture “as a separate illustrated book” but this has not been located. Arnold White also sent Edison two press accounts of Cooke’s demonstration and excerpts of John Tyndall’s remarks and reported that “considering the worn state of the instrument its performance was remarkably good.” Cooke 1879; “The Telephone,” Teleg. J. and Elec. Rev. 7 (1879): 219; White to TAE, 22 May 1879; Cooke to TAE, 26 May 1879; both DF (TAEM 52:556, 565; TAED D7941ZAW, D7941ZBD).

1. These drawings were presented as exhibits during an 1881 patent interference hearing and then again in an 1892 court case in connection with testimony by Edison and his associates regarding work at Menlo Park on electric railways. Edison testified that while passing throughPage 233

Edison’s sketch of an electric railroad using wind power to generate the current.

Click for larger view
View full resolution

Iowa on his 1878 Western trip (see TAEB 4:375, map) “I conceived the idea that if an electric railroad could be made to operate economically it would be of great value for drawing grain to the main lines of railroad and thus extend the radius of economical grain production.” He proposed to develop a remotely controlled system suitable for “the flat of the Northwest where the winds continually sweep over them, and I thought that I could utilize those winds to run windmills which, in their turn, would give motion to dynamo machines and furnish electricity to operate the small motors and cars which I proposed to deploy.” A sketch dated 21 May shows “a station for an electric railway with a turn-out track . . . the track on trestles and a station with windmill for obtaining power with wires running from the station out to the track.” Edison recalled that he did “a great deal of studying on the subject” after his return to Menlo Park and noted that “the idea that large railroads could be operated by electricity cheaper than by steam was many times speculated upon, and figured upon, and talked over in the laboratory, but at that date the knowledge in the art was not sufficiently advanced to permit us to see our way clear to displace steam on a large railroad.” Edison’s testimony, 74, 99, Edison v. Siemens v. Field; Edison’s Exhibit No. 6, Edison’s testimony, 497 – 99, Electric Railway Co. of U.S. v. Jamaica and Brooklyn Road Co.; both Lit. (TAEM 46:42, 54; 115:829, 752, 783 – 84; TAED QD001:38, 50; QE001:93, 47 – 8).

Edison testified that the first of these drawings represented “a dynamo machine driven by belting, and a motor with a governor connected to it for governing the speed” and that the “words ‘reversible commutator’ refer to reversing the position of the brushes on the commutator, so as to permit the motor running in either direction.” The governor, designed to be placed on top of the motor, functioned by opening the circuit when its speed exceeded a certain limit, necessary in the absence of a train crew; the circuit could be entirely opened with the “open the circuit lever,” C. John Kruesi identified D as “a device for reducing thePage 234 sparking at the breaking of the circuit.” It was designed to interrupt the circuit simultaneously at a number of points, each of which would have lower voltage and produce a smaller spark than the circuit as a whole. Edison recalled that sometime prior to making these drawings they had tested a device based on this principle but in which “the levers of several sounders were used in place of the spring contacts”; this worked “satisfactorily.” Edison articulated the principle behind multiple-contact circuit breakers and described another such device for reducing sparking in the British provisional specification he had drafted around the beginning of May (Doc. 1735). In at least some designs of this system, copper conductors parallel to the rails carried current to the locomotive. Edison’s and Kruesi’s testimony, 497, 45, 51, Electric Railway Co. of U.S. v. Jamaica and Brooklyn Road Co.; Edison’s testimony, 78, Edison v. Siemens v. Field; both Lit. (TAEM 115:783, 758, 761; 46:44; TAED QE001:47, 22, 25; QD001:40).

John Kruesi’s measured drawings of 18 May show the construction of the trestle at a scale of 1 inch per foot. At right the motor car is pulling a freight car; at left the motor car (labeled “E.E.T. No. 1”) is shown with its governor visible at the upper right.

Click for larger view
View full resolution

2. Edison identified these drawings as “a form of governor; a part of a trestle which I proposed to put the track on; also a locomotive drawing a car . . . [and] a section of trestle which I proposed to mount the rails on.” He testified that “we made several models of the trestle work which we proposed to employ on these little wheat railroads. I also remember trying to get money for the erection of an experimental railroad at Menlo Park, but did not succeed.” The trestles were to elevate the tramway so cattle would not interfere with its automatic operation. Edison’s testimony, 497, 499, Electric Railway Co. of U.S. v. Jamaica and Brooklyn Road Co., Lit. (TAEM 115:783 – 84; TAED QE001:47 – 48).

On 16 May John Kruesi drew a cross section of a trestle with two braces, carrying an Edison electric locomotive with governor and estimated the cost of materials for an unknown length of this type of trestle, as well as one of a Y-construction (N-79-04-09:70 – 5, Lab. [TAEM 32:1078 – 80; TAED N045:32 – 34]). The former design was rejected as “Too costly,” although a nearly identical structure was drawn on 25 May (Vol. 16:435, Lab. [TAEM 4:870; TAED NV16:391]). Kruesi testified that around 25 May he had made several models of trestles as well as a full-scale trestle at Menlo Park (Edison v. Siemens v. Field, 42 – 43, Lit. [ TAEM 46:26; TAED QD001:22]). Related drawings of the trestle and locomotive were submitted as Exhibits 8, 10 – 11 in Electric Railway Co. of U.S. v. Jamaica and Brooklyn Road Co., Lit. (TAEM 115:831 – 33; TAED QE001:96 – 98); an estimate of capital expenses was included in Exhibit No. 9 (Lit. [TAEM 115:831; TAED QE001:96]).

3. This figure may be related to the cost for a section of trestle.Page 235

4. The meaning of “1250” is unclear. The following drawing shows “dynamos connected to the track in sections with a reversing switch for reversing the direction of the current on any particular section.” Edison explained separately that “the wires connected to the dynamo system on the left is a circuit reversing switch, whereby the direction of the flow of the current in a certain section of the track near the station may be changed. The system of dynamos on the right was connected to another section of the track, and provided with a circuit reversing lever as implied by the words ‘same here.’” Edison testified that he proposed two methods for reversing the direction of the locomotive: “one reversing the direction of the flow of the current through the bobbin, the other the reversing of the commutator brushes.” Dynamo stations were to be located at seven to ten mile intervals along the line. In some designs of this system copper conductors parallel to the rails carried current to the locomotive while in others the rails themselves were electrified by means of copper strips placed beneath the fish plate connecting the rails; the wheels would have their rims insulated from the hub. The system was designed to operate with a minimal workforce and Edison proposed “the use of a telephone between two stations, a part of the circuit being formed by the electric railway track” to enable “the attendants of the stations to communicate with each other, to run trains, or to govern trains from the stations without having anybody on the trains.” Edison’s and Kruesi’s testimony, 78 – 81, 85, 37, Edison v. Siemens v. Field; Edison’s and Kruesi’s testimony, 497 – 98, 49 – 50; Edison’s Exhibit No. 7, Electric Railway Co. of U.S. v. Jamaica and Brooklyn Road Co.; both Lit. (TAEM 46:44 – 45, 47, 23; 115:783 – 84, 760 – 61, 830; TAED QD001:40 – 1, 43, 19; QE001:47 – 48, 24 – 5, 94).

1. Scientific American noted in a 26 April article about Edison’s receiver that “no one who has heard this new telephone can fail to have been astonished at its clear, articulate, and loud tones; it might appropriately be called ‘The Shouting Telephone,’ for its ‘voice’ is louder than that of any ordinary speaker. . . . Where it is in use it is of course unnecessary to go at all near the instrument, for it may be fixed against the wall of an office, and its messages heard at any part of the room spoken in a loud clear tone.” “Edison’s Electro-Chemical Telephone,” Sci. Am. 40 (1879): 260.

1. Edison filed an application covering underground conductors and junction boxes on 7 July (Case 179) that was rejected and subsequently abandoned; only two figures and the claims survive. Edison claimed metallic tubes and junction boxes insulated with a non-conducting substance such as hard rubber, and “the pulleys and cords for passing the conductors through such tubes.” Patent Application Casebook E-2536: 34, PS ( TAEM 45:701; TAED PT020034).Page 237

2. Figure labels (written by John Kruesi) are “1 ¼ pipe,” “3 ⅛ pipe,” and “2.” Kruesi made the measured drawing for the model the same day. He recorded the order in the laboratory order book on 31 May; it is unclear when George Jackson completed the model. Vol. 16:390 and Machine Shop Drawings (1879 – 1880), Lab. (TAEM 4:823, 45:67; TAED NV16:345, NS7986CAS); Cat. 1308:149 (Order No. 178), Batchelor (TAEM 90:741; TAED MBN003:48).

3. Kruesi probably meant gasket.

4. Machinist George Jackson, who may have worked briefly for Edison and Murray in 1875, had been working at Menlo Park since June 1878. See TAEB 4:414 n. 10.

1. Not found. To bulldoze was to intimidate or coerce; a bulldozer was a bully or thug. Lighter 1994 – 97, s.v. “Bulldoze,” “Bulldozer.”

2. Johnson was to be Edison’s chief engineer for the commercialization of telephones in England. He telegraphed Edison on 13 May, presumably referring to his wife, “She consents ergo I go unless the company veto.” Edison wired George Gouraud two days later that he had “got you the best telephone man in country who will go for 2 months for $1000, taking a man with him who he will leave in charge on his return” (Johnson to TAE, 13 May 1879; TAE to Gouraud, 15 May 1879; both DF [TAEM 52:537, 543; TAED D7941ZAL, D7941ZAO]). The “opposition” apparently involved the Edison Speaking Phonograph Co. On 13 May Painter wrote concerning a meeting that he expected Johnson to call of the company’s shareholders, cautioning him that “There is some trap Cheever is setting for you— I oppose either Cheever or [Hilborne] Roosevelt getting any figures or information of any kind from the Co while they are in opposition to us & backing [Oliver] Russell.” Charles Cheever had been the phonograph company’s first treasurer; at this time Painter and Gardiner Hubbard were trying to recover thousands of dollars they alleged he and fellow shareholder Hilborne Roosevelt had misappropriated (Painter to Johnson, 13 May 1879, ESP Scraps. 11:80; Hubbard to Cheever, 28 May 1879; Hubbard to Painter, 28 May 1879; Hubbard to H. Roosevelt, 28 May 1879; Painter to Cheever, 7 and 13 June 1879; all ESP Treasurer’s Lbk. [Nov. 1878 – July 1879], 632 – 35, 667, 671). Hubbard also argued that Johnson had capably filled in when Edison broke his pledge to give his personal attention to perfecting the phonograph, and was now indispensable to the company. He wrote Johnson that “If you now leave us part of the money we have paid you will have been worse than wasted, for we must employ other parties to learn what you have been taught at our expense.” He urged him to “state to Mr Edison my view of the case that you cannot for his benefit honorably leave us at the present time, & that he has no right to ask anything of this kind of you” (Hubbard to Johnson, 28 May 1879, ESP Treasurer’s Lbk. [Nov. 1878 – July 1879], 628).

Presumably about this time Edison wired Johnson in New York, “As there is such a row I advise that you stay Have sent for Louderback and will send man from here as assistant.” Edison had asked Henry Bentley in Philadelphia his opinion of De Lancy Louderback, a former operator now the eastern sales agent for Western Electric (see TAEB 4:107 n. 2), who had inquired earlier about the job, and Bentley gave an enthusiastic reply. However, Louderback declined the job on 30 May and Edison wired Gouraud in New York two hours later: “Will not be able to get expert Johnson withdraws” (TAE to Johnson, n.d. May 1879; TAE to Bentley, n.d. May 1879; Bentley to TAE, n.d. May 1879; Louderback to TAE, 17 and 30 May 1879; TAE to Gouraud, 30 May 1879; all DF [TAEM 52:571, 570, 555, 569; TAED D7941ZBM, D7941ZBK, D7941ZBL, D7941ZAV, D7941ZBH, D7941ZBI]). Edison then made an offer to Charles Walton, a Gold and Stock Telegraph Co. employee, but quickly rescinded it after receiving unflattering information, apparentlyPage 239 regarding Walton’s sobriety and the nature of his duties (Walton to TAE, 4 and 9 June 1879, DF [TAEM 52:573, 585; TAED D7941ZBN, D7941ZBX]; TAE to Walton, 9 June 1879, Lbk. 4:384 [TAEM 80:84; TAED LB004384]). Francis Upton wrote his father on 1 June that Edison was seeking “a good business man who understands a little about electricity, and who has a record of having managed something well” but was finding “very few who will leave this country for England to take charge of an enterprise which must be of necessity somewhat risky being entirely new and almost untried” (Upton to Elijah Upton, 1 June 1879, Upton [TAEM 95:532; TAED MU016]).

3. Edison’s original offer to Johnson evidently was for the English telephone company to pay him $300 per month with a 5% royalty. Gouraud termed this “a liberal proposition” and feared that the company “will be subject to criticism” for increasing it. He promised that Johnson would “have a fair opening for his talents but shd not be over persuaded to go.” Gouraud nevertheless accepted Johnson’s terms and Edison drafted and signed a memorandum of agreement embodying them on 11 June, the day Gouraud departed New York for England. This agreement was for one year and otherwise incorporated the provisions above. It granted Johnson royalties created by negotiations completed within sixty days of the end of his employment and also provided for a $500 advance to provide passage for his family, which Gouraud paid immediately. Johnson subsequently signed a contract with the telephone company which set his salary at £100 per month (about $500) but made no mention of royalties. Gouraud to TAE, 24 May and 11 June 1879; Johnson agreement with Telephone Co. of London, Ltd., 24 Sept. 1879; all DF (TAEM 52:562, 591, 742; TAED D7941ZAZ, D7941ZCB, D7941ZEM); TAE agreement with Gouraud and Johnson, 11 June 1879, Miller (TAEM 86:28; TAED HM790069).

4. Johnson had been chief assistant to William Jackson Palmer in the survey of a rail line to the Pacific through New Mexico and Arizona in 1867 – 1868. As an indirect result of this survey Palmer also made plans for a line from Colorado to Mexico and subsequently organized the Denver & Rio Grande to develop this route. Johnson assisted in the early stages of its construction before Palmer dispatched him to the Automatic Telegraph Co. in New York. At this time Palmer was president of the Denver & Rio Grande, a successful developer of coal and iron mines in Colorado and Utah, and a founder of Colorado Springs. ANB, s.v. “Palmer, William Jackson”; NCAB 33:475, 23:399.

1. See Docs. 1738 n. 8 and 1742 n. 4. Edison’s switchboard system is described in a British provisional patent specification filed on 20 September 1879 (Brit. Pat. 3,794 [1879], Batchelor [TAEM 92:129; TAED MBP018]). The system consisted of a grid of horizontal and vertical metal bars, with the upright members wired to subscribers’ telephones. When alerted by an annunciator to an incoming call, the attendant could insert pins at appropriate junctions in the grid to make electrical connections from any upright to the operator’s telephone and, after learning the caller’s wish, to any other subscriber’s bar.

There is scant evidence for the development of the switchboard prior to this. John Kruesi’s 25 March measured drawing of vertical and horizontal bars for one to be built for Edison’s new office appears to embody the essential design. On 13 May Edison drew schematically the switchboard frame and wiring and also sketched in more detail the wiring in a representative segment of the switchboard and a detail of the frame’s construction. Charles Batchelor drew additional details on 19 May, including signaling apparatus for identifying incoming calls to the switchboard attendant. Machine Shop Drawings (1879 – 1880); N-79-04-09:25 – 27, 33; N-79-02-10:165; all Lab. (TAEM 45:57; 32:1058 – 59, 1062, 1221; TAED NS7986C:21, N045:12 – 13, 16; N046:81).

2. See Doc. 1740 n. 5.

3. This apparently refers to the thirty generators that Edison planned to make for the demonstration central station at Menlo Park. See Docs. 1727 n. 1 and 1739.

4. “Your six” apparently refers to a standing request for telephones with the electromotograph receiver for Gold and Stock. On 21 May, George Walker wrote Edison about the “wonderful receiver,” stating that “there are a great many inquiries about it & we want it here as soon as possible.” He asked if one could be ready by 1 June for use by a professor at Cornell. Edison replied the following day that he would “in all human probability deliver you six new Telephones complete before the 3d of June.” Walker to TAE, 21 May 1879, DF (TAEM 52:56; TAED D7937ZAW); TAE to Walker, 22 May 1879, Lbk. 4:342 (TAEM 80:76; TAED LB004342B).

5. Hamilton McKown Twombly was an investor and manager in many companies, primarily in the railroad industry. The son-in-law of William H.Vanderbilt, Twombly served on Western Union’s Executive Committee and at this time was in charge of its telephone business.Page 241

Edison’s 13 May drawing of his switchboard system.

Click for larger view
View full resolution

Twombly’s middle name was often abbreviated as “McK.” and he was often referred to as “Hamilton McKay Twombly.” See TAEB 4:253 n. 8.

6. Twombly’s prior inquiry has not been found. On 6 May, Edison wired Twombly that the “Brooks patent may not hold” and, at the least, a “broad claim cannot be taken on liquid insulator” by David Brooks. Brooks was a distinguished inventor and engineer who held several patents (the most recent issued in December 1878) for insulating underground lines with oil (see TAEB 2:466 n. 8). Tracy Edson wrote Edison on 27 May that although Western Union now indirectly controlled the Brooks patents he thought it “important that you should perfect your new plan as soon as possible.” Edison filed a patent application (Case 179) on 7 July for insulated underground conductors and junction boxes (see Doc. 1747); it was rejected partly on the basis of an 1875 patent held by Brooks (U.S. Pat. 165,535). TAE to Twombly; 6 May 1879; Edson to TAE, 27 May 1879; Lemuel Serrell to TAE, 19 July 1879; all DF (TAEM 49:224, 246; 51:534; TAED D7903ZDP, D7903ZEI, D7929ZDK); Patent Application Casebook E-2536:34, PSPage 242 (TAEM 45:701; TAED PT020034); on Western Union and the Brooks underground cable system see Israel 1992, 144 – 45.

1. Probably John Fallon, employed in an unknown capacity by the Everett Mills in Lawrence. Everett advertised a few years later that it employed more than 1,000 looms and a similar number of workers in producing 200,000 yards of cloth each week. The Lawrence Directory 1883, 111, 422.

2. The mills of Lawrence, Mass., had expanded greatly during the Civil War, making the city one of the world’s leading textile centers by this time (Cameron 1993, 1 – 29). On 19 May, Upton had written Edison from his hometown of Peabody, about 15 miles distant, that “the agent of the largest mill in Lawrence says that his gas bill for one month last winter was $30,000 (thirty thousand dollars) and that he would be glad to have your light tried in his mill.” Upton suggested that on Friday, 23

May, he should “visit Lawrence and Lowell and make such inquiries as may be of value regarding the probable cost of a plant. As we can now at this date beat gas for lighting a mill I think it worth while to glance at the chance.” Upton wrote again the same day that although he had been mistaken and the figure of $30,000 referred to an entire year, “still that is a sum worth asking about.” DF (TAEM 50:63, 65; TAED D7919ZAP, D7919ZAQ).

3. See Doc. 1706.

4. On 26 May, Edison ordered from Bernard Quaritch, a London book dealer, sets of seventeen periodicals and reports encompassing nearly 500 individual volumes. Most were journals of (chiefly British) scientific and technical societies. This order was evidently prepared from Quaritch’s inventory and price sheet; the legible prices on Edison’s copy of the order total approximately £140, the equivalent of about $700. The same day, Edison requested seven books about mineralogy and mining in the Americas from the Scientific Publishing Co. in New York. Lbk. 4:350, 358 (TAEM 80:79 – 80; TAED LB004350, LB004358).

5. Like several other laboratory employees, Upton lived at the boarding house in Menlo Park operated by Sarah Jordan, a stepdaughter of Mary Edison’s father (Jehl 1937 – 41, 512; TAEB 4:538). There is no record of a large sum given to Mary around this time.

6. Scribner’s Monthly Magazine tried at the end of March to have Edison sit for a Mr. Chase, a New York artist, but nothing seems to have come of this. On 16 May, the magazine wrote a letter of introduction for Francis Lathrop to Edison, which Lathrop enclosed with his own letter the next day. Lathrop was a noted portraitist and muralist who had painted several panels in the chapel of Bowdoin College, Upton’s alma mater, in Brunswick, Maine. Scribner’s published an engraving made from his portrait with Edwin Fox’s article on “Edison’s System of Fast Telegraphy” in its October 1879 issue (18:840). On 25 May Alexander Graham Bell replied to a request from Edison (not found) “for my photograph for the Editor of Scribner’s Monthly.” Bell declined, citing his “very great personal objection to having my photograph published.” Scribner’s to TAE, 27 Mar. and 16 May 1879; Lathrop to TAE, 17 May 1879; Bell to TAE, 25 May 1879; all DF (TAEM 49:691, 701, 700, 238; TAED D7906ZAB, D7906ZAH, D7906ZAG, D7903ZEC); ANB, s.v. “Lathrop, Francis Augustus.”

1. Edison wrote his reply on Stockton Griffin’s transcription of Bailey’s cable, which differs slightly from the above text. DF (TAEM 52:288; TAED D7940ZAE).

2. The assignment of patents is Doc. 1731 (see esp. n. 7). The 1877 contract granted Puskas rights in specified European countries and also any foreign country (except Canada and Great Britain) in which he paid patent fees on Edison’s behalf (see TAEB 4:678 n. 5). Edison agreed to correct the error in the release and wrote to Bailey to ask that he or Puskas prepare an appropriate contract “for my signature and for execution” (TAE to Bailey, 11 June 1879, Lbk. 4:390 [TAEM 80:85; TAED LB004390]).

3. It is not clear what “preliminary payments” Edison was to receive. In his 11 June reply to Bailey (see note 2), Edison consented “to all the other propositions as contained in your letter.”

4. Edison promised in his 11 June letter (see note 2) that he would “have the stock issued to Mr Puskas Brother as requested and will explain the reason to the other gentlemen concerned. The stock has not been issued yet, I have just written Mr Banker in regard to it.” Puskas’s business in Colorado was likely related to his earlier involvement in gold mining there and the reported appropriation of his tract by claimjumpers. Gábor 1993, 43 – 5.Page 246

5. Sir William Thomson (later Lord Kelvin), a professor of natural philosophy at Glasgow University and one of the world’s foremost contemporary physicists and electrical engineers, was among the experts who appeared before a House of Commons Select Committee investigating the practicality of electric lighting ( DSB, s.v. “Thomson, William”). On 23 May, Thomson testified enthusiastically about the advantages of electric light and power and predicted that they would soon be used widely in homes and other confined spaces. Nature published a lengthy excerpt of a report on what it termed Thomson’s “fanatical view of the electric light” in its 29 May issue and the Journal of Gas Lighting, Water Supply, & Sanitary Improvement also printed a critical account on 24 June. Portions of the transcript of his testimony were later entered into evidence in Edison Electric Light Co. v. U.S. Electric Lighting Co. “Notes,” Nature, 20:110 – 11; “The Select Committee on the Electric Light,” Journal of Gas Lighting, Water Supply, & Sanitary Improvement, Cat. 1012:86, Scraps. (TAEM 23:564; TAED SM012086c); Edison Electric Light Co. v. U.S. Electric Lighting Co., p. 4118, Lit. ( TAEM 48:569; TAED QD012G:75).

6. Unidentified.

7. Unidentified.

1. This concerns Edison’s arrangements with both George Gouraud and Drexel, Morgan & Co. for the electric light in Britain (see Docs. 1649, 1711). On the afternoon of 9 May, Gouraud telegraphed Edison from New York to ask if he might visit Menlo Park the next day. A few minutes later, George Soren, a partner in Lowrey’s firm, wired: “Will it not be prudent to delay settling or talking interests with London visitor till Lowrey returns He will be here Tuesday” (13 May). Edison promised in reply the same day, “will do nothing with him on Light until Lowrey returns.” Gouraud wrote on 10 May that he could not keep hisPage 247 appointment with Edison that day but asked him to “Please wire Lowrey to show me Drexel Morgan agreement Light Pats for England if you see no objection.” Two days later, Edison advised him “Do not come today will be away. Cannot do anything with Contract until Lowrey returns.” DF (TAEM 52:535 – 36, 50:326, 49:226; TAED D7941ZAG, D7941ZAJ, D7922D, D7903ZDR).

On 2 June Soren inquired if Edison wished him to “draw the agreement between yourself & Col Gouraud which was spoken of at Drexel M & Co. the other day.” He indicated that he had reviewed Edison’s contract with Drexel, Morgan “to see what modification of it is necessary in respect to your arrangement with G.; & also for the purpose of drawing a mem. of the agreement of the D.M. & Co. to repay you half of what you are to give G.” but wanted “more light” before proceeding (DF [ TAEM 50:327; TAED D7922H]). In an agreement dated 9 June 1879, Edison granted Gouraud one-tenth of his net income from electric light and power patents held in Britain or obtained within five years, as compensation for prior services on behalf of the light. An unsigned copy of this agreement is in DF (TAEM 50:328; TAED D7922I).

1. William Carman recorded a payment of this amount to Curtis & Fox on 6 December 1878, during a period when Fox spent considerable time at Menlo Park writing for the New York Herald (see Docs. 1545 n. 1 and 1613). It is not clear if this is the same transaction to which Fox referredPage 248 in late January when he explained to Edison “why our firm note which is over due was not taken up in season.” Fox stated that he had been ill for some time and in his absence “at the office everything seems to go by default.” Ledger #3:71, Accts. (TAEM 87:38; TAED AB001: 32); Fox to TAE, 26 Jan. 1879, DF (TAEM 50:237; TAED D7920R).

2. George M. Curtis, a New York City judge until 1874, was tried by the state Senate in 1873 on several counts of judicial corruption, including “grossly improper conduct and scandalous and indecent language upon the bench.” He was acquitted and later served in the state Assembly. Edison had consulted Curtis about an unknown matter in 1878. “The State Legislature,” New York Times, 22 Jan. 1873, 2); Obituary, ibid., 15 May 1915, 13; TAE to Curtis, 6 Dec. 1878, DF (TAEM 16:501; TAED D7802ZZMM).

3. Colonel Thomas Buford, brother of a prominent former Confederate general, was charged with the assassination of a Kentucky appellate judge in March 1879. Buford was convicted but later re-tried and acquitted on grounds of insanity. “The Record of Murder,” New York Times, 27 Mar. 1879, 1; “Gen. Abe Buford of Kentucky,” ibid., 10 Feb. 1882, 2.

1. Edison’s advertisement for this position appeared in the New York Herald on 28 May 1879 (p. 16). He also received responses to an advertisement in the New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, a German-language daily, and corresponded with several applicants about wages. In a draft reply to a 16 July letter concerning an assay of placer mine waste sand, Edison proposed chemical treatments to remove platinum and additional gold from waste sand, noting that he had “some very smart German chemists.” Besides Moses the only German chemist that Edison is known to have had on his staff at this time was Alfred Haid, a Ph.D. analytical chemist, who began working in the laboratory by the first week of June 1879, probably replacing Henry McIntire. Two other chemists, John Lawson and C. E. Mumsell, were both American-born. Lawson had no advanced chemical training before joining Edison’s staff while Mumsell had a Ph.D. from the School of Mines at Columbia College. Mumsell may have already left the staff by this time. Otto Kretzchmer to TAE, 28 and 29 May 1879; Mr. Ertmine to TAE, 28 and 29 May 1879; George Smith to TAE, 29 May 1879; W. C. Hendricks & Co. to TAE, 16 July 1879; all DF (TAEM 49:902, 911, 906 – 7, 909; 50:938; TAED D7913Z, D7913ZAF, D7913ZAC, D7913ZAD, D7913ZAE, D7928ZHB); for Haid, see letterhead of Haid to Insull, 12 Sept. 1884, DF (TAEM 71: 262; TAED D8403ZGK); for Mumsell, see Charles Chandler to TAE, 27 Feb. 1879, DF (TAEM 49:883; TAED D7913P) and N-79-03-10.2: 25, Lab. (TAEM 31:1137; TAED N032:11); for McIntire, see TAEB 4: 749; for Lawson, see “Lawson, John W.,” Pioneers Bio.

2. After seeing the Herald advertisement, Otto Moses’s mother-in-law wrote Edison to recommend him for the job, noting that he “last summer had the pleasure of spending a few days with you” and was now preparing to move from Charleston for New York. Nothing is known of Moses’s presence at Menlo Park in 1878. Mrs. Da Vega to TAE, 28 May 1879, DF (TAEM 49:898; TAED D7913X).

3. Henry Cornwall studied at the Royal Mining Academy in Freiberg and in 1873 became professor of applied chemistry and mineralogy at Princeton (WWW – 1, s.v. “Cornwall, Henry Bedinger”). He translatedPage 250 Plattner 1875, which had been revised by Theodore Richter, from the German.

4. Charles Chandler, professor of chemistry at Columbia University, cofounded the School of Mines there in 1864. ANB, s.v. “Chandler, Charles Frederick.”

5. August Lingke & Co. manufactured a variety of instruments in Freiberg, beginning in 1791. de Clercq 1985, 132 – 33, 136.

6. Otto Moses was a native of Charleston. In addition to the training described above, he was reportedly also a graduate of the University of Leipzig. It is not known when he began to work at Menlo Park; the earliest evidence of his work at the laboratory dates from January 1880. He later served as one of Edison’s representative at the Paris Exhibition of 1881. Obituary, New York Times, 6 Jan. 1906, 9; unidentified Obituary, Cat. 1339:10, Batchelor, NjWOE; Time Sheets, NjWOE.

1. Not found.

2. See Doc. 1744.

1. The Chaudière and the Rivière du Loup are tributaries of the St. Lawrence in southeastern Quebec.

2. Frank McLaughlin was a telegrapher acquaintance of Edison’s working in New York as an electric pen agent; he had been Edison’s representative for the phonograph in Australasia in 1878 (see Doc. 1328). Edison dispatched him to Quebec on 26 May after corresponding with Edwin Pope of the Montreal Telegraph Co. about gold deposits there (Edwin Pope to TAE, 6, 13, and 15 May 1879; McLaughlin to TAE, 1 June 1879; all DF [ TAEM 50:588, 591 – 92, 614; TAED D7928F, D7928J, D7928K, D7928ZAC]). A brief description of McLaughlin’s trip and findings is in “Wanted, A Platinum Mine,” New York Sun, 7 July 1879, Cat. 1241, item 1224, Batchelor (TAEM 94:494; TAED MBSB21224X).

1. Hamilton Twombly had wired the previous day, “Have you the exchange system ready.” Edison wrote this reply on the same paper on which Twombly’s message was transcribed. Twombly to TAE, DF (TAEM 49:262; TAED D7903ZES).

2. Edison meant Patrick Kenny, a former superintendent of the Gold and Stock Telegraph Co.’s manufacturing shops, who had begun collaborating with Edison on facsimile telegraphy in the spring of 1878 and started working at the laboratory that December. See Docs. 1328 and 1638; TAEB 4:406 n. 6.Page 252

3. Apart from a patent application covering underground conductors and junction boxes (see Doc. 1747), there is no evidence of work on an underground system for electric lighting at this time.

1. Croffut’s unsigned dispatch appeared as “The Chemical Telephone” in the Indianapolis Journal on 5 July 1879 (p. 7). The article described Johnson’s demonstration of the telephones he took to England and, more briefly, Edison’s dynamo, new dynamometer, and electric light. Croffut had contributed an article on the light to this newspaper in October 1878 (see Doc. 1530).

2. Whitelaw Reid was editor of the New York Tribune, having succeeded Horace Greeley ( ANB, s.v. “Reid, Whitelaw”). Croffut apparently had moved to the Tribune from the New York Daily Graphic in recent months.

3. Probably Isaac Ford, identified as an editor at the Tribune’s address. Wilson 1879, 484.

4. On 19 June Croffut wrote Griffin that he had “asked half a dozen correspondents of prominent papers to go down to M.P. to see the new telephone” in the next day or two but had not yet received a definite invitation. Croffut promised that a demonstration for the press would give Edison “a beautiful setting up. W.R. wants me to go down for Tribune.” According to Croffut’s article in the 1 July Tribune, Edward Johnson exhibited fifty receivers, described as “the first we have finished,” which he planned to carry to England on 1 July. Edison also described his generatorPage 253 and reportedly claimed of his electric light that “it has come. I have demonstrated, to myself and to my friends, that I have accomplished all I ever expected to in this matter. . . . I claim that this solves the question.” Croffut also sent a dispatch to the London Times aboard Johnson’s ship; it was published on 15 July and reprinted elsewhere in slightly edited form three days later (see Doc. 1780 n. 13). The Daily News, probably the London paper to which Isaac Ford contributed, published a cabled account of the demonstration on 2 July; the event was also covered by the New York Herald. Croffut to Griffin, 19 June 1880; Croffut to TAE, 5 Aug. 1879; both DF (TAEM 49:713, 719; TAED D7906ZAR, D7906ZAV); “Local Miscellany. Edison’s New Telephone,” New York Tribune, 1 July 1879; “Edison’s Work,” New York Herald, 1 July 1879; “Mr. Edison and the Electric Light,” Daily News (London), 2 July 1879; Cat. 1241, items 1212, 1214 – 15, Batchelor (TAEM94:492; TAED MBSB21212X, MBSB21214X, MBSB21215X); “The Edison Telephone and Electric Light,” Times (London), 15 July 1879, 8.

5. Croffut wrote “Bourbon Ballads,” a series of mock ballads satirizing the policies of the southern Democrats known derisively as “Bourbons.” They appeared on an irregular but frequent basis in the Tribune and other papers throughout the spring and summer and reportedly were published as a collection in 1880. Obituary, New York Times, 2 Aug. 1915, 9.

1. This drawing of an experimental telephone arrangement shows the transmitting circuit at top with an induction coil on the left and the carbon transmitter and a local battery (“Fuller 1 cell”) directly underneath. Edison apparently intended to draw the receiving circuit to the right of the transmitting circuit but, finding a lack of space after drawing in the “magneto” receiver, instead designated that line as the “earth” or ground wire and drew the “line” wire to the receiving circuit at bottom. The receiving circuit includes two electromotograph receivers (“A” and “B”) at right and a “magneto” receiver as part of a standard “W[estern].E[lectric]. Telephone” set marked “X” at left.

2. Edison appears to be analogizing from the polarization of batteries, a phenomenon in which the accumulation of ions on one electrode in an electrolyte increasingly impedes the flow of current. See also Doc. 1738 n. 5.Page 256

3. Each receiver is represented by a horizontal line representing the metal stylus of the electromotograph touching a small circle representing the chalk. These are in circuit with the secondary (outer coil) of the induction coil while the transmitters are connected to the small inner primary coil and to the earth. A battery is shown in the line between the induction coils.

4. Charles Batchelor had sketched a receiver in the tertiary circuit of an induction coil on 1 June and Edison made a similar sketch on 15 June. In a portion of a notebook entry dated 19 May but evidently written later (probably about this time), Batchelor commented that “We find it much better to work the button for receiving in a tertiary circuit in telephone as its polarization is always constant and independent of the other end.” Cat. 1304:57, 55, Batchelor (TAEM 91:56, 54; TAED MBN004:54, 52); N-79-01-01:204, Lab. (TAEM 30:356; TAED N013:98).

The tertiary circuit was included in the commercial telephone designed in July (Doc. 1784). In a patent application executed on 17 July, Edison described the rationale for placing the receiver in a tertiary circuit instead of directly upon the line: “the object of placing it in a tertiary circuit is to keep the apparatus free from earth currents, which cause alterations in the volume of sound, owing to the marvellous delicacy of the apparatus.” According to the patent application the primary coil was connected in a local circuit with the transmitter and battery, the secondary with the line wire, and the tertiary with the receiver local circuit and battery. Edison also specified the need for a battery “to keep a constant current in tertiary circuit” but noted that the battery could be omitted when “certain chemicals are used in the porous or chalk cylinder” and the receiver spring was tipped with platina, presumably because of the generative effect described in Doc. 1738 n. 5. This paragraph was later amended to state that the battery was unnecessary when the spring was tipped with palladium but was still needed when platinum was used. Edison included in a later British patent the palladium-tipped spring, “whereby the degree of frictional variation is increased under the action of a given strength of electric current, and a corresponding augmentation in the volume of sound is obtained.” Pat. App. 231,704; Brit. Pat. 5,335 (1879), Batchelor (TAEM 92:141).

5. Edison meant the thinner No. 30 gauge wire, whose resistance is many times greater and which he specified for a tertiary winding of 6 layers in an undated note made around this time. N-79-01-01:201, Lab. ( TAEM 30:354; TAED N013:96).

6. The multiple battery referred to is probably a 10 cell battery indicated in a 15 June drawing of a telephone board (N-79-01-01:205, Lab. [TAEM 30:356; TAED N013:98]); see also Doc. 1738 n. 7. Following this document are four pages of notes concerning tests of a variety of chalk button solutions, which include Edison’s notion that “It is probable that every solution will require a different polarizing current, chalk seems to require ¾or ½ Daniel, salt ¹⁄20 of a Daniel roughly speaking” (N-79-06-12:19 – 25, Lab. [TAEM 35:494 – 97; TAED N080:11 – 14]).

Page 257 Edison’s patent drawing (U.S. Patent 231,704) shows the electromotograph receiver, C, at top, connected to the tertiary coil, 13, which is the outer layer of the induction coil, B; the transmitter, A, is at bottom.

Click for larger view
View full resolution

1. Banker had requested that Edison have Stockton Griffin stop at Robert Cutting, Jr.’s office on 14 June, where he planned to “explain European light Company to him.” On the day of that proposed meeting, Cutting invited Edison to go with him and Banker “some day next week to Coney Island and dine there quietly and have a little spree which we are sure you need.” Shortly before noon on 18 June, Banker wired: “Cannot go today to Menlo If you can come tomorrow to Cuttings at noon can have meeting before going to Coney Island. Better bring Griffin.” Banker to TAE, 12 and 18 June 1879; Cutting to TAE, 14 June 1879; all DF ( TAEM 50:317, 49:266, 264; TAED D7921A, D7903ZEW, D7903ZET).

2. Edison had arranged in December 1878 to borrow a Gramme dynamoPage 258 through Dr. C. C. Soulages, a partner of Cornelius Herz (see Docs. 1595 and 1647). Soulages wrote in early May that the Gramme was needed in San Francisco and asked for its return, and also remarked on press reports that Edison planned to begin using his own dynamo. Edison wired Calvin Goddard to “ask him the price of it and Telegraph me” but Soulages declined to sell. Goddard reported on 10 May that “Soulages will let us know when he must have Gramme.” In mid to late May, John Kruesi recorded an order to “Take measurements of Gram machine”; the measured drawings of the machine and its parts are in N-79-02-10:158 – 59 (Lab. [TAEM 32:1218; TAED N046:78]). About the date of this telegram Kruesi noted the order to “have Gramme mach. ready for shipment Friday afternoon,” probably 20 June. It was addressed to Soulages at 30 Lafayette Place in New York. Soulages to TAE, 4 May 1879, Soulages to Goddard, 4 May 1879, TAE to Goddard, 5 May 1879, Goddard to TAE, 10 May 1879; all DF ( TAEM 50:255, 257 – 58; TAED D7920ZAI, D7920ZAL, D7920ZAJ, D7920ZAO); Cat. 1308: 149, 155 (Order Nos. 174, 193), Batchelor (TAEM 90:741, 744; TAED MBN003:48, 51).

3. Beginning on 9 June and continuing until 17 June, Edison and Francis Upton made several tests of Edison’s new generator using the Gramme to excite the field magnet. On 17 – 18 June they conducted additional tests in which the field of the Gramme was excited by the Edison. One set of the Gramme tests, which Upton reported in his paper to the August 1879 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, showed that a drop in voltage occurred as the current taken from the Gramme increased. In his paper Upton called this effect “analogous to the case of a battery which becomes polarized as the strength of the currents taken from it are increased. This fall in electromotive force may be called the polarization of the armature and is due to the saturation of the ring of iron wire which forms it.” N-78-12-20.2: 192 – 281, N-79-06-16.1:1 – 101, Lab. (TAEM 29:894 – 938, 35:161 – 211; TAED N008:96 – 140, N077:1 – 51); Upton 1880b, Table 1, 182.

1. Founded as a Philadelphia mechanics’ institute, the Franklin Institute was by this time a nationally prominent center for science and technology (Sinclair 1974). On 2 May its secretary had asked Edison, for the second time, to demonstrate his electromotograph telephone and electric light at one of the Institute’s monthly meetings. Later that month, George Barker wrote that he had heard Edison planned to show the telephone there but “I could not credit the statement, because in the first place, I could not believe that a society which is controlled scientifically by [Edwin] Houston & [Elihu] Thomson, who have themselves said so many shameful things about you, and a society in whose meetings you have been held up to ridicule & against whom I have had to defend you often, could have the cheek to ask such a thing of you; and in the second, because I did not believe you would accede if they did ask it.” Edison wrote on Barker’s letter, “Lord no I have not promised them any thing nor would not= I am going to send Bently two pair & if possible you a pair.” Franklin Institute to TAE, 2 May 1879; Barker to TAE, 16 May 1879; both DF (TAEM 49:219, 229; TAED D7903ZDL, D7903ZDU).

2. Probably Robert Rogers, a noted chemist and physician and former dean of the medical college of the University of Pennsylvania. Rogers was now professor of medical chemistry and toxicology at Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia. ANB, s.v. “Rogers, Robert Empie.”

3. Before exhibiting the telephone, Bentley asked Edison to have Stockton Griffin write out “in your own words—any new points on it that you may desire or the general tenor of what you wish printed.” Because Bentley expected his remarks to be published in the Journal of the Franklin Institute he wanted “if possible to give it your own language as nearly as possible,” and arranged to visit Menlo Park on 17 June to “get the bearings” of the instrument so he could “give it the biggest kind of a send-off at the Institute.” The Journal printed only a brief account of Bentley’s demonstration, but a full account was published in the Philadelphia Inquirer. The Institute’s secretary wrote Edison a formal letter of thanks on 19 June. Bentley to TAE, both 14 June 1879; Franklin Institute to TAE, 19 June 1879; all DF (TAEM 52:71, 73; 49:270; TAED D7937ZBL, D7937ZBM, D7903ZFA); “Proceedings, etc.,” Journal of the Franklin Institute 108 (1879): 71; “The Telephone,” Philadelphia Inquirer, 19 June 1879, 3.

4. Not found.

5. Henry Bentley was founder and president of the Philadelphia Local Telegraph Co. See TAEB 2:433 n. 4.

1. Upton had spent the day working out “the elements of uncertainty” in testing generators. All of these had to do with the test apparatus or the generator and belting except the first, which Upton described as “Change in the brain of the operator especially in his memory.” ThisPage 261 was the only element upon which Edison commented, writing “You bet old boy.” N-78-12-28:182, Lab. (TAEM 30:73; TAED N011:74).

2. For Edison’s obligation to George Gouraud, see Doc. 1743. Nothing certain is known about Edison’s agreements with Batchelor, James Adams, and Charley in regard to the English telephone but see Docs. 1345 and 1652 and TAEB 4:816 n. 1 regarding his arrangements with them for U.S. and French telephone royalties. Between 20 and 23 May Edison credited $1631.78 to Charles Batchelor, $815.89 to Mrs. James Adams, and $500 to Charley Edison, presumably to apportion his half of the $24,500 advance received from London about this time (Ledger #3: 112, 205, 178, 335, Accts. [TAEB 87:59, 102, 89, 146; TAED AB001:53, 96, 83, 140]; Doc. 1742).

3. The previous week Upton reported to his father that he

had a talk with Mr. Edison today regarding my future. He seems to think favorably of giving me a share in the business instead of wages. The only trouble is that I may have to wait a long time before the profits come. . . .

I think it would be quite a fine thing if I could come into partnership, if I only had a little more capital to live on until returns appear. Do you not think I have done well to be able to talk of ten per cent of the total profits at the end of six months [at Menlo Park], and to have any proposition considered as it is now? [Upton to Elijah Upton,15 June 1879, Upton (TAEM 95:534; TAED MU017)]

4. Upton wrote his father again the following Sunday, “I do not understand why you should object to my taking the share I thought of taking in the Electric Light. I have not had a good chance to talk alone with Mr. Edison during the past week so have not said anything more about the matter. I only risk my pay if I accept his terms to take a share, for he will only put my name on the agreements he has with the Electric Light Co. and give me some shares of the stock. The market value of the stock will be more than my salary for eight years and the light will be a success or failure long before that time. If I take the share, it is only in the profits which will be very large in case of success, $30,000 a year guaranteed royalty.” Upton to Elijah Upton, 29 June 1879, Upton (TAEM 95:541; TAED MU020).

1. The previous day Theodore Puskas had wired Edison, “Cable date Motographs sent.” Bailey telegraphed “Date motographs important” on 26 June, the same day Edison cabled Puskas, “Ten days.” After making another inquiry, Puskas instructed Edison on 16 July to “Ship motographs French line Wednesday” (the same day). On 23 July, in reply to another inquiry from Bailey that day, Edison cabled that the instruments had been “Shipped care Johnson Six Lombard” (George Gouraud’s office). Puskas to TAE, 24 June, 15 and 16 July 1879; Bailey to TAE, 26 June and 23 July 1879; TAE to Puskas, 26 June and 15 July 1879; TAE to Bailey, 23 July 1879; all DF (TAEM 52:296, 308 – 9, 302, 310; TAED D7940ZAI, D7940ZAQ, D7940ZAS, D7940ZAL, D7940ZAT, D7940ZAR, D7940ZAM, D7940ZAR, D7940ZAU).

2. Enclosure not found but see Doc. 1751 n. 2.

3. Charley wrote Edison from Paris on 26 June that “Not having received an answer from my letters after waiting a considerable length of time I anticipated that you were displeased with opperations in England and proceeded as I had intimated in my last letter. I accordingly made arrangements to stay in Paris for Puskas and do the telephone work for the French company.” He acknowledged Edison’s request that he return home but said that “before acting I will give you the situation here and await your reply.” In closing, he asked, “Who is Dr Herz—? when I was hanging around waiting for Bailey he came to me and offered me $300 month to work for him.” Charley Edison to TAE, DF (TAEM 52:298; TAED D7940ZAK).

On 5 June, George Prescott had sent a letter from Cornelius Herz (not found) which he asked Edison to “return to me with your views on the requests about your nephew &c.” Edison wrote on Prescott’s letter, “Undoubtedly Herz is a perfect fraud. . . . I would be a little careful about being int[erested?] with him. CPE does not und[erstand] anything abt quad or Printer If Herz wld pay in adv for a man for a certn length of time you might send an op[erato]r from up st[ai]rs who unds Quad— thats only proper way do it.” Prescott to TAE with marginalia, DF (TAEM 51:873; TAED D7936W).

1. The lines were those of the American Union Telegraph Co., launched by financier Jay Gould (see ANB, s.v. “Gould, Jay” and TAEB 2:369 n. 12) on 15 May to oppose Western Union (see Doc. 1713 n. 4). Gould, whose dealings made him a public symbol of business corruption, was the principal figure behind an earlier challenge to Western Union that ended in 1877 with the company’s purchase of the Atlantic and Pacific Telegraph Co. (see Doc. 985 n. 1). American Union ultimately did not rely on automatic telegraphy although another new enterprise, the American Rapid Telegraph Co., did so using another system (see Doc. 1790 n. 9). Reid 1886, 577 – 80, 778 – 81; Harlow 1936, 409 – 11; Israel 1992, 146 – 48.

Edison’s system of automatic telegraphy employed punched-tape automatic transmitters and electrochemical receiving instruments to transmit messages at high speed so that each occupied the line for only a small fraction of the time needed by ordinary manual transmission (see TAEB 1 – 3 passim). Gould took control of Edison’s automatic patents in 1875 without paying him or most other investors in the Automatic Telegraph Co.; this became the subject of a lawsuit by Edison and investors in the Automatic Telegraph Company. Gould also never assigned the patents to the Atlantic and Pacific Telegraph Co. although the company used the system under a separate agreement, which gave Western Union some claim to the automatic when it subsequently acquired Atlantic and Pacific. See TAEB 2:464 n. 4, 3:10 n. 5; Docs. 522, 561, 676 and 750.

2. Edison was apprised of the prospect of the new company using his automatic system on 14 June by Edwin Fox who had begun to provide legal advice to Edison in his suit with George Harrington against Atlantic and Pacific regarding the automatic. Fox also simultaneously explored a compromise with Gould but these overtures went nowhere and the suit dragged on for decades. Fox to TAE, 10, 12, 14, 16, 24 June, and 16 and 19 July 1879, DF (TAEM 51:874, 884, 890, 892, 896, 907; 49:296; TAED D7936X, D7936ZAA, D7936ZAB, D7936ZAC, D7936ZAE, D7936ZAN, D7903ZFQ); TAEB 2:469 n. 2.

On 24 June, Josiah Reiff also alerted Edison to this situation and sent him a draft letter to Twombly on which Edison loosely based this document. Reiff had hoped that the passage of a bill allowing railroads to Page 264 compete for commercial messages would provide a new market for Edison’s automatic system, but after the formation of American Union he encouraged Edison to settle with Western Union. Twombly wired on 27

June, “Letter received, how much do you want for your interest.” Edison replied, “For my interest will take sixteen thousand five hundred cash.” Reiff continued his efforts to reach a settlement and in mid-July Edison prompted him to “Hurry up your negotiation I want $16,500. sixteen thousand five hundred dollars For my share= delay is dangerous.” Grosvenor Lowrey and Western Union president Norvin Green also became involved but talks reached an impasse in late July, at least in part over attempts to separate Edison’s interest from Reiff’s. In a draft letter to Twombly from around this time Edison noted that his “offer was not for an indefinite period, and if it was thought to use my interest as a leverage to cut him out all together it was a mistake I can not consent, but will do anything to help you make him come to reasonable terms.” Negotiations continued through September but no settlement was reached. Reiff to TAE, 4, 9, 12, and 23 Feb., 8 Apr., 4 May, 24 June, with Reiff draft to Twombly, and 26 June 1879; Twombly to TAE, 27 June 1879; TAE to Twombly, 27 June and 29 July 1879; Reiff to TAE, 18 July, with TAE marginalia, 22 and 28 July, 5 and 29 Aug., 17 and 19 Sept. 1879; all DF ( TAEM 51:847, 849, 851, 855, 865 – 66, 897, 903 – 5, 916, 909 – 10, 912, 917 – 19, 921; TAED D7936F, D7936G, D7936H, D7936J, D7936Q1, D7936R, D7936ZAF, D7936ZAJ, D7936ZAK, D7936ZAL, D7936ZAS, D7936ZAO, D7936ZAP, D7936ZAQ, D7936ZAT, D7936ZAU, D7936ZAV, D7936ZAW).

1. This article stipulated that the director appointed by Edison should approve the formation of any local companies. Under an ancillary document Gouraud signed on 2 July, Edison was to receive a onetime royalty of £5,000 each for Liverpool and Manchester in lieu of forming independent companies there. The principal contract specified this sum as Edison’s royalty for each Metropolitan Postal District which the London company might reserve to itself instead of an independent company. Edison had already designated Gouraud as his representative to the board and he subsequently sent this nomination to the company and drew up a power of attorney specifically authorizing Gouraud to establish district companies. Details of Edison’s relationship to the district companies were enumerated in a supplemental agreement dated 1 August 1879. Gouraud to TAE, 4 and 29 July 1879; Agreements with Edward Pleydell Bouverie and the Edison Telephone Co. of London, Ltd., 2 and 14 July and 1 Aug. 1879; TAE to Gouraud, 29 July 1879; all DF (TAEM 52:609, 646, 607, 617, 648, 647; TAED D7941ZCO, D7941ZDC, D7941ZCN, D7941ZCV, D7941ZDF, D7941ZDD); Powers of Attorney to Gouraud, 24 May and 21 July 1879; TAE to Telephone Co. of London, 21 July 1879; all Miller (TAEM 86:23, 35, 32; TAED HM790067, HM790073, HM790071).

2. Edward Pleydell Bouverie was a prominent Liberal member of the House of Commons for thirty years until his defeat in 1874 after breaking with the government of William Gladstone. At this time he was involved in financing the debt of Turkey and other countries and was a director of several British companies. DNB, s.v. “Bouverie, Edward Pleydell.”

3. Gouraud mailed one copy of the contract on 28 June. He later asked Edison to cable the name of the steamer returning the signed agreement, “as upon the receipt of such a cable certain measures may be Page 266 proceeded with here without further delay.” Having received no answer by 14 July he cabled again, “Are documents signed rival exchanges forming.” Edison promptly replied, “Telephone contracts signed and go first steamer”; Edward Bouverie executed the contract in London the same day. Gouraud to TAE, 28 June, 1 and 14 July 1879; TAE to Gouraud,14 July 1879; all DF ( TAEM 52:601, 606, 614 – 15; TAED D7941ZCI, D7941ZCL, D7941ZCS, D7941ZCT).

4. The company’s official registration was contingent on Edison’s assignment of his British Patents 2909 (1877) and 2396 (1878). Just before Gouraud left New York, Edison instructed him to “go to Serrell & have assignments made to Company of two telephone patents subject to Nottage contract” (see TAEB 4:148 n. 1). Lemuel Serrell sent the documents for Edison’s signature on 14 June. Gouraud to TAE, both 10 June 1879; Serrell to TAE, 14 June 1879; all DF (TAEM 52:588 – 89, 594; TAED D7941ZBZ, D7941ZCA, D7941ZCD).

1. There are itemized monthly statements of the receipts and expenses of the Port Huron Railway Co. for 1879 for all months except February, March, and October (DF [TAEM 51:807 – 24; TAED D7934ZZA]). Edison had become a major stockholder in this horsedrawn street railroad as a result of financing his brother Pitt’s involvement with one of its predecessors; see TAEB 1:306 n. 4, 1:497 n. 3, 4:447 n. 2; Docs. 530, 841, and 1148.

2. Stockton Griffin had written Pitt on 26 May that Edison wanted “a statement of entire debt of the R.R. and the money in the treasury and moneys due on the 1st of June 79.” In his undated response, Pitt supplied approximate figures and promised to send more precise information later. Griffin to Pitt Edison, Lbk. 4:349 (TAEM 80:78; TAED LB004349); Pitt Edison to TAE, n.d., DF ( TAEM 51:801; TAED D7934E1).

3. The railroad had borrowed this amount in July 1877 from the estate of J. W. Sanborn, which was administered by company president John Sanborn, to pay construction expenses related to the merger of its predecessors. In return, Sanborn held a mortgage on all of the railroad’s property. Jenks n.d., 14 – 15; Docs. 841 and 960.

4. Pitt soon reported that this entire note was paid on 3 July, and that he hoped to begin paying down the Sanborn debt. Pitt Edison to TAE, 4 July 1879, DF (TAEM 51:802; TAED D7934F).

5. William Wastell, a Port Huron druggist, was one of the original organizers of the Port Huron and Gratiot Street Railway, a predecessor of the Port Huron Railway. Jenks n.d.; 2, 4, 7; History of St. Clair County, Michigan 1883, 585 – 86.

6. After having operated a competing livery service for some time Pitt became the Port Huron Railway’s superintendent; the May 1879 statement shows his salary for April as $46.18. TAEB 4:447, n. 2; Jenks n.d., 14; Port Huron Railway Co. statement, May 1879, DF (TAEM 51:810;

TAED D7928ZAU).

7. Unidentified.

8. Edison’s letter has not been found. In his letter of 4 July, Pitt asked Edison to “let me know something abot Charley.” Edison made a notation on that letter instructing Stockton Griffin to “Write and say Charley is not acting right he is in Paris. If possible I would advise that you get him to come home but do not mention that I said so.” DF (TAEM 51:802; TAED D7934F).

1. Stockton Griffin’s docket notation indicates that the completed letter was sent on this date to the “Hon. E. T. Hogan” in Quincy, located in the Sierra Nevada mountains. Nothing more is known of Hogan or what position he may have held.

2. Edison prepared this draft in response to Hogan’s 7 June 1879 letter to James Crawford, the superintendent of the U.S. Mint at Carson, Nevada, to whom Edison had written in May for information about platinum in that state. Crawford reported that he knew of none there but promised to make other inquiries; Hogan’s response was apparently among several he forwarded to Edison on 21 June. Hogan wrote that a number of miners told him platinum could be found in the area “in more or less quantities in various mining sections in Plumas [County] but, as they have always regarded it as valueless, they have never saved any of it.” He promised to send Crawford any platinum samples received from local miners. Hogan to Crawford, 7 June 1879; Crawford to TAE, 24 May and 21 June 1879; all DF (TAEM 50:646, 600, 720; TAED D7928ZAU, D7928R, D7928ZCQ). Edison wrote extensive marginalia and draft replies on a number of other letters concerning platinum around this time, typically inquiring about the quantity and composition of sand in various locales (see Mining—Platinum Search [D-79-28], passim, DF [TAEM 50:580; TAED D7928]). He instructed Stockton Griffin to answer one Oregon correspondent and “ask for sample & say that it is no object to purchase small quantities but if we could be sure of obtaining at least 50 000 oz yearly we would errect works for purifying” (TAE marginalia on A. Pershbaker to TAE, 15 June 1879, DF [TAEM 50:683; TAED D7928ZBS]).

Edison’s platinum circular (Doc. 1734) was printed in the New York Herald on 5 July and again by the New York Sun two days later. The Herald article stated that Edison had received “hundreds” of responses and “samples in large quantities” showing that platinum could be found inPage 269 the U.S. “in over abundance” for as little as one dollar per ounce. Despite this apparent plenitude, Edison reportedly personally prospected for platinum sand near Menlo Park in late June and declared himself willing to spend up to $20,000 to develop sufficient supplies. “Edison’s Electric Light,” New York Herald, 5 July 1879; “Wanted, A Platinum Mine,” New York Sun, 7 July 1879, Cat. 1241, items 1219 and 1224, Batchelor (TAEM 94:493 – 94; TAED MBSB21219X, MBSB21224X).

3. Iridosmine, a native iridium – osmium alloy, usually also contains platinum. The week before Edison drafted a reply to a man who had sent a sample of it from California, in which he stated that he “could not use the ore unless I could get an unlimited supply say 1000 lbs annually as the purification of platinum from its kindred metals Ruthenium—Palladium is the most difficult process in metallurgy & has only been successfully accomplished on a commercial scale by two firms in Europe.” He added that Russian platinum ore sold for $1.84 per ounce, or for $6.85 per ounce in ingots. TAE marginalia on Monroe Thomson to TAE, 14 June 1879, DF (TAEM 50:678; TAED D7928ZBO).

4. Edison routinely sent samples of black platinum-bearing sand for his correspondents to distribute to miners and prospectors. This one may have been from sand sent by Louis Glass on 12 June from the Spring Valley Mining & Irrigation Co. in Cherokee, Calif. (see Doc. 1776 n. 2).