Firth Sterling Steel Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Co.

• Decision Date: 08 October 1912
• Docket Number: 431.
• Citation: Firth Sterling Steel Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 199 F. 353 (E.D. Pa. 1912)
• Parties: FIRTH STERLING STEEL CO. v. BETHLEHEM STEEL CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

199 F. 353

FIRTH STERLING STEEL CO. v. BETHLEHEM STEEL CO.

No. 431.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

October 8, 1912

Melville W. Church, of Washington, D.C., for complainant.

James A. Watson, of Washington, D.C., for defendant.

THOMPSON District Judge.

It appears from the papers filed in support of the motion that the blueprints known as Complainant's Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3 are copies made by the defendant from original drawings which were made under a contract with the United States of June 22, 1909, for the manufacture and delivery of armor-piercing projectiles for the Bureau of Ordnance of the Navy Department; that the original drawings were made by the defendant, under the terms of its contract, in conformity with the requirements of 'requisition' drawing of the Bureau of Ordnance No. 32,362, and that the latter drawing embodied military secrets of such importance to the government that their disclosure was prohibited by the Navy Department. The complainant's patent was granted on January 4, 1910, when requisition drawing No. 32,362 had been in existence for some time. Under the contract the defendant was required to consider all drawings furnished by the bureau as confidential, and for the use of the contractors in the prosecution of the government work only. This requirement had also been contained in the notification to the defendant to submit a bid for the manufacture of the projectiles prior to entering into the contract. It appears that the blueprints made from requisition drawing No. 32,362 embody all of the information contained in that drawing, and considerable additional information relating to projectiles designed by the Bureau of Ordnance of the Navy Department, with the assistance of the ordnance officers of the Bethlehem Steel Company. 'Complainant's Exhibit, Drawing Defendant's Shell,' was produced from the two blueprint exhibits Nos. 2 and 3, and likewise contains information in relation to requisition drawing No. 32,362.

The blueprints, Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3, are the property of the Bethlehem Steel Company, and were in some manner unlawfully and surreptitiously taken from their plant by some undisclosed person, and delivered to an employe of the complainant, and were offered in evidence in connection with the testimony of one of complainant's witnesses on December 10, 1910. At the time no objection was made to their introduction; but subsequently, on January 10, 1911 defendant's counsel having ascertained the nature of the drawings, gave notice of his intention to make the present motion. About the same time the complainant endeavored by subpoena duces tecum to obtain from the defendant's officers the original drawings, and called as a witness under subpoena the government inspector in charge of the work at the defendant's plant to testify in relation thereto. The witnesses having declined to produce the drawings or to answer, complainant moved to compel them to do so, whereupon Judge Holland held that they were privileged to refuse to answer or to produce the drawings by reason of the military secrets embodied therein.

The Secretary of the Navy has uniformly and consistently declined to permit any information to be given to the complainant in relation the office of the Secretary of the Interior, where they would be open to public inspection, taking the position throughout that the drawings embodied military secrets. The attitude of the secretary is well defined in the following except from a communication to the complainant's counsel:

'It is believed that the researches and developments made by the Bureau of

...