New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-09-29
MR. GARLAND'S TELEPHONE STOCK.

1t is now four days since the publication in
TIE TRIBUNE of the particulars OF the lnstltu-
ton of suit in the name of the United States
against the Bell Telephone Company, which II
successful would result chiefly to the advantage
of the rival company i'll which Attorney
General Garland has been a large stakeholder
and of which he has acted as legal adviser. 1t
was stated in open court in Baltimore when an
Injunction was moved for against his company
that he had authorized the Government suit to
be brought The only explanation that has
since come from Mr. Garland was the following
dispatch from bin published yesterday: q
was not aware till your telegram was received
. that the use of the name of the United States
. had been given to the Pan Electric Company.
have not granted any such use"
The difficulty with this denial is that it does
not deny. The whole of what has been laid at
the door of the Attorney General might be
strictly true without conflicting in any degree
with the accuracy Of his telegram. Of course
he did not grant the of the name OF the
United States directly to the Pan-Electric Com
many. He could not well do that. Ii has not
been intimated that he did. The questions that
the Attorney General has occasion to answer
are these: Has he for a considerable period
been large stakeholder in and the legal adj
wiser of the Pan Electric Telephone Company
Has this company been III active litigation with
the Bell Telephone Company Was he himself
aDplied to, as Attorney General, about July II,
as Mir. Van Benthuysen, his apoogst says for
leave TO bring q suit in the name of the
United States to set aside the Bell patent 7
Was that permission given after Dir. Garland
left the capital for the far West Is it possible
that theActing Attorney General was so little in
the confidence of his chief that they had never
discussed the question of telephone rights after
the July application Did the Acting Attorney
General give the authorization for the bringing
of the Memphis proceedings to break down the
Bell patents, without having satisfied himself
that such authorization would be approved by
his chief, when that chief had n heavy interest
in a rival company whose very life depended on
| the breaking down Of the Bell patents A
great many persons knew of Mr.. Garland's big
| interest in the Pan-Electric Company Was
| tie Acting Attorney General ignorant of it
| When the motion for an injunction against the
Pan Electric Company came up in court, a
District Attorney of the United States APP
peared and urged the judges not to grant the
| Injunction because the Attorney General had
authorized the Memphis suitaattacking the Bell
patents.
1t may DO that the exact character
of tho averments as published was not
brought to tho attention of the Attor-
ney-General in his Western retreat, and
that when he knows what they are he will
be able to make an explanation that will seem
less tricky and evasive. But in the absence of
any more explicit denial than that contained in
his dispatch or In the statements of such
friends as Nj. Van Benthuysen, and while the
above questions remain without any salts
factory answer, the Department of Justice must
remain under the grave suspicion of having
used the powers of public Office to promote the
Attorney Generals private speculations in tele-
! phone stock.