The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-10-10
He Had Nothing To Do with and Is Not Re-
sponsible for the Suit Against the Bell
Company-The Case Discontinued.
Reasons Why the New Postal Delivery
System Is Not Yet a Great Success.
Gen. John W. Foster Was Not Treated Dis
cOurteously in Spain, and Was Fairly
Successful in Executing His Mission.
THE TELEPHONE PATENTS.
Attorney-GeneralG Garland Expiains-The Suit
Against Bell Ordered Discontinued.

Attorney General Garland Expiains-The Suit
Against Bell Ordered Discontinued.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9-Attorney- general Gar
land, under date of yesterday, has written a long
letter to President Cleveland in explanation of
bis position relative to the suit brought by the
Solicitor general in the name Of the United
States to test the validity of the Bell telephone
patent during the absence of the Attorney gen.
eral. Mr.. Garland states that he acquired his
stock in the Pan-Electric Telephone Company
three years ago; he was made attorney of the
company, and everything was done in good faith.
The suit'to test the validity of the Bell patents
was brought by the Solicitor general in the alb
sence of the Attorney general, and the latter
discaims all responsibility for it; he claims that
even had he been in Washington, the fact of his
being stockholder in the Pan Electric Company
would have prevented his acting as prosecutor.
He concludes as follows:
'Tn answer to the question proposed to me at
the Cabinet meeting by yourself and others as to
the course Of procedure governing such matters,
L wish to say that there is a custom in this de-
partment--not any fixed, adopted rule but prac-
tlce-to have these questions al. referred. before
they are finally passed upon here, to the depart
ment from which the original transaction ema-
mated. There have been few applications to
NE since l have been Attorney general, for the
use OF the name of the United States to test pat
ents for lands as we'll as patents for inventions,
and l have had them, in each case, re-
ferred to the department from which
the particular patent is issued for information
and suggestions before acted upon them final
ly here. Not that any suggestion Or advice from
that department would be binding or conclusive
upon this, but for the sake Of a more harmonious
and regular administration of the affairs Of the
executive department in the custom or practice
observed. do not say that action could be had
by this department independent of this course;
but in the few cases that have been before me,
have followed the precedent, and within the last
four days I have done the same in An application
for the use of the name of the United States to
test patent for invention"
Accompanying the letter of the Attorney
general is the following from the President
WASHINGTON, Oct. 8.
"Hon. John Goode, Solicitor-general:
my Dear Sir submit to you with this
statement made py the Attorney general ex-
planning his relations or, rather, want of rela-
tion) to the action taken by you, in his absence,
upon an application to bring. in the name of the
United States, suit to test the validity of
patent held by the Bell Telephone Company.
l call your attention especially to the latter
part of this statement, in which the Attorney
general speaks OF the usual procedure in the De-
partment OF Justice upon such applications
The reference to the Interior Department, which
he mentions as an ordinary feature in that pro-
cedure, seems to have been dispensed with in
your treatment of this application This omis-
sion may have been the result of lack or famil-
iarlty with the routine in such cases, or of per-
fectly clear and satisfactory persuasion of what
should be done, derived from the documents
presented to you Whatever the cause may
have been. and while such reference is not
vital of course, to the validity of your
action, and though I am by no means pre-
pared to question the correctness of the
exercise Of your discretion in the matter, stil
the precedent calling for a reference to the de-
partment with which the matter is connected
is so well established, and seems to me we'll
founded upon considerations of safety as we'll as
propriety, that I desire to suggest for your
reflection the proposition whether such action on
your part as will preserve and protect such pre-
cedent and custom could not bo well taken.
'Yours very truly,
''GRovER CLEVELAND"
Solicitor general Goode, under date of to-day,
acknowledges the prevalence of the custom of
reference, and his omission of it, and adds:
"This omission was not the result Of a lack of
familiarity with tine routine in such cases, but
of a satisfactory persuasion, derived entirely
from the papers presented to me, to what was
right and proper to be done in the
premises. In addition to the afidavits
which accompany the letter of the dis
trict attorney, who made application
the United States in bringing the suit, he trans
miuted an attested copy Of all the writings filed
in the Patent Office, and the proceedings had
thereupon which resulted in the issue and deliv-
cry of the letters patent to Mr.. Bell. After
careful examination of these exhibits, which
appeared to be duly authenticated, came to the
conclusion that all the necessary in
formation had already been furnished
by the Patent Office. and inasmuch
as the question presented by the papers for my
consideration was a legal one exclusively, I did
not deem it advisable to refer the application to
the Interior Department for suggestions"
In closing, he says he concurs in the sugges-
ton that the precedent is bad one to set. and
that he has accordingly written to United States
Attorney McCarry. of the Western district of
Tennessee, directing him to discontinue said
suit