Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1885-10-10

Omctal Correspondence ON the subject
net"een the President, the Attorney
GENERAL and the Solicitor General.

netween the President, the Attorney
GENERAL and the Solicitor General.
correspondence between Attorney General
Garland, the President and solicitor General
1ooae has been made public, which gives the
history of the Attorney General with the Pan
Electric Telephone company, and explains the
action OF the department I'm authorizing a suit
to test the validity Of the Bell telephone pat
ents
THE ATTORNEY GENERALS EXPLANATION.
Attorney General Garland. In his letter TO the
President dated the Sth instant states that
about three years ago he and others entered
into an organization known as the "Pan Elec-
trio company" based upon what was known as
the Rogers invention, and that he was made its
attorney, this being at q time when there was
no probability OF his ever being Attorney Gen.
eral OF the United States. During last summer
some gentlemen approached him, saying they
desired TO make application i'm the name of his
company tor the use OF the name OF the united
states to test the validity OF the Bell patent In
the courts. To this the Attorney General re-
piled that he was incapacitated from any share
in the matter by reason of his interest as
stated, and he says he never heard Of the mat
ter again.
The parties did not state whether they wished
10 make the application then or at some future
time; but the matter was dismissed by the At
1 psst Te t,a zen. Garland Informs the
his home In Arkansas, without speaking TO the
solicitor general or any one else upon the mat
ter. He heard no more of it until I'm Little
Rock, on September 21th, ne received tele-
gram from q newspaper making inquiry about
the grant of authority to test the Bell patents.
He replied that he knew nothing whatever
about it. He supposed that after the request
made to him to authorize the suit, the gentle
men making IL would either return to him with
formal application for reference either to the
solicitor general or to the President, the head
of the executive departments of the govern
ment Instead OF that the parties applied to the
solicitor general, in the absence OF the Attor-
ney General, and he granted the request.
Gen. Garland states that there is a
great deal OF misrepresentation existing as
to his true and proper relation as attorney
general to this whole subject and to correct
itor General is not the deputy or agent OF the
Attorney General; that the solicitor General is
the officer of tine law, and acts as such by virtue
President, and not under the authority of the
Attorney General, in those matters that come
before him 10 the absence or in the case of the
disability OF the Attorney General to act He
construes disability in this connection to in
clude interest in the subject matter of a case.
So, in the case presented, being disabled or dis
qualified from acting, he says that be- as Attor-
ney General, simply "sat out, as il were, as a
justice of the Supreme Court and of other courts
does when he has, previous to coming on the
bench or otherwise, been connected with case
before the court
Mr.. Garland quotes a number Of precedents
which exactly sustain this view and proceed
Ing. He also says that the case is perfectly
clear that whether he owned stock at the time
VI HOT, the iact tnlt he nau once been consulted
i'm the interests OF the company Offering to
make the application would disqualify him
from acting as Attorney General for the United
States in the premises He concludes by refer
ring to the fixed rule OF the Department of JUS
tice to refer all matters before final action TO
the department from which they emanated
orr -inally, and mentions particularly that in
the lew patent cases thus far appealed to him
he thus referred them for Information to the
particular department which issued them.
THE PRESIDENT To SOLICITOR GENERAL GooDE
m mo nh hA
President sent it TO Solicitor General Goode
with the following letter:
EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, ID. c.,
October s, 1SS5.-Hon. John GoOde Solicitor
this statement made by Attorney General
Garland explaining his relation (or rather want
OF relatfon) 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 va
lidity of a patent held by the Bell Telephone
company.
/ call your attention especially to the other
part OF this statement i'm which the Attorney
General speaks OF the usual procedure in the
TP re-. OF Justice upon such applications
which he mentions as an ordinary feature in
that procedure, seems to have been dispensed
with in your treatment of this application
This omission may have been the result of a
lack OF familiarity with the routine in such
cases or of perfectly clear and satisfactory per-
suasion of what should be done, derived from
the documents presented to you. Whatever
the cause may be, and while such reference Is
not VIAL Oh course, 10 the validity OF your ac-
ton. and though am by no means prepared TO
question the correctness of the exercise of your
discretion in the matter, still. the precedent
calling for a reference 10 the department with
which the matter is connected is SO well estab-
llshcd and seems to me SO well founded upon
considerations of safety as well as propriety,
that desire to suggest for your reflection the
proposition whether such action your part
as Will preserve and project such precedent and
custom could not well be taken. Yours very
truly, GROVER CLEVELAND.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALS REPLY.
In his reply, dated October 9th. Gen. Goode
partment to refer such applications as that
from the telephone parties to the Interior de-
partment tor Information and suggestion be-
fore taking final action in the Department of
Justice; but he says his omission to submit the
application in question to the Interior depart
ment for Information was due to the fact that the
District Attorney, who made the original appli-
cation to use the name of the United States
in bringing the suit had transmitted
the Patent office and proceedings had
thereon, which resulted i'm the issue
OF Prof Bells patent. The question submit
ted to the solicitor general was entirely a legal
one and he did not deem il necessary to refer il
to the department.. COncurring, however, with
the President as TO the propriety of the practice
as adopted in such cases and not desiring to
take any action which might be regarded as a
departure from a wise precedent, the solicitor
general concludes by announcing that he has
written to-day to II. w. NcCorry, United States
attorney of the western district Of Tennessee,
directing him to discontinue the suit which he
was instructed to institute in the name OF the
patent issued to Alexander Graham Bell on the
18th OF March, 1876.