New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-10-03
Mr.. GARLAND'S EXPLANATION
LAWYERS THNKINGIT INSUFFICIENT.
REVIEWING THE VARIOUS PRoCEaDINGs-MR. VAN
BENTHUYsEN AGAIN.

torpey-General Garland published in THE TRIBUNE to-
day excited much interest and provoked good deal OF
c ommcnt. A TRIBUNE correspondent who talked with
number Of lawyers about the matter found that all OF
them regarded the explanation insufficient while sew
oral expressed opinion that leaves Mr. Garland in as
bad he before One them said Ihe case looks
very bad. Mr. Garland says that he never mentioned
the matter the SolicOrGeneral Why did he REFRAIN
from speaking of It'll He could not easily fogetthat the
application had made him, for 1t related 10
suit which IL successful would make him very rich
man. had refused even TO consider the apphcatloh'
as he says because Of that very fact 1t seems TO me
obvious then should have informed SOLICITOR
General GOOde before that officer became acting At'ot
ney-G General Of this application and of the reason why
he had refused consider it, Mr.. Garland certainly
that the applicants did not regard the matter
as finally decided against them and he knew just as
certainly should the suit be begun under authority
given by the acting Atorney-General the AUTHORIZATION
would be treated in the the act OF the Attorney
General himself matter OF fact that has already
happened, as 1 understand, in the Baltimore
suit where the United States DistrctAtorney
and the counsel for the Pan Electric
Company took the ground that the court ought 10
postpone before it until the suit brought by the
Attorney General of the United States in Tennessee
should have been tried. There nothing said about
an acting Attorney General there"
Another prominent lawyer SAID 81 am sorry that the
General could not make stronger statement
in his own behalf have heard to-day that no proposes
q himself
pany he had done that before the suit was begun ne
woud have been all right; now fear it is too LATE
good many persons would doubt the good fath OF the
transfer; while others, still more captious, might say
that he had received pecuniary benefit from the oca
action of the Department. because the large amount OF
the stock he owned, which was OF very niue
value before the beginning Of the suit must
DO worth moro now that the power OF the
General Government has been invoked TO break down
the opposing company The whole matter has an I'M
satisfactory look despite the statements OF MI Harahu
and MI Goode The company seems to have been or
ganized mainly by who serving in Congress al
The time each OF whom received large blocks of stock
would appear. in consideration OF certain lhnuehce
which they supposed to possess anu winch was 10
be used to promote the of the company MI
Garland had not been influential Democratic Senator
but only plain Lawyer Garland presume he would not
have received stock worth Sl,500000 in the Pan-Elec
trio Company Neither would Senator har-
ris of Tennessee. But, laying that question
aside it to this That a ahoV'er
director and stockholder in the PanEecrieCompany
goes to the Attorney General and desires to make an
application have him bring suit in behalf OF Inc
Pap-Electrc Company the Of the United States
The Attorney enera declares that he VIII not con
slider such application. The applicants retre III
good order. Nothing is said about II 10 ahypooS
untn Mr. Garland starts of on his vacation anu Mr.
Goode becomes acting Attorney General On septem-
Der q less than a week after Mr. Garands departure
the acting Attorney General receives from District
Attorney McCorry application for the bringing Oh the
suit General Casey Young, who brought the matter to
the attention the when he refused
to consider it, opportunity up In the ONCE OF the
acting Attorne y-Cieneral the same morn
ing that the District Attorneys application
is placed him. There no reference whatever OF
the matter 10 Department Of the INTERIOR mt the
acting Attorney General with the assistance OF General
Casey Young and United states Senator Harris both oil
whom are officers and directors Of the Pau-Eleetric
Company decides this important case III twehV-Iour
hours Irepeat that this looks bad, allowing all the
weight possible to the explanations OF the Attorney
General and his assistant"
An,iher LAWYER who has been following the contro-
versy in the newspapers carefully, said: 1T seems
strange to me that the authority should nave been
granted by the acting AttOrneyicneral In SUIT In
voving interests Of great magnitude ana matters so
intricate without any reference OF the application to the
Denartpent OF the Interior has been the uniform
practice in all of like nature Besides that
am surprised that the acting Attorney-Geher"l
should have acted, as he evidently dld' Win
such recipitancy and apparently without any regard
10 the fact the matters In dispute have been passed.
uuon I,y several of the courts OF the United
States and the further fact that there was then actu
ally pendng before Judge Bond suit in which every
issue involved in this application was 10 be tried ana ID
which all testimony, newly discovered or Otherwise
in the possession OF the Pan-Eectrc Company
would be admissible. Another bad feature Of
this matter Is the taking OF the suit to the Western DIS
triet of Tennessee. 1 suppose that Judge Hammond
before whom be tried. is upright and learned
Judge but his district is not one in which there nave
been tried many important suits affecting patents Inc
nroper decision of such suits requires training not
likely to be found the Western District OF Tennessee
do not know what Experience DstTictAttorney McCorry
may have had, it cannot be great besides he has
been In office only since the latter part OF May
Other lawyers, among whom are several patent at
torneys thought rather remarkable that the Depart
,nent Of Justice should have consented TO begin now
suit in the name OF the United States to try over again
the same facts which have been adudicated
in several circuit of the United States and are
now pending in the Supreme Court OF the United
states They express the opinion that the
consent must have obtained by the Acting Attor-
ney-Gcneral without due consideration and without
anything like and accurate knowledge on his part OF
past and pending litigation involving the validity OF the
Bell patents
says "AIr Garland was not in Washington when per
mission for the granted. II he had been and
had refused permission / would have insisted that
his pryas d,ty to the TGbic." ElseRhere in the
same communication he says: 81 did nave an iltet-
view with General Garland, accompanied by A. Won
Ericsson of New York. and one or two others at WHEN
General Garland peremptoriy declined to "0t IN Tue
,remises" And vet on that occasion Mr.. Van Bcnhuy.
Sen did not insist that the AtlorneyGen should
perform his duty the public regardless OIL MS pfi
Mr. Yam Bentimysen has kindly answered several
questions asked ~ TIE TRIBUNE In response to tue one
sto whether the Plan OF proceedings BOW In operation ia
memphis was discussed aud determined upon at the
cnnffr-ncc OF Jliy 20. one which succeeded 1t IN
Washington early in August, he says: Fourth, the
only plan determined upon at any conference
IN Washington was upon the advice OF Mr..
a Won Bricscn my attorney, who not only advised the
nIan lm informed me that tie defendant could not deny
The apcaiion under the statutes and decisions IN such
cases" 10 the question Was any animation received
NV Mr. Van Deuihiyscn and others Interested from The
Departuent OF Justice prisr 10 the application Of
instruct Attorney McCrry that the plan
ailudrd 10 would be practicsble!" lie responds
mo ore connected with the Departmental Justice ever
gave l,e any that tho plan would be prdc-
Cable ] never spoke to any one connected with the
Department except General Garland, ana he percnPlo-
riy declined 10 In any manner 1t may be observed
that there is considerable difference between AN " nti-
nation aud assurance
pcrians MIR Nnn BenthuYsen with his usual frankness