The Portland daily press., 1885-10-10
That Telephone Suit.

Correspondence is made public concerning the
suit by the solicitor general in the name OF the
phone patents Attorney General Garland writes
to the President that he was one OF the lncorp0ra-
tors of the Pan Electric Telephone Company,
which was based upon what was called Rogers
invention and was attorney for the company and
one of the stockholders He held this relation to
this company when appointed Attorney General
gentlemen interested with him in this telephone
enterprise called on him and said they desired to
make application in the name of their company
for use OF the name of the United States to test
the validity of the Bell telephone patents in the
courts, but he declined positively to consider the
matter or to give any information as to how they
could accomplish what they desired, because of
his interest in the proceeding while holding his
present official position. Authority to use the
name Of the United States in this suit was, how
ever granted by the Solicitor General during his
(Garland's) absence in Arkansas without any
ence between him and the Solicitor General on
the subject. The Solicitor General, he says, is
authorized by law to act in the. absence OF the
Attorney General, and the latter is in no wise re-
sponsible for the acts of the former during the
Attorney. Generals absence. Besides, he
says, being incapacitated to act IN the matter
even had he been present, the Solicitor General
was the proper person under the law to receive
Garland quotes many precedents showing it was
customary and legal for the Attorney General to
refer matters in which he had personal interest
to the Solicitor General for action He has had
nothing whatever to do with the matter because OF
his personal interest as he regards it, and he can
have nothing to do with 1t in the future because
his disability In the case must of necessity be per-
petual. The Attorney General calls the attention
Of the President to the fact that it is the custom
of the Attorney General before acting upon appi-
department for advice and information as il Is al
so the custom to refer similar matters TO the heads
of other executive departments for like purpose.
President Cleveland transmits the Attorney
Generals communication to Hon John Goode, So
licitor General, and directs his attention to the
lu tba custom
of referring such matters to the heads OF depart
ments before action which custom was dispensed
with in this case by the Solicitor General This
omission, the President says, may have been
caused by lack of familiarity with the routine in
such cases and, while not vital feature and not
affecting the vitality Of s ss aSon me me
part as would protect and preserve such custom
could not well be taken.
Tn Solicitor General replies 70 the Presldent,
Stain that the decision to refer the application to
the interior Department was not due to a lack OF
familiarity with the routine in snch cases. but OF
S him as TO %ea W rght and
proper to be done in the premises ne judged
from these papers, which included attested copies
of all writings on the subject matter filed in the
patent office, that all necessary Information had
already been furnished by the patent ofiice, and
inasmlch as the question presented by the papers
advisable to refer the application to the Interior
Department. But" he concludes, "concurring
with you as to the proprlety the pEacIlee wnlSn
this department heretofore, and being unwilling
to take action which may be regarded as depar-
ss from wise nd safe To-
the permission which has been granted TO bring
the suit referred to. Accordingly l have written
esas Ytf0nd1 a to 81 be H wesee VI
see directing him to iscontinue the suit which
he was Instructed to institute In the name OF the
nulling the letters patent issued to Alexander
Graham Bell on the 7th day Of March, 1875