New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-10-06
MIR. GARLAND'S JUDGMENT
REFUSING TO MOVE IN A PATENT CASE.
aow TWO SIMILAR APPLICATIONS WERE TREATED
COPY or THE VANCE BILL MISSING,
p.prtsr rUz

aow TWO SIMILAR APPLICATIONS WE'RE TREATED
COPY or THE VANCE BILL MISSING.
IbY TELEGRAPH TO THE rRIsUNE-l
WASHINGTON, Oct 5.--The application In
behalf Of tho PanEectric Telephone Company 10 tne
Attorney to bring suit In the name OF 'ho
United States TO annu the Bell patents was not the only
application OF like nature mae to Mr. Garland seVe
raj months ago, application was made to the Unlt'd
States t.Attorney for the Northern Dlstrct oi
New-York to institute proceedings In the name Oh 'ho
United States to annul certain patent. Inc Die'o'
Attorney after investigation OF the case wrote W ~
Attorney stating that in his opinion IL was oo
in which the proceeding would be proper, ana recon-
mendinp that authority be given HIM to
begin a suit Nothing being heard from the
application for some time the persons interested sent an
attorney to Washington armed with petition 10 the
President The Attorney and his petition were referred
to the Attorney General who in turn, referred al INC
papers in the the Department of the Interior Tor
report OF the facts He received the report from the
Interior Department and after examination or the
case declined to grant the application. 1t Is asserted
that in this evidence that patent had Oeen
improperly granted to an individual as the result o
fraud and misrepresentation was at least as Strung d"
that in tho case Of the Bell patent.
TRIBUNE correspondent to-day asked the Attorney
General about the disposition CT the former case He
replied: 1.-THE application was received by me aha
according to my invariabe rule IN sueh cases.
I referred it to the Department OF the interior
Iexamincd the whole carefully and decided that
II would not be proper to grant the apphcaOn Atlo
neys We're here TO argue IN favor OF II anu tney were
asked" said the correspondent Why me pet s
onep IN i was Drompty granted without any refer
ence of the application to the Commissioner OF Patents
saw that had nothing to do with the latter case The
application IN that case was made TO the Acting Altor
1t has been asserted" said the correspondent that
you appeared before the Senate committee on fatents
in fqvo n III.
AttorneyGeneral authority to institute snch SUITS
as the one nGM PesDe SSver appeared before
that committee any occasion whatever Members OF
The committee at various times, sought my opinion re-
speeding measures before it. think an Eastern mem
Der of the committee showed me the o you speak OF
gested some changes OF phraseoioSy Ihat Is all re-
he star to-day contains paragraph respecting the
Vance BILL part of which is as follows: " 1t has been
gether with all papers and documents relating to the
measure disappeared from the files of the Senate Com
on the tn June 1884 and in due course went to the
Senate and referred to the Committee on Patents
get it considered in the Senate but could never
succeed The the bill itself would not amount to
anything material as both houses OF Congress have
file printed copies OF the measure but the disappearance
Opiniops from Government officials letters from prom
nent parties whose opinions were asked for etc. 1t
to make the final passage of the bin impossible senator
Patt chairman OF the Senate Committee Oh Patents has
written here that the matter prObed TO the
bottom AT the Department Of Justice this afternoon,
Star reporter was ltlIorlueu ,thaI, IN tu0
opinion of the authorities there; the bin
which passed the House and was lost III the
Senate altogether unnecessary. 1t was said then
that under existing laws and in accordance with decs
ions the United States Supreme Court tits not only
within power of the AttorneyGenera but that II is
his imperative duty to authorize suits to test the va
ldty of patents when he is called upon to do So"
The statement attributed TO the authorities OF the
Department OF Justice is rather remarkable IN view of
of the Attorney to grant the appli
cation made him By the United states DistrctAtOr
new for the Northern District of NewYOrk or course,
1t possible the Vance bill and accompanying docu
lnents been distracted from the files OF the
but il be stated on the highest
authority that the failure OF that committee To report
the bill to Senate not due to disappearance
of the bill from the files OF the committee, but to the
siderations stated in a Washington dispatch published in
THE TRIBUNE of Friday one of which was stroI impress
sion on the minds OF members OF the committee that the
bill was designed to fit a particular case
A TRIBUNE correspondent called tho attention OF
socito. Goode To the citations OF presidents In
MIR Dckersons letter published to-day. After hearing
that part letter read, Mr. GOode remarked "Of
do desire to be drawn into any controversy
presented and found of precedent In favor OF
the application and granted It." he read
OF that decision in thecase or Mowry against whit
ney, rendered by Judge Miller In December 1871, ana
action although no had consulted other authorities at
the time. lie added: " OF course, did not make as
thorough an examination as should have done If had
been pre- paring case for argument In the supreme
Court Simply satisfied myself that the case was one
which possessed sufficient merit to eDtte IT to the ben
eft of proceeding IL was proposed TO institute
and then granted the application
The General now has under consideration an
application bring suit for the annument OF another
patent. IL is not improbable that the precedent
produce big crop Of law suits In the name OF the United