The semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1882-1886, 1885-10-14
ELECTRIC EXPLANATIONS.
Garland Shows His Connection
With the Bell Suits.
SILLY EXPLATNE
The Secretary's Position Tenable and
Manly Constitutional Powers
of the Solicitor-General

w.
written long letter to President Clevelan
in explanation OF his position relative t
the suit brought by the Solicitor-General i
the name Of the United States to test tn
validity OF the Bel Telephone patent durin
the absence of the Attorney General. It bt
gins by adverting to the fact that on his rt
turn after the suit had been commenced
the President called his attention to wha
was being said about it in the newspapers
That the writer then informed the Pres
dent that all he knew about it was con
tained in a telegram sent to the New Or
leans Times Democrat. when the matte
was first made public; that the matter hav
ing since assumed Importance, he 9TH
writer) had thought it proper, on his ow,
motion, to lay the facts fully before tn
President and Cabinet. On current date
tine Sth inst, on further reflection, he hae
decided to
PUT THE MATTER IN WRITING
to be used at the Presidents pleasure. HI
then goes on to say that about three years
ago, before he had any idea OF being made At.
ey-General. he Joined with several 9th
Company, OF which he was made attorney
Everything in connection with it was done
in good faith. Last summer, Casey. Young
Colger, Mr.. Vanbenthuysen and Others
came to him and asked that a suit be com.
menced in the name OF the United States on
behalf Of the Pan Electric Company to test
the validity OF the Bell patents. He told
them that he could not consider the mat
ter because he was storkholder in and an
attorn y for the Pan Electric Company;
tn 1t this fact disabled him from consider.
ing the subject or giving any advice about
the matter. He heard no more OF it until
he received dispatch from the Times Dem
ocrat. He
BEING THEN IN ARKANSAS,
he did not then know that the use of the
name OF the United States had been
granted. He then goes on to say that the
suit was brought by the Solicitor-General,
who, under the law, is not the deputy or
agent of the Attorney General and in the
absence or disability of the Attorney Gen
eral is empowered to exercise all the duties
of that office. He adds that the disability
is not limited to one Of physical ability to
perform the duties, but has reference to
and includes that OF mental incapacity or
incapacity ON account OF interest in the
subject or matter, and in cases coming
within this statement the Solicitor General
acts for himself, He is not responsible to
the Attorney General and the Attorney
General can exercise no control over his
discretion. So in the cases presented, being
DISABLED OR DISQUALIFIED
from acting, /, as Attorney-General simply
sat out, as it were, as the reports show
that justice OF the Supren'' 20 IS and OF
other cou...s .es when b. nas, previous to
coming u h .,r "t', 'rwIse been con.
vi g court. This
&c de --, the Solicitor
General j.. ..,o uuers OF this sort makes him
even a Cabinet officer in the absence OF tine
Acknowledgement (see Elms in United
States Executive Department statutes,
section 9S3 and the section $3.50 and
this department has plenty of evidence OF
former solicitor Generals, acting in Cabinet
councils in the absence of the Attorney
General, 80 that when it came to me that
the Pan Electric Telephone Company
wanted to use the name OF the United
States to test the validity of the Bell
Telephone |, being disabled t act upon it
as hereinbefore stated, the Solicitor-Gen-
eral was the proper person to act. whether
| referred the matter to him or whether l
lett the parties las did) to seek him or
any other remedy. as best they could. The
fact Of inv absence is of no moment in this
enquiry, because if 1 WAS disabled to act
ana here at Department OF Justice in per-
son, the ). .,licitor-General could act. The
Attorney General then proceeds to cite
nu.noer OF instances in point, wherein the
Solicitors General have taken Independent
action on matters coming within
THE SPHERE OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL,
but which the latter was debarred from
Considering by reason Of being personally
interested. He concludes as follows: I'm
answer to the question propounded to me
at the Cabinet meeting by yourself an
others, as to the course OF procedure
governing such matters, | wi IN to say that
th4r, is no custom in this department nor
any liked adopted rule, but it is the prac..
tce to have these questions all referred
before they are finally passed upon here to
the depart nent, from which original trans
action emanates. There have been few appil-
cations made to me since l have been
Attorney-t1eneral for the use OF the name
OF the United States to test patents 1oi
lands as well as patents for Inventions ana
| have had them, in each case, referred to
the department from which the partlc''laf
patent issued for information and Suggest
ions before acted upon them finally here'
not that any suggestion or advice from
that department would be
BINDING OR CONCLUSIVE
upon this, but for sake OF more harmonious
and regu|a ar, administration OF tine hhairs
OF the Executive Department is TINS usooi .
Dracticed. do not say that actlon couio
not he had by this department lndepehuen'
OF this course but in a few cases tha1 ha's
been before me | have followed the prece
dent. Within the last few days l nave
done the same in the application LOT en,
Use of the name of the United States TO tes
Il patent for an invention. Inc accom-
panyng letter is from the ExeucIiVe 'A"A
sion ,,-
WASHINGTON, October 8, 1850.
Hon. John Goode. Solicitor General
My DEAR SIR: submit to you with oh1
statement by Attorney General uarlauu
explaining his relations. or rather "ano
relations, to the action taken by you
his absence in the application 10 pli,
in the name of the Uuited States 10
slit to test the validity OF paoen
held by the Bell Telephone Company
call yo,1r attention especially to the iatCe
part OF this statement, in which the At,ol
ney-General speaks of the usual proceou.
in the Department of Justice upon sucn or
pcations The reference TO the Anc -,
Department, which he mentions as an o.
dlnary feature seems TO nave +,on
with in your treatment OF the applcaolU1
This omission may have been the res iesu' !;
OF a lack OF familiarity with the rou1.ne
such cases, or in perfectly clear anu ,d "a y, =
iactoriI, persuasion OF what snouIu : :
done derived from documents preseh0eu y
you. Whatever the cause may oe az
while such reference is not vital, OF couroe' ,eh
the validity OF your action ana t;om tioosI th
am by no means prepared to :ques.'J,n; o,;scr1 ~
correctness of the exercise OF you, y,,;nof,, ut
ton in the matter still precedent calinkn. nk;c
reference to the Departments WIN VIII astal mI :
the matter is connected is 80 wen e.va 80
lished and seems to me so wen Ill Ill q
upon the considerations OF safety 90 "en nou
propriety that desire to suggest lor s s,c
reflection the proposition whether sao an
action on your part as will preserve .oni II
protect such precedent and CUSTOM custom ~
not well be taken, Yours very truly
" GROVER CLEVELAND.
MR.. GOODIES REPLY.
Solicitor General Goode. under oa,s .'rev.
to-day, replies acknowledging 1ne h
lence of the custom OF reference o,n;ss;o a
omission of it and adds: rms o.; ';';e r;t
was not the result OF q lack Oh iaf ,4 - n
with the routine in such cases, Due ~ 20 %
satisfactorv nareua sion derived eno''e