New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-09-30
DEFENDING MR.. GARLAND.
AN EXPLANATION THAT IS DAMAGING.
FRIENDLY ATTORNEYS sToRY-How Mr.. GAR
LANDS scRuPLEs WE'RE oUIETED.

A FRIENDLY ATTORNEYS ST0RY-HOW NIX uAW
LANDS scRUPLEs WERE QUIETED.
The j. W. Rogers whose name is signed to the
letter given below one of the defendants IN the
Baltimore injunction suit brought by the beil
Company against the PAN Electric Company aud
other defendants. If the statements IL contains
| are true it makes the case against the Attorney
General stronger than ever and furnishes additlonai
facts that imperativey demand explanation. IL
shows the amount of stock held by the Attorney
General to be greater by $500,000 than had
been stated; that the Attorney-Gcnerai
had had the question OF granting
permission to begin the United States suit against
the Bell Company under consideration for a consld-
cradle time on the solicitation OF the most active
promoters of his company; that the improperly OF
the act was SO glaringly apparent to him that no
would not consent unless it was made to appear
that the application came from another company,
and then, as the letter states, he consented, ana
left the matter in the hands of Solicitor-Gcnerai
Goode acting Attorney-General during Mr. Gar
lands absence). In other words, the National I'M
proved Telephone Company was mere dummy in
the matter, to the ends aud conceal the iden-
tity of the Attorney Generals company, which he
was unwilling should appear as the prime mover
but which would reap the full benefits OF the pro-
ceeding.
Mr. Rogerss letter, although dated Sept. 20, was
mailed at Bladensburg on the 28th inst. Although
apparently genuine letter, it seemed strange thae
a friend aud business associate should write IL as
defence of the Attorney General. In answer TO
dispatch asking if the letter was correct, Dir.
Rogers replied late last nght THE letter Is all
right"
PARTlIEsoN HEIGHTS LARoIAroRY, }
BLADENsBURG, Nd Sept 30 1881
To the EdttOr OF The Irt6Wne.
SIR: My attention having been called TO your critt'
in hrin nOin
name the United States for the PanEectrc Company
against the Bell Company, wish, m justification OF
faithful public servant to give you complete history
OF the proceedings believe that you will at least SEQ
the matter light and give the salient points OF
my defence TO your readers
been for several years attorney for my son. J
Harris Rogers the inventor OF The National secres
Telephone and of the Pan-Electric Telephone sys-
tens. and had been for long time anxious TO nave
SUIT brought by tho against the Bell Con-
pany cancel their patent which claimed the ART OF
telephony" known to have been invented by Philip
Reiss of Germany. Three years ago donated to Mr.
Garaud $5OO.0O0 stock in the original Pau-Eectrlc
Company. which carries with it 100000 IN the Pan
Electric Telegraph aud 100000 in the Pan-Electric
Telephone, making in all $l,5O0000 lone million, hye
hundred thousand dollars stock in the company This
donation was the understanding that he and
other prominent associated with should asss
in monetIzng twenty five patents belonging to my
son. All the parties incurred considerable expense In
experimental work. renting of teeeraphic lines be- weea
New-York and Washington, manufacturing, ETC.. bus
were soon reimbursed about 81 for one from sales or
State rights s.i retaining all their stock.
Mr. Garland and Senator Harris had both given their
written opinions that our patents dd not infringe tue
Bell patent-a copy OF which send herewith.
Soon after Mr.. Garlands promotion to the Office or
Attorney General applied to him to move against the
Bell Company. but he declined doing so. then by
letter requested Senator Harris, General Joseph
nd
other OF the company to him further but
he still declined Mr. Young reporting TO me by letter
that the AttOmey General felt delicacy In .he matter
on account OF his ownership OF stock in tho company
had always appreciated his high sense OF honor Dus
could not how his prrae feRgs Of deieaey should
deprive and my associates OF our right, as eithensh
We had right try the validity of our patent In the
manner proposed. Furthermore Mr. Garland being in-
debtcd not only for his l0O0OOO STOCK but Tor
my efforts getting him appointed Attorney-General.
began feel that he not inclined TO recprocate
the favors l had done him; but 10 relieve
him In measure Of the delicacy referred
TO- prevailed Through my agentsl on The National
Improved Telephone Company "a small corporation
founded on OF my sons earlier press
once more upon Mr.. Garland my fvorte plan for can
ceiling the Bell patents, and lie, having stock In
this company. consented but said (so the Hon. Casey
Young reported ani my SOM that he would leave
the matter with Mr. Goode, Assistant Attorney General
and he did and accordingly the suit was commenced
by the United States in behalf Of company In which
Mr. Garland owned stock and in behalf OF citizens OF
the United States who had made out pnd gcie case
against the Bell Company to the satisfaction OF Mr.
Goodc. How Mr.. Garland or Mr. Goode could have
acted otherwise, faithful public servants passes my
comprehension. Respectfully, j. W. ROGERS,
Attorney j. Harris Rogers inventor OF the Pan
Electric" ard "National Telephone" systems.
The following is Mr.. Rogers's telegram in reply
to the inquiry as to whether the above letter was
correct
BLADESsBURG, Nd, via HYATTsvILLE, Nd, Sept 20.
To the EditOr or The TrtouHe.
SIR: The letter is all right. j. W. ROGERS.