Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1885-10-10
GARLEND'S TELEPHONE SUIT.
He Writes a Full Explanation to the
President
or HIS CONNECTION Win The SUIT.
The President Sends the Letter With Com
ments to Solicitor General GOOde---
Goodies Reply.
GENERAL WASHINGTON DISPATCHES.

WASHINGTON, October 9.-Attorney Cen
sral Garland under date Of yesterday, has
written q long letter to President Cleveland
in explanation Of his position relative to the
suit brought BY the Solicitor Genera, in the
rame of the United States, to test the valid
iiy Of the Bell Telephone patent during the
absence Of the Attorney General It begins
by advertising to the fact that on his return
after the suit had been commenced, the
President called his attention to what was
beng said about it in the newspapers,
Thst the writer then informed the Presi-
dent that al he knew about it was contain
ID in q telegram sent to the New Orleans
Times Democrat, when the matter was 6rst
made public Tia! matter having
since assumed general Importance, he, the
writer thought proper on his own motion
10 lag the facts fully before the President
ard Cabine. on the current dste, the Slh
inst. On further reflection, he had decided
10 put the matter in writing, to be used at
the Presidents pleasure. he then goes on
TO ssy that about three years ago, before he
lad any idea being made Attorney General,
be Joined with several others in organizing
the Pan Electric Telephone Company, Of
which he was made attorney. Everything
in connection with it was done in good
faith. Last summer Mr.. Casey Young,
C,L 6 o. Gsrret Mr.. Van Bethuy5en
ald oilers came to him and
isk,3 ina. suit be commenced
I. tie usms Of the United States in bshslfoi
Pan Electric Company to test the valid
&. tie Bell patents He tod them be
,,u.c OF consider the matter because he
v,.s - >rockholder in, and attorney for the
iaA EI.c,ric Company, that this tact dis
usHG ! him from considering the subject or
giylI suy advice about the marter. He
heard no more Of il until he he received
dispatch from the eTimes-Demoerat, he being
then in Arkansas. He did not then know
trst the use of the name Of the United
States had been granted. he goes on to
fsy that suit was brought by the Solicitor
General who under the law is not
deputy or agent of the Attorney
General and in absence or disability Of
the Attorney General is employed to exer-
cise all the duties Of that office. He adds:
The disability is not limited to the one of
physical disability to perform the duties
but has reference aud includes mental in
capacity or inCspacity on account Of inter
est in the subject matters. And in cases
coming within this statement the Solicitor
General sets for himself he is not re-
sponsibls TO the Attorney General and the
Attorney General can exercise no control
over his discretion. So in The case pre-
sented, being disabled or disqualified from
acting, / as Attorney General simply
sat ont as it were, as the report
shows thar q Justice of the Sup eme Court
and OF other courts does when he has pre-
vious to coming on the bench, or otherwise,
been connected with the case before court. |
This independent character Of the solicitor |
general in the matters of this sort made |
him even a cabiue. officer in the absence Of |
the Attorney Genes al. (see Elmers on L. S.
Executive Departments section 9S5) And /
this department has plenty of evidence of
The absence Of the Attorney General So
that when It came to me that the Pan E'e
tic Telephone Company wanted TO use the
name OF the United States to test the valid
ity ofthe Bell telephone patent. l being dis-
sbled to act as heretofore stated the SOhci-
Tor General was the proper person to act.
The fact Of my absence is of no moment in
this inquiry, because If | wss disabled to
act, and here al the department of lush
in person, the Solicitor General could act.
.ta Attorney General then proceeds to
ci;z number OF Instances in point wherein
b, Ct ofs general have taken independent
c o. on matters coming within the sphere
Of ihe Attorney General, bat of which the
I.it,r wss 6ebarred from considering by
I56son Of being personally interested. he
,C1cluGes as follows: in answer to the
lusliicu (propounded 10 me at the Cabinet
nafIiug by yourself and others IS 10 the
roUrse Of procedure governing such mat
Iers) wish 10 say that there is q custom in
his Department, not any Exed rule, but q
practice to have these questions su
referred before they are finally pass
I'd upon here to the Department from
which the original transaction smsnates.
There have been q few applications to me
I
use Of the name Of the United States
b test patents for lands as we'll as
pa,ents for inventions srd ] have hsd them
ID each case referred to the department
from which the particular patent is issued
for information and suggestions before l
acted upon them finally. Not that any
suggestion or advice from that department |
would be binding or conclusive upon TINS,
but for the sake Of more harmonious aud |
REGULAR administration Of the affairs OF the |
sfairs cf the executive department IS this
eus;om or practice observed. don say
fbat action could not be had by this deols-
ion independent Of this course, but IN the
fev cases that have followed The precedent
Ard within the last four days | have done
tbe sane in application for the use OF the
name Of the UDited States to test patent
for an invention. III
Accompanying the letter is the follow
iTg
From the President;
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON,
October s, 1885.
hon. John GOOde, Solicitor General:
Ny DEAR SIR: | submit to you With thls
A Naaa y