New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-10-01
LET IN TIE DAYLIGHT.N

LET IN The DIILIGHI"
At last the Garland case Is made clearer than
ANYBODY supposed it ever would be- In COM
binations of this kind. where men with claims or
Jobs that have money in them contrlye to
interest public officials and TO secure their aid,
the parties usually take pains to conceal the
terms of their private understanding. But
Mr. ]. W Rogers has been good enough to tell
the world Just how Mr.. Garland got the
81, 500, 900 in stock which it is now stated
that he holds, namely, by gift from the
patentee and his father and manager. 1t does
not appear that Mr.. Rogers was such fool as
to give away so large an amount of stock for
nothing. On the. contrary, he expected the
services of a distinguished and influential
public man, then Senator and also party
leader, who was liable to be in still more i'm
portant official positions. 1t appears that he
was shrewd enough to guess remarkably well
what sort of men it would pay to subsidizc and
enlist. One of tho men secured as his asso-
GATES is now Commissioner OF Indian Affairs,
one is Commissioner of Railroads, one Is q
member of the Democratic National Com
mittee, ard one is Attorney General-tEe very
position in which he has power to do the COM
pany the greatest service. 1t appears, Also
that Mr. Rogers did not expect this gift to
remain without consideration. lie frankly says
that he expected Mr.. Garland to serve the
company, aud when he declined to take the
course proposed Mr. Rogers says, Mr. Gar
" land being indebted to me not only for his
81 SOC, 600 stock but for my efforts in getting
Z" him appointed Attorney General, began to
/" feel that he was not inclined to reciprOcate
the favors l had done him. Evidently, in
the opinion of Mr.. Rogers, he had the right to
demand that Mr.. Garland, if he retained the
stock given for that very purpose. should
use his power to serve the company, to make 1t
profitable, and to break down the Bell patent
SO much for Mr.. Rogers, and now what was
Nh. Garland's understanding of the matter
We can only judge by his acts. 1t appears,
first, that lie received the stock and allowed
himself to become publicly known as one OF the
incorporators and officials and the legal
adviser of the company. He certainly could
not do less for 81, 500, 900 in stock. Ii appears
that he did this while lie was United States
Senator. In that position it would be his duty
TO act upon all legislation affecting the validity
of patents, and efforts had been made, as
Mr.. Van Bcntbuyscn acknowledges, and have
since been made, 10 provide by especial law
for contesting and inv9lidating patents
previously issued. 1t would be Intere sting to
know whether this bill had not been framed,
and was not known 80 be pending, by Mr.
Rogers, when he enlisted Mr.. Garlands ser
vices. But certainly it was expected that he
would favor measure so clearly for the benefit
of n company in which he was one of the
largest owners. The record will show what
Il al 1luf tlp adm.
already made proves that Mr.. Garland con-
scented TO hold the stock in this company,
whom he must have known that legislation was
asked and pending which was calculated to
make that stock more valuable. There Is not
a hint that he sought to dispose Of the stock, OF
70 return it to the givcrs. He held it while
Questions affecting its value were expected 10
come before the Senate in which he sat rs Il
member. 1t is plain that in the judgment OF
Mr.. Rogers, Mr.. Garland had sold himself by
conscnting to retain the stock under such
circumstances
Aftcrward. when he was asked to become
Acknowledgement did Mr. Garland put away
the stock which lie held 1t appears that he
did not. lie decided to hold it. 1t is evident
that. in the Judgment of Mr.. Rogers, he sold
himself again, by IcIdlHlnE tHt SloCh uHuci
such circumstances. And when he YVES
applied to as Attorney General to act in behalf
of companies in which he was interested. il
appears that he was at first restrained by a
feeling Of "dclicacy," for which, obviously, n
better name would be fear of exposure. But
his scruples were overcome by having the
complaint brought in the name of another
company, with interests nOnlinally different
though really the same, and by having the
actual decision made by his subordinate. The
fact that is conclusive, as to Mr.. Garland, is
that this proceeding was known to him before
he left Washington, and yet he did not put
away or return the stock, nor in any other way
diyest himself of his private interest in case
on which. as Attorney General, he was about to
act in person or by his subordinate. a clearer
case it is not easy to md. 1t rests with Presi-
dent Cleveland to consider whether this is the
sort of @reform" which he has promised.