New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-10-02
MR.. GARLAND'S STATEMENT.
DENYING ALL KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUIT.
Mr.. GooDE ANXIOUS TO SHOULDER ALL THE RE
sPoNsIBIIITY-MANY POINTS UNEXPLAINED.
TBr TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNE


mediately upon his return to the Department after
meeting Of the Cabinet he held private conference with
Solicitor General Goode official matters Az laier
hour TRIBUNE correspondent saw the ATTORNEY
General gave him verbal account OF tho statements
Which have been published In THE TRIBUNE respecting
the suit to annul Bell Telerhon patents. Mr. Gar
land declared that he had read neither the Rogers er
nor the Van Benthuysen dispatch. He continued;
So far as my official connection with this suit Is CON
cerned the story short one and was really al tou IN
my dispatch published in tho newspapers. did not
authorize the bringing OF the suit, nor did kho" InaI
such suit had been instituted until received the ds
patch asking If authorized it. will say this: ono
hot day in the summerprobaby about the end OF July
or the beginning OF August-General Casey Young OF
Memphis came in here accompanied by COoit 81 CAN'T
lawyer OF Memphs; Mr.. Van Benthuysen whom hhh
never met before and another gentleman whose name
do not recall. They brought number OF documents
with them and explained that they had come to make
an application behalf OF the Pan Electric Company to
have suit brought by mo Attorney OF the
United states TO auuu the Bell patent replied that
could not consider such an application one OF theh
then asked several Questions which declihea 10
answer. when Colonel CAN'T. General Young spoke
out and said: The Attorney General is right; he can
not answer these questions There the conference ended
and the gentlemen withdrew. They presented no
written application or other papers to neither dd
they urge as perhaps they might nave done, that SIMPLY
because | was an individual stockhoder In the ran
Electric Company would not be justified IA Attorney
General IN refusing consider application from other
stockholders to have the Government bring suit
AGAINST the Bell Company and denying them proper
and legal remedy That phase OF the subject was not
raised or discussed and the matter rot brought 10
my attention again by any person until last week.
Neither did ever mention II 10 the solicitor General
who authorized the bringing OF the suit In my absence
and he will tell YOU have been stakeholder III tue
Pan Electric Company since IL organized some two
-tnsL ylg I Ha "A
citizen. at least far as any connection present or
prospective with tho Department OF Justice was con
cerued."
The correspondent then saw Solicitor General Gooie
who said: As as could see the Attorney "eheFA
to-day mentioned the public csucsn on account OF tue
action OF the Department IN authorizing the bringing OF
the suit 70 set aside Bell patents aud told him that
desired 70 shouder the entire responsibility Of that
action and 70 held accountable II any mistake had
been made for had Issued the order after careful IN
yesteati5n Of the subject and who'll without regard to
the question who the parties In Interest.
desire 90 repeat that statement TO In the most con
prchcnsyo and emphatic manner possible and to say
further that Mr. Garland mentioned the subject o
the telephone litigation TO and that did not kno"
when acted IN tie that he hal been asked to
begin such a suit The facts ~ follows: Mr. Garland
left Washington on the evening OF August ~ and be-
rame Acting Attorney General under tho law On
August 81 four days after Mr. Garands departure.
y
Tennessee addressed letter from Jackson Tcnnes-
see In that letter he set forth grounds for bis belief
that the Bell patent fraudulcnty obtained aud aI
piled for authority begin proceedings 10 unuul IT, re-
celvcd Mr. McCorry's letter tho morning of ~cptcm
Der Q. ON the same morning Senator Harris ana eN-
Congressman Casey Young in my ofice 20 discuss
the matter. We talked II aud told them that
would investigate and consider II aud give ny decision
the ne Al morning went tho case with great care
aud the next morning. when General Young called fer
my answer Informed him that had already authorized
the District Attorney to begin te salt That Az ihc'e
4, OF H. any mistake has been made or wrong done
alone am responsible simply examined the matter %
rec whether the proposed proceeding would be regular
aud not only became satisfied on that score hut Was
con,inced that Il the only manner IN which The
validity ~ the Bell atenis could be to-tc'i"
II will be seen that both tho Attorney General ana
solicitor General Hatly contradict some Of the material
statements made D. Mr. Bogcr,. hut 10 can hardly be-
said shat they have succeeded IN making snt''aotory
exranaton OF all the matters In controversy Mr Gar
ian I'm M. frank straightforward gave his fol
low director stakeholder 10 understand that Ia his
own opinion it would not be pcrmls,iblc for the Al
torey General oven 20 take into consideration an hppi
cation 10 bring suit In his official capacity the result OF
which might benefit him pccuniArily. lie was asked
certain questions which he declined TO answer. Prom
this 1t Il fair infer that some Indirect mode OF proceed
Ing and porhap, shifting OF official responsibility
were suggested by General Young aud his associates;
and IL Is mprobat that they Their and there OBJ
alned the which turned out 10 be correct
that they would bo successful by waiting and ming their
application when Mr Goods should be placol at the
helm o. acting Attorney General. Mr.. Goodies state
en affords an unexpected example OF the use Of sena
tsai influence 10 obtain OF Eate end. senator Harris,
OF Tennessee Is vice president Of the Pan Electric ON
pany aud Of It. largest sharchoders Is evident
that both no and General Young had been advised as TO
the when District Attorney AoCorrys letter would
reach tho acting Attorney General and they were on
and promptly TO mgo favorable action. IL viii be OBJ
ser, cd that Mr. Goode does not state that he gnor
ant OF the tact that his superior officer and Senator
IIarr. and General Young were all stockholders Of the
Pan Electric Company for whose benefit the suit was To
be- Instituted lie say, however. that the was
considered and decided by HIM without reference to the
question 10 who were the parties IN interest.
This seem. 10 be good time 10 call attention 90 one or
two other matters relating to the controversy. Mr.
Van Benthuysen has stated that l passed the House
authorizing the AttOrncys 10 institute proceed
ngs To aunu patents where allegations made that
surh patents obtained by fraud. but that II disap
pearc after reaching the Senate aud II supposed 10 have
been stolen" A TEBuSE correspondent has inycst
gated this charge The bill referred Ia introduced
In the House by Mr. Vance, OF North Carolina who Is
HOW Assistant Commssouer Of Patents ON December H.
1883, AMI referred 20 the Committee ou Patents
which was appointed December -, with Mr. Vance
"a chairman. The committee organized for business
after the holiday which ended on January o. and
on January o, 1884, Mr.. Vance reported 10 the House
substitute for his bill The substitute passed. the House
January IT, without discussion. In the report
companying bin the committee shd Tho Law, 1t
now stands and has stood since 1886. provides way
"a which patent he declared void except upon tho
ground Of Interference with other patent and then
only upon the suit Of rival patenteo OF per
son claiming under OF the interfering patents. And
such adjudication affects only the rights OF the parties to
that particular those subsequently deriving title
under them"
The bill was oaered by Mr. Vance very after the
actnal organization IN Washington OF the Pan Electric
Telephone Cor pany, whose articles Of association
recorded at Nashville, Tennessee October 80, 1883.
The bill was the Senate and referred TO the