National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1885-10-12
Department of Justice.

MalOuWlnlstf0NOn OF the Attorney ton
erals Office excites greater alarm among
the people and inlicts greater hurt upon the
government than like state OF things in
any other executive department would do.
This results from the nature Of the ollise
and the high ethical standard set up for 1t
in the economy Of our laws. 1t is not US
the other departments, purely admnistra-
tive, but partly judicial and representative
Of the conscience OF the administration. In
law 1t occupies the same moral plane with
the Supreme Court, and no rcproach can
attach to It without degrading the govern
ment aud the whole people, whose exponent
Of justice and integrity 1t is.
In the telephone suit so much written
about this department has lost character.
The withdrawal of the suit Is in itself a
concession that its institution was not jus.
tilted, that some other element than the
public good operated to have II brought,
The effort in dismissing the action seems to
have been to keep that element concealed.
Every word written by the Attorney
aud Solicitor Generals may be true,
and still the suit brought advance
lhe stock held by the Attorney Gen
eral. Mr.. Garland says that he was ap-
piled to 10 institute the suit to promote the
prosperity Of his company, but declined
because he was interested. lie was not iu-
tercsted in the Bell patent, but in the Pam
Electric Company. The only theory upon
which he was disqualified to bring the suit
was that the suit, though against the Bell
| patent, in which he had no interest was
really in the interest Of the Pan Electric
| Company. The suit was not brought ia the
interest Of the n-Electric Company so far
as the record shows, but on the application
Of a company in which Mr.. Garland seems
to have no interest,
But Mr.. Garland in his letter to the Presi-
dent says he is 'now" interested in the suit
so that he can not "now' act in the matter.
The suit lie says to the Timcs-D Democrat,
was brought without his knowledge. lie
says he had never talked with Mr.. Goole
about it. The record Of the case did not
show that the company in which he had
stock was implicated in the suit. How,
then, could he tell the President that he is
so interested In the suit 'nown that he could
not even dismiss It Mr.. Rogers says that
rccprocate the fayors had done him, but
to relieve him In measure Of the deicacy
referred to, prevailed Through my agents
on the The National Improved Telephone
Company'-.a small corporation founded
on several Of my sons earlier patents -tC
press once more upon Mr.. Garland my
favorite plan for cancelng the Bell pat
cnts, and lie, having no stock In this com
pauy, consented, hut said $50 the Hon
Casey Young reported to me and my
som that he would leave the matter Will
Mr.. Goode Assistant Attorney General, ant
so he did; and accordingly the suit Wa
commenced by the United States in behal
of company in which Mr.. Garland ownet
no stock, and in behalf of citizens OF tn
United States who had made out prim
facie case against the Bell Company to tn
satisfaction of Mr. Goodc.m
This seems to disclose the mode of scout
ing the institution of the suit, aud tn
knowledge and assent of Mr.. Garland I,
that mode. Whether Mr.. Rogers is relabl
or not we know not, but he quotes Nj
Casey Young, who can overthrow what Nj
Rogers says If 1t be untrue.
The NATIONAL REPUBLICAN has hereto
fore refrained from commenting on thi
telephone scandal, hoping and bclevln
that the Attorney General would come on
of it unscathed. The published correspond
= ence fails to relieve him from suspicion.
The President must have read with re.
pain that United States Senator Garland
good name and high position were secure
t by the transfer Of large block of stocl; I
l aid the promoters Of corporation to MOI
G etizc the balance of the stock
r Such facts do not help a reform admin
trotion