New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-09-30
QUESTIONS FOR MR.. VAN BENTHUYsEN

poIxTs UPON waICH HE MIGHT THko" NUN
IIGHr-wHo ARE STILL DIRECTORS
WASHINGTON, Sept. 90 (SpeeiaD. 1.-The publ
catou to-day BY Watson Van Benthuysen OF MS uiSpa
10 tie President in behalf OF MI 0ariahu mas
soma comment Mr. Van Benhuysen as president Oh the
Na,toaaI Improved Telephone Company not only mani
lively and generous interest in the fortunes OIL he
pan-Electric directors and stockholders puV ne
shows disposition to DO communicate" "
the latter respect, however, ne miSh' nav
shed more light on the subject Just no" uhuer
which Is not whether the Bell patent Is vahd' pu'
the or any other officer OF the
Inttsd States has used is using the power OF Ills
official position to promote the success OF prl'ae sPe'u
lations 1t would be to the purpose therefore, II
Mr.. Van Benthuysen would throw some lsht upon 'ne
following points, when rehlaih sohn0"A'
despite his explanations -
ma he receive any reply from the Attoey-Genera to
Mi, letter dated July IL and so what the nature
of that reply
Did Mr. Van Benthuysen, Colonel CAN'T ex-Congress-
man Young, Charles Z. Huntington and 1eheral brau'
ley T. Johnson either of then have any conference
with or receive any oral written communication lro
the Oh the subject Of the telephone
litigation during after the conference OF the gehe
men named held at the Ebbit House in Washington,
Juy 30 or 81 1885 and so. what were the nature and
result of such differences or communications
Were the legal proceedings instituted IN the United
States District Court at Memphis Tenn. against the
Rel COMPANY by the PanEleetric Company on July l5
1885, abandoceG subsequent TO the Ebbltt House con-
ference of July 3oi
AT the conference Of July 80 or one which succeeded
il in Washington early in August, was not tue plan OF
proceedings now IN operation AT AeihPHlS u4''"''eN
and determined upont . .,..--..
Mas any lntmation received by Mr.. Van Bentluysen
and others interested from the Department OF Justice
prOr to the application OF Dlstrct-AuOrney hcCOTTy
that the plan alluded to would he practicable
is the Wilbur affidavit filed at Memphis il the leceh
proceedings antecedent TO that OF the leg4I
opinlOn given by A. II. Garland on July o.,
1881. respecting the status OF the Pah-Eiectfl
patents in which Mr. Garland stated u an intending IN
weston In Pan Electric stock the result OF careu
Investigation OF the whole subject that there is more
than enough TO insure tie Pan-Electric Telephone from
any charge of infringement OF the Bell Telephone
The opinion Mr.. Garland above referred 10 formed
part of full page advertisement OF the Rogers Iele-
graph and Telephone Company" which was regularly
published for many moatAs in The Republic. Washing
ton SUNDAY newspaper Tao advertisement last ap
peared in The HeJubiic on August 10, 1852 IL CON
taned the OF the officers ana directors OF the ran
Electric Telephone and Telegraph companies
as follows Joseph L. Johnston, virginia, presl-
dent; Isham G. Harris, Tennessee, yicepresidenti
A. H. Garland Arkansas, counsellor iCasey Young
Tennessee, secretary and treasurer; John e. BrO"n'
Missouri, J. ID. G. Atkins, tennessee, IL T. Loohey'
Memphis, ]. Harris Rogers, New-IOrk, directors.
In an interview published last week CommlsslOLeI
Atkins denied that he director, but said that ne
IA a large stoekbolder in the Pan-Eiectrc Company.
would interesting to know when MI ATKINS ceased
TO be director of the company and also whether any
of the other officers and directors aboyenamed nave re-
sig