St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-10-10
Garland scts FEimself Alright.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 9.-Attoney Gen
eral Garland under date Of yesterday, has
written a letter to President Cleveland in
explanation of his position relative to the
suit brought by the solicitor general in the
name of the United States to test the
validity of the Bell telephone patent, during
the absence OF the attorney general. 1t
begins by adverting to the fact that on his
return after the suit had been commenced.
the president called his attention to what
was being said about the matter in the
newspapers: that the writer then informed
the president that all lie knew about it was
contained in the telegram sent to the New
Orleans TimeS-DemOcrat, where the matter
was first made public; that the matter
having since assumed general Importance
he (the writer had thought it proper, on
his own motion, TO lay the facts fully before
the president and cabinet on the
current date as the Sth inst. Further,
he had decided to put the matter
i'll writing, to be used at the
presidents pleasure. He then goes on
to say that three years ago, before he had
any idea of being made attorney general he
Joined with several others in organizing the
Pan Electric Telephone company, of which
he was made attorney. Everything in con-
nection with it WAS done in good faith. Last
summer Mr.. Casey Young. Col. George w.
Garrett and Mr.. Van BethingSer came to
him and asked that suit be commenced
IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES
on behalf of the Pan Electric company to
test the validity of the Bell patents. He
told them that he could not consider it, be-
cause ne was a stakeholder in and an attor-
ney for the Pan Electric company, and that
this fact disabled him from considering the
subject OF from giving any advice about the
matter. He heard no more of it till he re-
ceived dispatch from the Times Democrat,
he being then in Arkansas. He did not
then know that the use of the name OF the
United States had been granted. He then
goes on to say that the suit was brought by
the solicitor general, who, under the law. is
not The deputy or agent of the attorney
general, and in the absence or disability of
the attorney general is empowered to
exercise all the duties of that Office.
The independent character of the solicitor
general in matters of this sort makes him
even a cabinet officer in the absence of the
attorney general. The fact of my absence
is of no moment in this inquiry, because if
] was disabled to act and be here at the de-
partment of justice in person, the solicitor
general could act. The attorney general
then proceeds to cite number of instances
taken independent action in matters COM
ing within the sphere of the attorney gen
erals, but which the latter were debarred
from considering by reason of being per-
sonally interested. He concludes as fol-
lows:
In answer to the question proposed to me
at the tue cabinet meeting by yourself and
others as to the course of procedure govern
Ing such matters, l wish to say there is a
custom in this department, not any fixed,
adopted rule. but q practice to have these
questions referred before they are finally
passed upon here to the department from
which the original transaction emanates.
There have been few applications to me
since l have been attorney general for the
use of the name of the United States to test
patents for lands, as well as patents for in
Ventions and have had them in each case
referred to the department from which the
particular patent issued from for inforna-
lion and suggestions before 1 acted on them
fnally.
Accompanying the letter Of the attorney
general is the following from the president:
Executive Mansion, Washington, Oct. 8,