New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-10-03
Mr.. GARLANDS TELEPHONE SUIT.

Solicitor General Goode is too generous. lie
protams his desire to shoulder the entire re-
sponsbility" of the Department of Justice for
its extraordinary proceedings at Memphis. he
has queer conception of official responsibility.
We doubt it Attorney General Garland will be
content to accept it; the people certainly will
not. There are serious charges staring the
Acknowledgement in the face that cannot be so
easily brushed aside. He owes it to the people,
to his high position and to himself that they be
fairly and directly met.
Mr.. Garland was in the United States Sem
ate when the Pan-Electrc Telephone Company
was formed and when he became heavily in
terested in it. Mr.. j. w. Rogers, one OF the
active promoters of this and The other COM
panies, states without CONTRA ctiOn that he
turned over to Mr.. Garland 81, 500,0 900 of the
stock in consideration for the aid that the
Senator was to afford by his personal influence
and otherwise in advancing the interests OF the
corporation There is no claim that Mr.. Car
land paid any money for his shares. Was he to
pay for them by the misuse of his official posi-
ton There is still n mystery about the trans
actions that the Attorney General must clear
up. Let in the light, Mr. Garland.
Darkness continues to hang over many of the
circumstances connected with the permission
given to begin the Government suit. The
Attorney General says he refused to grant the
application when it was presented to him in
July. He does not deny Mr.. Rogers's state
ment that when it was arranged that the APP
plication should be made by another company,
having common interests at stake, he allowed
the matter to be turned over to the Solicitor
General. If this is so, is it any wonder that Mr..
Goode found II single day quite sufficient to de
eide so important question, without any refer
ence Of the matter TO the Commissioner OF
Patents? If the stern refusal of the Attorney
General to allow the name of the United States
to be used to serve the interests OF private
corporation was still ringing in his subordi-
Mates ears how did the Solicitor General, in
direct contravention of that decision, dare to
grant the permission almost as soon as it was
asked
Actions of that character are not of such COM
mon occurrence as to be treated as matters OF
course. The history of patent litigation in this
country since 1886 does not afford half dozen
examples of similar suits. The first one that
was brought was thrown out of court by two
able United States Circuit Court judges, who
held that an action by the Attorney General to
annul n patent would not lie. That is the
reason why the bill was introduced into Con-
gress to grant the power to the Attorney
General. The House Committee in its report
said that since 1896 there had been no warrant
in law for such proceeding But Mr. Goode
granted the authorization with scarcely pre-
tencc of delay.
Mr.. Garland's friend and fellow spectator
Mr. Van Bcnthuysen, is greatly displeascd by
the incautious disclosures of Mr. Garlands
other friend and admrer, j. w. Rogers, and
says that lie is informed that Mr.. Rogcrs's
character Is very bad. 1t will be interesting
now TO have Rogers's opinion of Van Ben
thuysens character. Bat no matter what may
be the issue as between that precious pair, the
people of the Uuitcd States will not overlook
the fact that the head of the Department OF
Justice has allowed the vast powers OF that de-
partment to be used in an extraordinary assault
on the validity of patents which have again
and again withstood the scrcrest tests ir the
Federal courts. If that assault should prove
successful, it would enrich the Attoucy-Gen-
eral enormously. The Department Of Justice,
in other words, is being used to give value to
millions of dollars of otherwise worthless tclc-
phone stock, Of which the Attorney General
holds million and half.