The Pulaski citizen. [volume] (Pulaski, Tenn.) 1866-current, 1886-02-18
Scandal Mnnrera-

scandal MOngers.
The Now York World priuts the
names Of the owners of stock of the
Pan Electric Telephone Company at
the time of Its organization, and in or
der to lay foundation it makes the
statement in the following manner:
The list OF names OF the leading stock
hoIders and officers in this Company
| book. '''' O'ue
a. ii, Garland, attorney general.
missioner. wv 'O''-
sioner.
Isham G. Harris, u. s. s., Tennessee
George q. Vest, u. s.. Missouri.
zeDulon H. Vance, u. S. s., North
Robert KlOtz, Ex-M. c., Pennsyl-
Eli J. Henkie, ex-M. c., Maryland.
Casey Young, ex-M. q, Tennessee.
Mr. OPshaw, chief clerk, Indian bu-
Frank Armstrong, Indian inspector.
see. -''' ''e'-
The World does not say that Of these
Twelve gentlemen, five, to wit: Messrs.
Garland, Johnston, Upshaw, Atkins and
Armstrong, did not hold their offices
when they obtained their interests.
The date of the organizations not sta
TED, but it is said that 1t was before
1883. OF course, all these gentlemen
should have known In 1882 that a dem
ocratic president was to be elected In
1884, and that they were to be appoint
ed to the federal offices which they now
mold. Unless they knew as plain a
thing as that they must all be disrepu-
table characters.
But OF these twelve men four are
named as ex-ofiice holders. There can
be no doubt that man who has ever
held an office ought never to own any
property. That has always been the
law. These four ox-offiee holders are
therefore, quite as wicked as the five
gentlemen who in 1882 didn't know
that the democrats were to succeed in
1884 and that they were to be appointed
to office.
Even the N. Y. Times which, as we
all know, is a model OF high and disin-
terested conduct, reflects upon Mr..
Garland "for continuing to hold after
his appointment as chief law officer of
the government a large number Of
shares in the Pan Electric Telephone
Company" Why should he not hold
thems Did FRANKLIN sell his printing
press when he was sent to France, or
did Washington sell his Mount Vernon
plantation when he became PRESIDENT
All that could have been expected of
Mr.. Garland was done. He declined to
act in case in which he had pecu-
MARY interest. This is all any Judge
ever does. Ifhe has pecuniary interest
In a case he does not sit. Judges are
required to dlYest themselves Of their
when they go upon the bench.
But we are sorry to say the S un out
does even the World in these defamato-
ry assaults. 1t says:
Mr.. Garland, the attorney-geueraf
and Mr., Lamar, the secretary OF the
interior, are very deeply implicated in
this scandal.
Why Mr.. Lamar? What has he done2
Is he an owner Of the stock or in any
way interested in the company 10
does not appear that he Is. What,
then, has he done to bring upon him
this reproachs In the course OF his
dtafv as eaoratar,, of 49, f.to-t.r -, II
Indicated upon al application made by
the Pan Electric Company asking that
a suit should be brought against tho
Bell Telephone Company to set aside
Its patent on the ground OF fraud. The
adjudication was made after a careful
and upon full consideration of
The law and the facts. Why, then,
should he be. denounced and his remoV-
al demanded2 Was he wong? The
courts will decide that. What, then
has he done to bring upon a citizen
greatly honored and well beloved
the land these disgraceful
Imputations? 1t is not difficult to an
swer the question. He has reused tho
hostility Of a power ful corporation,
which is now trying to carry out the
threat that It made before the decision,
that it would destroy any public officer
who should decide against It.
Those who have begun the fight will
get blows as well as give them. Now
that we know who the men are that
own the Pan Electric stock, let us be
old who are the owners OF the Bell
Stock. Let us know the
names Of these assassln5 Of charactere
N. Y. Star.