The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-05-22
THE TELEPHONE INQUIRY.
GARLAND AGAIN BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE.
DIR. Rogers and His Son and Casey
Young Also Recalled-fhe
Benthuysen Affair.

WASHINGTON, May Attorney
Gen. Garland, DR.. Rogers and bis SOD,
and Messrs. Van Benthuyssn, Sypher
and Casey Young were in attendance
when the Telephone Investigation
Committee met to-day.
THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
YVES the first witness called. His at
tention was called to Mr.. Briesens' tes-
timony and he said there were two or
three mistakes in his account of the
interview at the Department OF JUS
tiCe. He (the Attorney GenersD had
not expressed any opinion as to the
proper mode OF treating Van Benthuy-
sens application. When Mr.. Briesens
asked leave TO withdraw Van Ben
thuyseh's application, witness had
told him.th he had no jurisdiction
that the papers he'd gone out OF his
office. Witness had not made any re-
mark in reference 10 what would be-
come of an application filed in the
Office atterward. Witness was posi.
tive about that; he had purposely re-
manned silent on that point. Outrag-
eous as it may have seemed, he would
rather have acted in the matter him
self than have made any remark on
the proper mode of making the appli-
cation, and if he was positive about
anything it was on that point.
Mr.. Oates said that it had been al
legged that witness bad visited Mr..
Young's rooms while the conference
was in progress.
Witness replied that he had never
been in those rooms and did not know
until he had seen it in the newsp apeTs
that Mr.. Young had rooms in G
street. He wished to repeat his former
statement, that he did not believe that
he had attended q Pan-Eleciric meet
ing after the Presidential election of
1884, ard was positive that he had
never attended one aft ar the inaugura-
ton.
Mr.. Oates Inquired il any person
had minated to witness that an APP
plication for suit would be made and
that witness had intimated that 1t
would be opportune if made during
his absence?
Witness positively declared that
there had been no such limitations.
Mr.. Ranney read from Mr.. Brit sens
account of his interview with the At
toroey-Genersl and witness smiled at
certain points in the reading.
"Wbat did those four men want ~
inquired Mr.. Rauney, referring to the
visit to Briesens' and the others to the
department.
81 have stated about thirteen
times" said the witness, "but will
state it sgain if you wish. What they
really wanted l do not know: whist
they say they wanted was, we want
the name of the United States to test
the Bell telephone patent l re-
marked in reply that juld not con-
slider the application; that l was a
stakeholder and attorney for rival
company. Then there was CUES ion
or two about the procedure. don't
remember what they were. / was de.
termined to cut the matter off, and !
may have been little abrupt, am
afraid"
Witness said be wished to say q
word about that mart Of the testimony
of Col. Dana of the New York Sun
where IN answer TO Mr.. Millard's
question he had said that il he (Mr
DaDa)had been in his WITNESSED place
he would have protected his depart
ment against this suit; he would have
smashed it. While he cared little
about the matter he might say a word
in reply. 1t had been conceded on all
sides that he had no proper authority
to act in the matter because of his
being a stakeholder in a rival com
psny, and bis relationship to the coun-
try had no. changed in his absence
from July to October, when he FUND
the action had been taken. The same
disability ex'sed as when he had de-
cliued to act in the first instance. II
that same disability existed then, he
put the question to Col. Dana and the
committee, how he could have
smashed the suit ii he did not have
The ability to institute it.
The Chairman-YOur view was thai
you had no power to interfere at all {
Witness-Not at all. l have no:
been denuded of my disability.
Mr.. Ranney discussed with the wit.
ness at 1me length his power in such
matters and the legal phase OF the
case.
Then Mr.. Millard asked if witness
had not understood that Van Ben
thuysen's original proposition had not
been withdrawn with view 10 asking
another in different way?
Witness replied that he had no un'
Outstanding on the subject.
Mr.. Millard then quoted the wit
ness's letter to the President, where
he says he supposed the gentleman
would come again with the applica-
ton after the statement he had made,
and ask reference to the Solicitor. Gen
eral to present it to the President.
Witness replied-You asked ii
had any understanding. / suppose
that would be the course, because the
law indicated that course, and l sup
posed they knew the law, and that
they were not going to let the matter
rest there. 1t was a supposition based
on the law.
DR.. Rogers was recalled, but his tes-
timony was unimpol tant.
Mr.. Casey Young Offered to chow by
competent evidence that the patent
that had been attacked by the govern
ment had been obtained by fraud
from the Patent Office that the officer
who gave it was derelict in his duty
that he issued the patent through cor
rupt influence, and that he YVES paid
by the patentee to issue the patent,
These facts he would prove by papers
or wilnesses-
The committee at this point adj
journed until tomorrow, when the
offer will be considered in secret ses-