The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-04-20

70 his understanding of the issues liti-
gated In the Dolbear-Drambaugh and
other cases. The witness had never
understood from the cases that he had
read that anything more than the ques-
ton of infringement had been decided
IN each case. He never understood that
the issue was Bells broad claim to the
act OF telephony. Mr.. Ranney asked
why the witness, feeling that a party
had right to be heard. that they
should not be deprived of that right
General he had not referred them to
the Solicitor General. The witness an
swered that he did not want 10 be con-
cerned in the matter at all. After he
had examined il. he had concluded that
It would be better for him not to sug-
gest what the applicants should do.
Certainly the gentleman looked mad
when he had refused to touch the
matter.
Mr.. Ranney-Did Casey Young look
mad2
Witness-Casey did not look well
pleased.
Continuing, he said that Mr.. Young
did not open his mouth after introducing
the gentlemen. 1t was due to all suits
that he should state the fact that after
he had declined TO take any action in
the matter Of ordering a suit. a number
OF prominent gentlemen, legal gentle
men, had written to him insisting that,
Notwithstanding his connection with
the Pan-Electric. it was his duty 10
have brought the suit. Some of the
most prominent men in the country
had written to that effect. Mr.. Ranney
objected TO the statement. He did not
notcare to go into what he had written.
Witness remarked that he was simply
trying to show his position at the time,
Mr.Ranney wished to know il the writers
had felt that il would be improper
to tell the applicant that he was dis
abled and refer them TO solicitor gen.
eral. at would not have been i'm
proper" responded the witness, but it
was question of delicacy with me-"
Mr.. Ranney-Don't you think you
were little over sensitive2
Witness-No, sir; with me ii was a
case ike that of Lorenzo Dawsman-
You will be damned if you do. and be
damned if you don't. (Laughter).
Mr.. Ranney, referred to previous
testimony concerning the witness re-
fusal to hear the application and q sub
sequent search for missing law, asked
how he knew that another application
NC ICDllCu ludl
he did not know that, he only supposed
that parties would return to request the
reference of their application to the
Solicitor-General. They had also
threatened to appeal to the President.
Mr.. Ranney inquired if it had occurred
10 the witness, as reason for not telling
Goode of the receipt of the application,
that il he had told him of his action in
refusing TO consider the application
that Mr.. Goode might feel bound to re-
gret it; while he said nothing. Mr..
Goode would act upon the orig
inal application and might grant
the request? The witness responded
firmly IN the negative. As Mr.. Ranney
still pressed the witness for his reason
in remaining still. he remarked that
after what had occurred it seemed to him
that it was with the utmost propriety
that he had kept silent. He thought il
would have been extremely indicate
to have SAID anything aboutit.
Turning his attention to the ordering
OF the Memphis suit, the witness said
that he had arranged TO leave Washing
ton on August 9th and spend the en-
tire month of September at his home in
Arkansas. He had chosen that time
because he had found September the |
best month TO be out of Washington,
and because he could shoot deer in Ar
kansas in that month under the game |
law. THE deer did not become ripe |
until September" said he; Mfr. Goode |
had returned about the middle of l
August, but witness had said nothing to |
him about the spplicatiol he had re-
ceiyed because he did not know exactly |
what to say. He supposed the gentle
men who had made the application |
Unnld find THAR raraadrr ~ than
posed they had one. When the witness
had come back to Little Rock, he re-
ceived a dispatch from the New Orleans
IiBies-DemOcrdt saying that his ad-
miring newspaper friends were compli-
menting him on ordering the suit against
the Bell Company. He replied that he
had not ordered any such suit. He had
to Washington about October
lst, and when he called at the White
House, the President had told him the
papers were speaking OF the case there
upon he had made the explanation that
had been published. Witness had
never opened his mouth to Mr.. Goode
about it, because Solicitor Goode, under
the statute, was perfectly free and Inde-
pendent and witness had no more con-
troll over him in his (witnefs) absence
DR. disability than he had over gentle
lay spoken to Mr.. Goode about the
first suit, or the one alleged to be
pending. Mr.. Goode had said some
thing about counsel and the practice
Of the government in dealing with
counsel. He did not know what was in
he bills; had never seen the papers on
which the suit was predicated. and had
never talked with Secretary Lamar or
he gentlemen who had sat with him.
He had even declined to talk with the
President about the suit. One of the
gentlemen in Secretary Lamar's de- !
1artmens-Mr. Zach Montgomery-an
I'D college friend and appointed at his (
had declined 70 sit in the I
.ase because of his friendship and old
with the witness. He
lad seen some notice now and then
about Garland being the recipient Of a
block of stock as a gift" OF course,
here had been no gift about it. As
% the question of propriety, there was
10 more improperly in his position
han in the case of the gentlemen
holding railroad stocks in Congress; or
goingo over to the Supreme
Court to practice for money. 1t was
egitimate business and witness had