The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-07-01

VI t1o iuNestigatlon, signed 0y himself ana
Messrs. Oates, Eden and Hail. Ii says:
What DR.. Rogers offered to Messrs Carlisle
and others was stock in incorporated and organ
lied companies What he transferred to Gar
land, Harris and others, was an interest in in
ventions on their then condition of no value
Whatever, and only to be made valuable By the
joint efforts of the Roeerses and those who
joined them In the undertaking. That the cap
ltal of the telephone company was fixed at So
OOO, 600 is wholly immaterial. Had it been fixed
at 1900 the proportionate interest in it would
have been the same. AS Dr. Rogers says it had
no commercial value. The evidence does not
show that these gentlemen were admitted bv
the Messrs Rogers with any expectation of prof
ting by their official positions or official action.
General Atkins the party to whom they had
made the proposition, was not in Office. They
certainly expected no official aid from him. 1t
was General Atkins who spoke to Senator Harris,
so that the Rogerses did not select him because
he was Senator. The right to select the other
three was given absolutely to Senator Harris,
and no condition was imposed that he should Sc
lect persons in Office. At that time Mr.. Garland
was not thought of for Attorney He
was suggested by Atkins, and it need hardly be
said, in view of his previous life and character,
that it was not thought he would use his official
power to forward private enterprise in which
he was interested. Casey Young was named by
Rogers. He was not to appear in Congress until
nearly year after. General Johnson was not
IN Office and did not expect TO be. IL
official influence was the consideration for
the interests transferred to Harris and
Garland, what was the consideration
for those transferred to Atkins and ia
Johnston9 The committee has failed to find that
any legislation was contemplated at the time
this company was formed, or during its exist
ence, up to the present time by which it or its
members could possibly have profted. The only
matter spoken OF was In relation to the estab-
lishment OF postal telegraph bv the govern
ment. This had been agitated for some years.
When mentioned, Senator Harris stated 10 his
associates that, if it came up in the Senate, he
would make known his interest in the matter,
pected from him, and, according to the testi-
mony of all the parties, nothing was expected Z
from any one of the members. There is no evi.
dence that Mr.. Garland ever heard of it."
The report finds nothing unusual in the method
adopted by the Rogerses for developing their in
ventions, and bringing them into use and to the
attention of the public Undoubtedly DR.. Rog-
ers expected to profit by the association with
gentlemen of known ability and distinction.
But, the report asks. did they intend to use
their powers as public officers to further the
private enterprise in which they engaged Did
they intend to prostitute their honorable repu-
tatlons and their high positions to foist and i'm
pose upon the government or the public worth
less inventions, and to obtain money by fraudu-
lent and dishonest practicesl In other words
did these men, to whom wrong doing had never
before been imputed, and who are regarded now
by those who have given the widest circulation to
the charges against them, as guilty of no venal-
ity but at most of an impropriety,' intend to
become, and did they become. dishonest all at
oncel All that can be asked, and all that is ex-
pected, is that man in public Office shall not
use the power or influence of his place for the
advancement of his private interests, and that
he shall not be controlled or influenced in the
discharge of his official duties by any other con-
siderations than those that look only 10 the pub
lie good. So long as a man in public Office does
not improperly use the power Or inference Of his
position and does no moro than private person
may properly do, In the view of the committee
he cannot be held to have done anything deserv-
ing of censure,
The report maintains that no stock was ever
issued by the Pan electric company, and in con-
nection with Senator Vests purchase of an s'in-
terest. says that the propriety and honesty Of
that gentlemans transactions are unquestoned.
Touching the first government suit at Memphis,
the report devotes some space to review OF the
testimony that point, and finds that the
Washington meeting of the National Improved
and an-electric people was not proposed with q
view to the institution of a government suit.
The history of the proceedings at the conference
Is given in detail, and the report SAYS:
Now. up to this time what had the Attorney
general done, permitted or advised in relation to
government suit2 He had received Dr. Rog-
ers's letter of May "a, and pigeonholei it. He
had received Mr.. Benthuysens letter Of July II,
and referred it to the Department of the Inter-
Tor without recommendation. delegation
had called on him, and he had absolutely refused
TO be talked to on the subject or the ground that
Re was interested in a telephone company. Itis
not pretended that he did anything more. What
more could have been required Of him or OF any
oneg No judge of court ever behaved more
discreety, or crcumspectlv honorably7 If
he erred at all it was in positively refusing to
hear the men who had called on him; and if On
error, this was very safe one. On the same
day that Mr. Garland left Washington for Ar
kansas, TO be gone six weeks, tae parties had no
assurance of government suit, for they were
to obtain, If possible the action of the govern
mont and of course it had not been done"
OF Solcitor-general Goodies treatment of ths
application TO bring the Memphis suit the re-
port says:
There is no reason to question the correctness
of Mr.. Goodies statement 1t is not only uncon-
tradicted, hut is fully supported by all the Wit
nesses who testified about the same matter Ha
was not connected with any telephone company:
had no interest Of any kind to be affected by tha
suit, and had no knowledge of any previous APP
pcation. He had not been informed of Mr..
and had he been, that should have made no diff
ference in his conduct. In the view of the COM
mttee while it would doubtless have been bat
ter to have referred the application to the De-
partment of the Interior las such had been the
practice) notwithstanding that he already had
all the information obtainable, then his failure
to do so was almost only q mistake. The conn
mttee finds nothing whatever in the conduct Of
Mr.. Goode deserving censure.
Referring to the Columbus suit the report
SAYS
''Ir. Goode properly selected counsel cqnal in
reputation and ability to those retained by the
Bell company, and that although the offer made
by the petitioners to meet the expenses Of the
first suit had been accepted, yet when the sec
end suit was ordered it was thought that it
should be clear of all suspicion of being in the
interest under the control OF private parties,
and it was therefore determined that the govern
mont should pay all its expenses, and that only
the counsel employed and paid by the govern
ment should be allowed to appear
The report then treats at great length Of tie
S,f IF he