The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-04-13
THE PAN.ELEcTRfC INQUIRY.
Van Benthuysen Takes the Stand, and Proves
Almost as Entertaining as Rogers.

Van Benthuysen Takes the Stand, and Proves
Almost Entertaining as Rogers.
WASHINGTON, April 12.-When the telephone
investigation committee met, this morning.
Watson Van Benthuysen, of New Orleans, pres-
ident of the National Improvement Telephone
Company, was placed upon the stand. He said
this company owned but did not use seven of the
Rogers inventions. His acquaintance with Mr.
Young, he said, dated from the dismissal Of the
Pittsburg suit. Young had then told the wit
ness of the passage of law authorizing the in
stituton of government suits, and the witness
had declared his intention to secure such action.
Young, however, had assured him that the At
torney y-general, being interested in telephone
company, would certainly refuse to have anyr
thing to do with the matter whereupon witnesa
had lost his temper and declared that the An
torney had no right to interfere with his
(the witness's) individual rights There had been
an agreement between himself and Youngyat
Memphis, but while there had been q
few notes taken it had never been formally re-
duced TO writing. Under the agreement each
party agreed to furnish evidence and a model,
and divide the expenses, but were to furnish
their own lawyers, for a suit against the Bell
company. The witness had gone to Waukesha.
Wis, then to Washington. aud afterwards to
New York, where he had received an answer to
an application ne had made to the Attorney gen.
eral, dated July H. 1885, stating that the matter
had been referred to the Secretary of the Ipte-
rior. to whom it should have been referred origi-
naily. When the witness afterwards called upon
Attorney general Garland, that gentleman had
courteously but firmly refused to hear him on
telephone matters, and the witness had become
very indignant, and threatened to appeal to the
President. Within two days the witness had
called again, with Mr.. Brierson, an attorney, to
secure a promise from the Attorney general that
he would act promptly application
for suit against the Bell company If referred TO
the department through a district attorney.
Still the Attorney general had peremptorily re-
fused to touch the matter. Witness had an in
distinct impression that the Attorney general
was asked If he had any objection to the withi
drawal OF the witnesses original application for
suit, and that he had replied that he had no ob-
lection. The witness had got the paper from
Commissioner Montgomery, of the Patent Office.
but Mr.. Garland had never ordered the with
drawal of the application as had been stated.
The witness desired to withdraw the application
after he learned that no law had been passed au-
thorizing suit. as he had supposed, because he
was fearful that Ii would fall into the hands or
the same people in the Patent Office who had been
connected with the issue OF the Bell patents.
who might use the paper to forcstall the witness
He had also been told that there wers employs
in the Patent Ofice who were acting In the II
terest Of the Bell company. The witness di
not believe that Young knew anything about tht
withdrawal OF the papers.
The chairman inquired If 1t were true that
copies Of the Interior Department. proceedings
had been printed for the New Orleans suit wi:'s
important omissions.
The witness replied with great deal ~
heat that that was another lie circulated by iua