St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-08-28
ROGERS rs WRATHFUL.
The Pan-Electric Telephone Promoter
Files Reply to Attorney Gen.
eral Garland's Bill.
A General Denial Made of All the Va
rious Charges Advanced by
the Latter.
An Intimation that the Distinguished
Gentleman from Arkansas Has
Not Lost Anything.
A Vigorous Protest Entered Against
Winding Up the Affairs of the
Corporation.
ROGERS rs WRATHFUL.
pan-EIectric Telephone.


J. Harris Rogers to Attorney General Gar
lands cross bill in the suit of the former
against Mr.. Garland for damages growing
out of the Pan Electric controversy. was
filed in the supreme court of the District OF
Columbia to-day. In his answer Mr..
Rogers denies all those allegations which
are intended to support the defendants
prayer for ''diSsolution of the Pan Elec-
trio Telephone company" Respondent
denies that he ever held any stock contrary
to his agreement as set forth in Garland'S
answer, and pronounces the allegations
which accuse him of violating his contract
wholly untrue He denies that he was
ever bound by any contract, OF even prom
ised to devote himself to the perfection of
his various inventions, or of any inventions,
but, on the contrary. was as free
as his associates and co-partner, the
defendant, to engage in any vocation what
ever, but nevertheless did toll in his labo-
ratory necessarily for the company, while
they contributed nothing except that
equally with himself) all the defendants
PAID SOME PITIFUL SUMS
to mechanics, electricians ETC., he always
advanced his ratio of four-tenths of the
money and in some instances all the money
when the defendants were short OF funds.
Respondent denies that he ever procured
many false and malicious statements to be
published in the press of the country, both
as to the defendant and the company" and
submits to the court that since the defend
ant never read the newspapers according
to his own frequent statements to report
ers) he has been imposed upon by some
malicious person, and calls upon him to
produce in court single line or word de-
derogatory to the defendants or the COM
pany. which respondent has caused
to be, published. except in his
original bill of complaint. Respondent adj
mitS as set forth in GarlandS answer that
he is wholly ''unreliable'' if it be meant
that corrupt politicians cannot rely on him
to cooperate with them in their nefarious
designs to run the United States patent Of
flee and the department of justice under Sc
cret compact, to advance private interests
as charged in the bill of complaints, but if
it be meant that honorable men cannot re-
ly upon him, he denies the allegation and
in proof of such denial refers to exhibits
filed with and prayed to be made a part of
his answer. (The exhibits are the letters
produced during the Pan Electric investiga-
ton, written by Mr.. Garland and Harris,
recommending Mr.. Rogers to the Hon. S.
S. Cox, Abraham S. Hewitt and Prof.
Rogers to the president for appointment as
one Of the scientific experts to be appointed
to the Paris exposition signed by the other
defendants except Gen. Joseph E. John
ston,and Mr.. Garland.) Respondent SUBJ
mits that SO exalted person as MI. Gar
land should not at this late day
SWALLOW HIS OWN WORDS
nor prejudice the reputation even of one
obscure young man who had done him
many favorS set forth in the original bill of
complaint and admitted by defendants
answer. Respondent further denies the
justice, propriety or extraordinary of dis
solving or winding up' the Pan-Electric
Telephone company, for which purpose it
is sought to make the defendants answer a
cross bill; and the respondent advises the
court that such dissolution would be dis
astrous to all parties concerned except the
defendants whose stock is, really the prop
erty Of the respondent, as shown in his
bill; that ftwould entail irremedial losses
on hundreds of stockholders in the parent
company and also in the subordinate conf
panies whose stock has been sold in many
cases to widows and orphans
and their money transferred to the
pockets of defendant Garland. Respon-
dent further submits to the court that when
defendent gives as his reason for such ''dis-
solution" that he wishes to get rid of re-
spondent he contradicts his own statement
to the said complaint. as defendant is in
formed and believes and so charges, that
he has sold or disposed of large part if not
his entire interest in the joint property
y n *. and has realized some $4OO or
$500 for the same. Respondent therefore
submits that the pretext for said ''dissolu-
tom is mere sham, conceived in malig-
r4.,o i 81
submits that the said Pan Electric Telephone
company is no party to this cause; that the
right to subpoena is as old as equity prac-
tice and that even an attorney general is
bound to bring parties into court before
their cause can be tried.