The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-03-22
Casey Young's Testimony.

To the Western Associated Press
WASHINGTON, March 20-Casey Young re-
sumed his testimony before the telephone in
veatigaticn committee to-day. He said that not
a word had been said about the associates in the
Pan electric company using their official infu-
ence, or taking advantage of their official posi-
tons 10 accomplish anything for the company
No man had ever said word that could be tor
tured or construed into an intention to do any
thing corrupt or improper.
Mr.. Ranney asked If they had had trouble
with the Bell company.
The witness replied in the affirmative, and
added, with tinge of bitterness in his tone:
81 had not been satisfied that there was such
monopoly 1.-THE Bell company; monopoly that
could control the newspaper press, Congress-
and everything else.' A written opinion had
been obtained from Commissioner of Patents
Marble, to the effect that the r. Rogers patents
were not an infringement on the Bell patents.
That had been done to preclude the possibility
of deceivng any would-be purchaser of stock.
The witness did not believe that Marble was
the possessor of stock at that time, but under
stood from DIR. Rogers that he afterwards held
some. Van Benthuysen had asked the witness
Why he did not get Garland to bring suit against
the Bell company. The witness replied that
Garland was a member of his company--its
counsel-and the witness would not want him to
do it, Van Benthuysen had replied that he
ivan Benthuysenl would; il there was law of
that nature. it should be enforced. In the mean
time the Memphis bill of the Pan-electric had
been filed. and the witness had gone to Wash
ington to procure models. Mr.. Young then re-
ferred to DR.. Rogers statement of the converse
ton in which he 1.-THE witness] was reported as
saying that Attorney general Garland had con-
scented to bring suit against the Bell company.
He asserted that the Doctor had been in error as
to the conversation. The circumstances, as he
lYoungl recalled them, were as follows: On the
Gath of MAY, 1884 DIR. Rogers had written a letter
to the witness at Memphis, in which he said he
had seen the decision of Judge Wallace in the
Cunning case, in which it vas held suit might
be brought by the Attorney general to annul
patent. The Doctor seemed to be greatly zen
Unused" over it, and said, ssNow is our time; we
must make Garland file bill at once to annul
the Bell patents" and he wanted the
witness to write to Mr. Garland at once. I'm
mediately upon receipt of the letter the witness
had replied that Mr.. Garland could not file the
bill, and he 1.-THE witness could not ask him to do
it. When the witness returned to Washington,
DIR. Rogers told him of the letter he had written
TO the Attorney general, and the witness told
Rogers that Van Benthuysen had written to the
Attorney general asking him to bring suit. The
witness had discussed the matter with Rogers,
who was very anxious that suit should be
brought The witness had said that if Van
Benthuysen insisted upon it, he supposed the
Attorney general would have to bring suit but
that they lthe Pan-electric company could take
no part in it, and did not want it. 1t had
cured to the witness that it might get out that
his company had something to do with bringing
the government suit, and he had cautioned
Harry Rogers to say nothing about it. That
was in August last Then young Rogers had
said that Gardner knew all about it, and the
witness had remarked that he must have
learned it from Bradley johnson. That all
the conversation the witness had had with either
of the Rogerses about the suit, and he had for
gotten the last until reminded of it by Harry
Rogers's testimony.
II am positive that never told either of them
that Attorney-general Garland had agreed to
bring suit against the Bell company to annul
ths,ir patent" said Mr.. Young, emphatically.
at this point the hearing was adjourned until
Monday.