Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1886-05-05
DANA'S POOR DEMOCRACY
FRANK ADMISSIONS IN THE PAN
INVESTIGATION.

Clevelands High-NIinded Course Not
TO the Liking of the Master ofthc
Office Cat-An Assertion that Mir.
Garland Should Have Smashed
the Government Suit or Resigned.
WASHINGTON, May 4.--Charlee A.
Dana appeared before the telephone in
vestigatiOn committee to-day. He began
by reading the following letter from EN-.
Hill, dated Washington, Nov. O.: "En-
closed [ send you full history of the Pan
Electric Telephone Company which l
wrote sometime ago, not with a view to
publication at the time. | furnished the
Tribune correspondent with the original
Information upon which it acted. Every
allegation in this article, except the one
that Mr.. Garland attended meeting at
No. 1887 &. street, is upon my own knowl-
edge and not hearsay. If you think it is
news and worthy of publication send me
a check for what it is worth. If not you
can give it to the office cat.
"E. N. Hill.
"P. 81 shall not offer it TO any other
paper"
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
TO this letter Mr.. Dana said he directed
that a reply be made to the effect that he
had concluded not to publish it. In an
swer to Chairman BOyles' questions the
witness said he had'commented on the Pan
Electric matter, but in a very mild aud
gentle manner.
1.-The reason why declined to publish
Mr.. HIPS communication was, not that
it did not seem to be news. 1t was quite
interesting. A good deal was fresh,
although good deal may have required
confirmation; possibly that might have
been had on investigation. L was not
willing to take any part in attacking the
administration, or any member OF it, and
that was the reason why Mr.. HIPS COM
munication was not used"
REGARDED AS AN ATTACK.
The Sun he said had published no Origi-
nal news on the subject.
The Chairman-Did you regard Mr..
HIPS letter as an attack upon the admin
istratiOn?"
The Witness-Most decidedly. regard
ed it as scandal, most injurious, il true,
to the administration.
The Chairman--Has the San since then
taken part in discussion OF the matter
from that standpoint?
The Witness-Always; and l have en-
deavored TO influence public opinion and
to influence the administrau n against
any prosecution ofthe original Pau Elec-
trio scheme of making the United States
an Executive party 20 patent suits.
The Chairman-Did you change your
mind in regard to attacking the admins
tratiOnI
The Wltness-I nave not. 1t was nee
essary to criticise the administration not
to attack it in the sense of publishing any
scaudalous reports. l discrim mated very
strongly between seeking out and pub
fishing allegations and facts of a scanda-
lous nature and injurious to character
which are yet to be verified, which may
be true and commenting upon facts which
are notorious and unquesti0ned.
PRIVATE CONTROVERSIES.
The Chairman-YOu say that you have
endeavored TO influence the administra-
ton against prosecution Of government
suit?
the witness--Not particularly in the
prosecution of the patent suit. 1t seems
to be fatal blindness, an inexpressible
folly, for the President to engage the
United States in a private controversy.
The Chairman-Then your view has
been, presume, that it is Improper to
use the name of the government, or for
the government TO become party to the
revocation Of a patent alleged to have
been obtained by fraud?
is sure to be decided in the ordinary action
of the courts, without the govern
ment being party. | see no
reason for the President being in
yolved in it, and still less when the pro-
ceedings originated with lot of dead
beats who should not be tolerated in any
respectableparty.
The Chairman-Doyo you mean the Attor-
ney @ eueral?
VVttnpsa-No
The Chairman-Do you refer to Senator
Harris?
rhe Witness-No, sir.
A FAMILY OF POETS.
The Chalrman-T0 the Rogerses?
The Witness (dryly )-They are poets.
The Chalrman--l understand you to say
that the use OF the governments name is
not necessary--that the same results can
be obtained in a SUIT between parties?
The Witness-It Is sure to be obtained.
The Chairman-DO you know OF any
such suitY
The Witness-I do not. / can see no
difference between the revocation of Prot.
Bells patent on the ground that he OBJ
tanned it by fraud, and a decision of the
Supreme Court TO the effect that the pat
ent belongs to MT. Drawbaugh.
The witness having alluded to the Pan
Electric organizers as spectators Mr..
Boyle wished 10 Know why ne 0lstin-
guished in that way between the Pan
Electric aud Bell telephone.
REGULARLY ORGANIZED.
The witness replied that the Bell Com
pany was a regularly organized company,
having rights that had been recognized
by the courts, while the Pan Electric
people were attempting 10 get recognition,
selling stock and giving it away in vari-
GUS manners for that purpose.
The Chairman-Have you any knowl-
edge that the Bell Company was once in
that condition?
The Witness-I don't know anything of
the Bell Company.
Mr.. Willard TO the Chairman You
don't mean a similar condition?
The Chairman positively Very much
alike. IL appears IN evidence before this
committee to the witness) your view
has been controlled, then, by the legal
question:
"And the political question:" added the
witness.
LAW AND POLITICS.
The Chairman-Law and politics, then,
have controlled the Sun in It's discussion
OF the Pan Electric enterprise?
The Witness-Ihat IL general state
ment.
Continuing, the witness said that be
had repeatedly expressed the opinion that
the President could not bring a patent
suit without a special statute. No arti-
Giles bad been published In the Sun at the