New-York tribune., 1886-08-28
AN ANSWER FOR GARLAND.
J. H. ROGERS REPLIES TO THE cRoss-BHI.
DOCUMENTS That CONTRADICT TIE ATTORNEY
aESKRALs ALLEGATIONS.

frY TRLnsRAPH TO rHR TRIBUNAL
WASHINGTON, Aug. 27.-J. Harris Rogers
to-day fled hs repestoa 20 the ansver ana cfosson
Of A. IT, Garland 70 the orsiusi complaint flied By him
Mr. Rogetss counsel succeeded only on yesterday IN
opssin,ns scsoss to the document hied BY 9arlsnas
counsel ana immediately Withdrawn In his repieaslon
Rogers says.
This respondent. reservng oil right OF exception 10
insu fieioncies In the snswer % al impcrtpsut anu
scandslous rsmarka therein contained. and not An-
swered herein not pertaining 70 the crosso osh'o
each and every allegation and averment Of said oroas-
bin Ut admitted By the court to bs sueh) which does ho
conform TO the and Avsrnen
OF the original bill Of complaint and calla for sfics
proof OF the Especially does respondent aenJ s
thoss allegations whion intended to support Inc
fendanrs prayer for dissolution OF the Panheetr''
Telephone Company. contained In Section LNI w
feudant denies that he ever sold any stock oo""H'
hs agreement and prouounoes the allegations wncn 40
e,se him OF violating his contract wholly untrue tie
that he was ever bound contract 70 ue'"
himself to the perfection OF hs various nVon.oA -
any invention. but on the contrary, was - A00 - -
associates aud copartners, the defendAD"' 70 P"i'
avocston whatever; but usveriheiess uiu 'c,i " 80
laboratory iRcessanty for the company .u"' -
t,ibp.d except that equally with himseu atue
d.f.nd.nt, maid some pitifu sums to meonAnc& eeo-
trteisns etc. he always advancing his rao' @Ao "a ~
,oop.y and ip some instances all the money when Do
fsndants were short OF 'uhua-
procured many false and malicious statements
a. M pnb,shed In the press OF the country, both AZ TO
The defendant and tho company and submits TO tue
eontt that since The defendant never reads the news
papers according to his own frequent satemsntto 70
porters) ho has imposed upon by some malicious
person. and calls upon hn to produce In court single
liue WOrd derogatory 10 the defendant or the COM
rany which respondent has caused 10 be published
except In hs original hlll OF complaint Respondent
snnlts forth in sAd secuou. that he is wholly
.unreable II bo meant that corrupt politicians eau
not rely on him cooperate With them In their nea-
rious the United States Patent Once ana
TIE Department OF Justice under secret compacts TO
advance interes charged IN the bill OF oen-
pi,nt hut IL II be meant that honorable canno
rely upon him. deuies tho asg AtoR and Ia proof or
such denial refers 20 e1hioIts T. 2 L s. herewith
n,rd and prayed to be made part OF this answer
ead hbits we're written by defendants Garland. u4r.
rs Atkins and Young. Ali OF whom had known this re-
spoudont from boyhood, except the defendant
Garland, who hsH boon on intimate busi-
meas relations with him for nearly two years
bsore he wrote sad Exhibit T. TO advance and promote
sabms tn.t 90 exalted person should not at this
late day swallow hs own words nor prsudics me r,Pu-
Rat on Of obscure youpg nan who had done hn
nay forth In ID" original bill OF Complaint
a. admitted by dsfeaiAnts answer . -
poDdeot furtssr deniss me justice propr'sy or
eIpedicpCy OF 'dIssolving' " winding up tne ran
eAught TO make the dsteudants answer cross-b and
the sdvsse the court that such dissolution
a~fsndan whose stosk really tho propertJ OF the
respondent. shown IN his bill; that tt would entail
h-eeaIaUe losses on tns respondent on oandreis oi
puocent ders In the parent company, ana s'O
in the subOrdnate companies. whose stock has been
lid In many cases widows and orphans aud their
money snssrred 10 the pockets OF tAe deisndAnt Gar
land.
Respondent further submits TO the court that when
the his for such dissolution
that he wishes rad OF respondent lie conrsdlcs
hl own statsneut section XIII. 10 wit: lhe said
complainant AS defendant 10 lntornsd ana believes
charges has sold or Disposed OF aarke part II DOT
h,s eniire tnkreSts sad f0Id property.
And has realized $4,000 or $4,000 for the
same Respondent therefore submits that the pretext
aisrrsAd tor dissolution 10 more sh conceived IN
malice aud born Of fasshOOd. lie further subits that
the ud Pau Electric Telephone Company 10 no party TO
this clause that tho rFht OF snhpDna Is equity practice
and thai even Attornsy-0ensfdl IL bound to BRING
parties before tbelr can he tried. sud
nBaiy respondent submits that all the allegations OF
the Ge'enlant this behalf intended TO support a
moi proceeding as Aforesaid not only untrue
and reckless in tho extreMo but mOst lnpertinert and
seandAlous.'"
KKmait referred to by Rogers l. copy oil letter
written by Oar and to Representatives Hewitt and b. .
Cox ou January \, 1854. IL reads As follows:
-DHAR FIR FRIEND Permit tne TO Introduce 70
you Messrs J. W. RoEers aid sou. accom- plshed AMI
sesnho genomen Of this city, who desiTe 10 speak to
yeu on some OusiuesA Please snOw them proper az
tsption aud command me whom you will Your friend.