Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1886-03-22
PAN-ELEC1RIC.
Testimony of Mr.. Casey Young
Yesterday
Before the Telephone Investigating
Committee.
Unsuccessful Attempts to Influence
Mr.. Garland.

WASHINGTON, March 20.-Cssey 1oung
in his testimony before the Telephone In
vsstigstlng Committee to-day, said not
word had ever been said about the sssoci
ates in the Pan,Electric Company using
their official influence or taking advantage
Of their official position to accomplish any
thing for the company. No man had ever
said a word that could be construed into
an intention to do anything corrupt or I'M
proper.
Mr.. Ranney asked if they had had trouble
With the Bell Company.
The witness replied in the affirmative
and added, with O tinge Of bitterness in his
tone:
81 had not been satisfied that there was
such q monopoly (the Bell Company, a
monopoly that could control the newspaper
press, Congress and everything else"
A written opinion had been obtained
from Commissioner of Patents Marble to
the the effect that the Rogers patents
WE'RE NOT ARRANGEMENTS
On the Bell patents. That had been done
to preclude the possibility OF deceiving any
would be purchaser of stock. DE did not
believe Marble was the possessor OF stock
at that time, but understood from Dr..
Rogers, he afterwards held some.
Van Benthuysen asked him why he did
not call on Garland TO bring suit,
Witness replied that Garland was
member of his company and its counsellor
Witness would not want him to do 1t.
Van Bsnthuysen had replied that he
would see if there was law OF that nature
it should be enforced.
In the meantime the Memphis bill OF
the Pan Electric had been filed, witness
had gone to Boston TO procure models
Mr.. Young referred to DR Rogers s'ate-
ment of commission in which he (Wituess)
was referred to as saying that Attorney
General Garland had consented to bring
suit against the Bell Company. Ho as
serted that the doctor had been in error as
to the conversation.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES
as he (Young) recalled them were as fol-
lows:
On the 9th of May, 1884, DR.. Rogers
had written letter to witness at Memphis
in which he said he had seen the decision
ofJudgs Wallace in the Cunning case, in
which it was held suit might be brought
by the Attorney General to ANAL patents
The doctor seemed TO be 'enthused" over
it. aud said NOW is our time, we must
make Garland file bill TO annul the Bell
patents" and he wanted witness TO write
to Garland at ones
ASKING GARLAND.
Immediately upon receipt Of the letter,
witness replied that Mr.. Garland would
not file the bill, and he (witness) could not
ask him to do it. When the witness re-
turned to Washington DR.. Rogers told him
of the letter he had written to the Attor
uey General. and the witness had told
Rogers that Van Benthuysen had written
TO the Attorney General asking him to
bring suit. Witness said he had discussed
the matter WIN hOgeFs VINO WAS NeIy HhA-
ious that suit should be brought
Witness had said that if VsR Bsnthuysen
insisted upon it he supposed the Attorney
General would have to bring suit, but that
they (the Pan. Electric) could take no part
IN it and did not want it. That was all
the conversation had with either Of the
Rogers about the suit, and
he bad forgotten the last until
reminded of it By Henry Roger testimony
= am positive l never told either OF them
that Attorney General Garland had agreed
to bring quits against the Bell coca
pauy to annGl their patent Caid Mr..
Young.
At this point the hearing was adjourned
until Monday.