The Abilene reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1883-1888, 1886-07-08

teryeEe to try the validity or patent for egg
carriers, or for placing enameled letters on
glass. or for an elastic paint, against pri-
yate individuals. as was done under the ad-
ministratiOn of President Grant, it might
justly be called upon to try its strength
with giant like the Bell Telephone and
the Western Union Telegraph Company
combined. When the question to be tried
was the right of this combination to apprO-
pirate the electrical current 10 its exclusive
use, 10 cripple the inventive genius of the
country and 10 collect millions OF dollars
every year from the people of the United
Sta rs by compelling them to pay extOrtiOn-
ate rates for the use of that which it was
alleged did not belong 10 these two COM
panes, but had been purloined from tho
rghtful owner"
The Solicitor General and the Secretary
of the Interior says the report made no mis-
take when they made provisions for having
the legality OF the Bell patents judicIOusly
investigated. The suit could not result to
the benefit Of the Pan-Electric Telephone
Company, as many inventions preceded
that of Rogers. The effect would be to
throw the market open to all companies.
All would probably do some thing. but the
one having the best instruments and being
the best managed w uId probably have the
In conclusion the report SAYS: "The COM
mittee does find that there was sufficient
reason and authority for bringing the suits,
but it expressly refrains from attempting
to find whether the Bell patents were OBJ
tanned fraudulentlv or whether Bell was the
inventor OF the speaking telephone"
Mr.. Hale's Views.
Mr.. Hale, of Missouri, makes q minority
report in which he says that while he con-
ours in many of the statements and cOnclu-
sions of that portion of the committee rep
resented by Chairman Boyle, yet he can not
concur in every thing it contains. Touch
ing the formation of the Pan-Eiectric Com
pany the evidence SHOWS cOnclusiveIy, he
says, that it was purely speculative adj
venture, and there is no evidence to be
found tending to prove that the gentlemen
connected with the Rogers ever anticipated
or intended that their official positions
would or should be used in any way to af-
feet legislation or otherwise to further or
advance their enterprise. 1t is not believed
that the immense mass of testimony will
show there was any thing in the object mo-
tive or intent of any of the gentlemen which
was in any sense immoral, dishonest or in
consistent with the duties of public men or
citizens.
As to the opinion Of Attorney General
Garland it is held by Mr.. Hale that it WIS
like that of any other attorney employed by
an individual. 1t does not appear that it
was intended to further sales of stock with
out disclosing his relations to the company,
nor that any persons were deceived or mis-
led by it.
The report finds that the President's Or
der dismisSing the Memphis suit was emf
nently proper, but at the same time 1t is
said that there is no evidence tending to
show that the Solicitor General was actua-
ted by any impulse or unworthy motives.
even if it be held that he was mistaken as
to some of the legal questions involved.
His mistake in ordering the suit without
reference to tho Interior Department WAS
one which the ablest and most cOnscien-
ti0us officials might make and doubtless
have made.
AS TO the Attorney Generals connection
with the suit, the report finds that the evil
dence is overwhelming and conclusive in
showing that he had nothing whatever to
do with it.
A to the conclusions reached by the De-
partment of the Interior, which formed the
basis of the order for the Columbus suit
the report holds that it would seem impert
nent and not within the scope of the in
vestigatiOn for the committee to express
any opinion. But the public demand should
be very strong and emphatic and the pub
lie interests very great to justify the
institution of suit likely to cost so large
sum, especially when the results are at.
tended with so much uncertainty and when
it appears that the application was made by
rival companies in the absence of any gen. !
eral public interest 1t is also remarked
that the Government has not been secured !
against costs by the petitioners, as is GUS
tomary in such suits.