Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1886-03-26
Cross Examination of Hon. Casey
Young.

Mr.. Ranney, Of the telephone investigating
committee, yesterday afternoon crosse xamfned
Col. Casey Young at length upon the latters
efforts while a member of the last Congress to
have j. Harris Rogers appointed electrician of
the Capitol. Witness frankly stated that he
had tried to secure the appointment for Rogers.
Witness went to the architect of the Capitol in
behalf of Rogers, and was told that the latter
would not be appointed because his habits were
dissipated.
Mr. Ranney asked if the Pan Electric COM
pany had not abstained from taking an active
part in the proceedings at the Interior depart
ment because it did not want it to go up to the
Department of Justice as proceeding in which
the Attorney General was Interested.
III course that was an object" replied the
witness.
why was:.not the Attorney General informed
OF the agreement between the companies but
allowed to proceed under the assumption that
ne was not interested in the matter?'' asked
Mr.. Ranney.
"If am under trial for fraud on the Attorney
to answer it, but 1 do not see that there was
any improperly in the Pan Electric or any
other mpany asking the Attorney General to
bring suit"
AN EXTRACT FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERALS
LETTER.
Casey Young was again on the stand before
the telephone investigating committee to-day.
Mr.. Ranney conducted the examination. The
witness having reiterated his former statement
that no application except that of DIR. Rogers
mad been made to the Attorney General to bring
suit for the Pan Electric company. Mr.. Ranney
read from the record of the Baltimore I telephone
suit an extract from the Attorney Generals let
ter to the President, saying he had been APP
PREACHED by MIR. Young, Van Benthusen and
others. who wanted him to bring suit Tor the
hear them because he was stakeholder in the
company. Mr. Ranney pointed to the apparent
conflict of the statements and asked if the At
torney Generals statements were true.
Mr.. Young declined to answer until the
authenticity of the letter had been established
The The copy he said, was part of the brief of the
Bell company, certified to by two newspapers
and one of the Bell lawyers. He did not regard
that as evidence in this case.
THE PAN-ELECTRIC NOT MENTIONED.
Mr.. Ranney, however, persisted in his ques-
ton, and Mr.. Young replied emphatcally that
the Pan Electric company was not mentioned
in the interview. 81 can show that the state
ment is a mistake, ii you want me to- he said
careiessly, "but suppose you DON'T He was
willing to swear most distinctly and positively
that the Pan-Electric was not mentioned in the
interview.
II DIDN'T CARE CENT ABOUT IT."
he added nonchalantly lat a later stage of the in.
quiry, touching the government suit; II had
just as soon have the suit brought in the name
of our company as in any other name. Iknew
the Attorney General would have nothing to
do with 1t in any case
"How happened it that you did not sign the
application to District Attorney McCarry to
bring suit?' inquired Mr.. Ranney.
ION, don't KNOW replied the witness, toy
ing idly with bit of rubber, II will sign it now
If you want me to-" He said he was resolved
that the suit should be brought regardless
of the feeling of the Attorney General
corporation and needed AL the assistance they
could legitimately obtain. OF course the At
torney Generals feeling in the matter did him
great credit, but it was his duty TO bring that
suit as other interests We're involved, and wit
ness was resolved that it should be brought
As Mr.. Ranney was recurring to point pre-
viously examined, Mr.. Hall objected to the
counsel going over and over the same ground.
Mr.. Ranney Qndignantly)-Who do you mean
by that?
Mr.. Hall-YOu, sir.
Mr.. Ranney-You had better apply that term
to yourself.
Mr.. Hall explained that he did not use the
word counsel" in an offensive sense and with
droxu no