Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-03-21

|r,suSGToN, March 20.--Casey Young
4 ned bis testimony before the tele-
4 q Investigation committee to-day.
7 "a not word had ever been said
i X his associates in the Pan-Electrlc
{Dpsny using their official influence or
. sq advantage of their official position
5,cromplish anything for the company
8 nan had ever said a word that could
Snrured or construed into an intention
any anything corrupt or improper.
Kinney asked IL they had trouble with
A Bell company
M witness replied in the affirmative,
4 sdded with a tinge OF bitterness In
tone: al had not been sat
M that there was such mo-
Eoly 1.-THE Bell company, a
2,opoy that could control the news
M press, congress and everything
i A written opinion had been OBJ
sd from Commissioner of Patents
Me, to the effect that Rogers patents
4 not an infringement on the Bell pat
Fl That had been done to preclude the
&dblIity of deceiving any would-be pur-
&sr Of stock. He did not believe that
.bls was the possessor of stock at that
4 but be understood from DR.. Rogers
Fl he afterwards held some. Van
Hnuysen had asked the witness why
. ti not get Garland TO bring suit
EIlt the Bell company. The witness
HKdthAt Garland was d member of his
any, its counsel, and the witness
ta not want him to do it. Van Ben
Nysen had replied that he (Van Ben
EEen) would. II thee was law of
uture It should be enforced. In the
&nlime, the Memphis bill Of the PAN
tElric had been tilcd, and the witness
& gone to Washington TO procure mod
81 Young then referred to DR.. Rogers
&tmtnt of the conversation in
III he (witness) was reported as
NAg that ALtorney-General Garland had
8xnted 10 bring suit against the Bell
psny. He asserted that the doctor
i been In erlor as 10 the conversation.
\ circumstances as he (Young) re-
I'd them we're as follows: On the
u May, 1884, DR.. Rogers had writ.
% the witness at Memphis, in which
s!d he had seen the decision of Judge
lace In the Quincy case, in which 1t
held that suit might be brought by
\ management to annul a patent.
tcctor seemed to be greatly enthused
\ i, and said; "Now is our time.
4 nustmake Garland file bill at once
Einnl the Bell patent" He wanted
n witness to write 10 Mr.. Garland at
Immediately upon the receipt of
letter the witness had replied that
&And could not lile the bill as he (the
Pess) could not ask him to do 1t.
h a the witness returned to Washing
4 As told him OF a letter he had written
d Anorney general. The witness had
Rogers that Van Benthuysen had
Ven the at orney-general asking him
Hilng suit. The witness had discussed
BATTER with Rogers who was very anx-
mAtsuit he brought. The witness
a Rid that II Van Benthuysen insisted
4 u, be supposed the attorney would
I 70 bring suit, but that they (the
hechtc) could take no part in 1t and
w want To. 1t had occurred TO the
sss that it might get out that his
pany had something 10 do with bring
~ government suit, and he had eau
q liarry Rogers to say nothing
w That was in August last. Then
Rogers had said Garland knew ali
sslt, aud the witness had remarked
nc must have learned 1t
bndley Johnson. That was all the
lasaliou the witness had had with
h about the suit and he had forgot
e iast until reminded of 1t by Harry
4, testimony am positive ! never
u.ntr OF them that Attoruey-General
e sG mad agreed to bring suit again, t
wy company to annul their patent, y
ioung emphatically. At this point
]arlng was adjourned until Monday.
Another Hond Call.