The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1886-03-04
rhe Telenhone Irauhle.

The papers in the interest of the
Bell telephone monopoly, continue to
fire their wads at Attorney General
Garland, who is alleged to be a stock
holder in a rival company Some idea
may be formed of the merits of the
controversy by perusal of the follow
ing brief article which we clip from
an exchange:
"The Pan Electric Telephone COM
pany is rival of the Bell Telephone
Company, and as is usually the case
of rivals, their interests conflict. The
Pan claims that the Bell is enjoying
rights and privileges by reasons of
patents granted by the United States
to which it is not entitled, and some
time since the case was submitted to
the Attorney General, and by him
turned over to the Secretary of the In
terror, Lamar, as to whether the Pan
could institute suits in the United
States Courts to set aside the patents
granted to the Bell Company. He de.
cided that il had such a right, 1t ap-
pears that Attorney General Garland
and several Congressman, hold stock
in the Pan Electric, and q number OF
papers are trying to work up a sensa-
ton by creating the impression that il
is another Credit Mobilier case, and
the House of Congress unanimously
instructed QUE of its committees to in
vestIgate the matter. So far as the in.
vestigatiOn is concerned it is well
enough, and it should be thoroughly
done. But it would be we'll under the
circumstances for readers to go very
slow in making up their opinions as
to fraud. 1t will be we'll to remember
that the Bell Company has a pecnnia-
ry interest in besmirching the charac.
ter of stock holders and every one hav.
ing interest in or friendly feelings
toward the Pan Electric, and the Bell
| is abundantly able financially to EN-
ploy an army ofsubsidized correspond.
ents and papers for the purpose OF
| manufacturing public sentiment, and
killing off all opposition. 1t is one OF
the most oppressive and grasping
mOnopolies of the age. The mere fact
of a Congressman. or ether official,
| holding stock in a telephone company
either Pan Electric or Bells no
evidence of fraud, not as much as a
COngressman's holding NationalBank
stock. Many congressman hold Ma
tional Bank stock, and every session
they are called to vote on matters per.
tanning TO the interests of National
Banks
The Pan Electric case may have
merit, or may not, we do not know,
neither do we care. But to compare
it to the Credit Mobilier case is folly.
The Credit Mobilier was a fraud OF
itself, organized for the purpose OF
gouging the other stock holders in the
Pacific Railroad, and sto ok given to
members of Congress for the purpose
of securing legislation that would en-
able them to gouge, not only the stock
holders but the Government as we'll.
The Pan Electric has not asked for
legislation, is not likely to, and is not
dependent upon legislation, 1t claims
that Bell obtained his patents from
the Government through fraud that
Bell was not the discoverer of tele-
phony, and affidavits and testimony
have been furnished to that effect, and
they ask that the Government insti-
tute suit against the Bell to test the
validity of its patent. The Govern
ment cannot do otherwise In justice to
itself and other than begin suit, and
suit will soon be commenced. Attor.
ney General Garland being stock
holder and an interested party refuses
to have anything whatever to do with
the case"