Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1886-04-13
VAN BENTHUYSEN IRATE.
HARD EPITHETS USED IN THE
PAN INVESTIG ALTON.


Counsel Ranney Told That His Word
Was no Good Unless Given Under
OAth-EditOrs Reid and Dana Again
the Victims of "A Flood OF Denuncia-
tiOn.
WASHINGTON, April 12-Wheu the tel
ephonic investigating committee met this
morning Watson Van Benthuysen. Of
New Orleans, President of the National
Improved Telephone Company, was
placed upon the stand, His acquaiut-
ance with Mr. Young, he said, dated from
the dismissal of the Pittsburg suit. MIR.
Young had then told the witness Of the
passage of the law authorizing the insti-
tuition of government suits, and the wit
ness had declared his intention to secure
such an action. MIR. Young, however,
had assured him that the Attorney Gen
eral being interested in the telephone
company would certainly refuse to have
anything to do with the matter, where
upon the witness had lost his temper and
declared that the Attorney General had
no right to interfere with his (the wit
ness individual rights. There had been
an agreement between himself and MI
Young at Memphis, but while there had
been few notes taken it had never been
formally reduced to writing.
THE AGREEMENT.
Under the agreement each party agreed
to furnish evidence and a model and di-
vide the expenses, but We're to furnish
their own lawyers for the suit against the
Bell Company. The witness had gone to
Waukesha, Wis.,, then to Washington,
and afterwards to New York. where he
had received an answer to an application
he had made to the Attorney General,
dated July IA, 1885, stating that the mat
ter had been referred to the Secretary Of
the Interior, to whom It, should
have been referred originally. When
the witness afterwards called upon
Attorney General Garland that gentleman
had cOurteously, but firmly refused TO
hear him on telephone matters, and the
witness had become very indignant and
threatened to appeal 10 the President.
Within two days the witness had called
again with Mr.. Bierson, an attorney, 10
secure promise from the Attorney Gen
eral that he would act promptly upon an
application for a suit against the Bell
Company referred to the department
through the District Attorney. Stlll the
Attorney General had peremptorily re-
fused to touch the matter.
WITHDRAWAL GRANTED.
The witness had an iudistinct impress
sion that the Attorney General was asked
il he mad any objection to the withdrawal
of the witness original application for a
suit, and that he had replied that he had
no objection. The witness had gotten the
paper from Commissioners Montgomery,
OF the Patent Office, but Mr.. Garland had
never ordered the withdrawal of the ap-
plicatlOn, as had been stated. The wit
D., Is.vv
after he learned that no law had been
passed authorizing the suit, as be had
supposed, because he was fearful that it
would fall into the hands OF some people
in the Patent Office who had been con-
nected with the issue OF the Bell patents,
who might use the paper to iOrestal the
witness. He had also been told tbatthere
We're employees in the Patent Office who
were acting in the interest of the Bell
Company.
MR., YOUNG NOT INFORMED.
The witness didonot believe that Mr..
Young knew anything about the with
drawal of the paper. The witness had
sent pencil draft OF an agreement sub
stantially the same as the supplement
agreement produced by MIR. Young to
Mr. Young with a request that he put il
in form. A copy was produced by the
witness OF the supplemental agreement,
dated Aug. 81, 1885, and the witness
identified the instrument as bearing his
own signature. lie said, however, that
it had never been carried out, and had
gone for naught since the parties failed to
get the government suit.
The Chairman inquired if it were true
that copies Of the Interior De-
partment proceedings had been
printed for the New Orleans
suit, with important omissions. The
witness replied, with greatdeal of heat,
that that was another lie circulated by
the Bell Company.
THE NIPHER AFFIDAVIT.
The Nipher affidavit had been dropped, i,
he said, because 10 stated that BelPs in
strument, as described in the specIfica-
tions, would work while Bell himself had
failed TO get speech through it. 'The
Bell Company has circulated a report
that il was a trick on the COURT eX.
claimed the witness. "ThOse who circu-
lated it are liars. and they know that
they are liars" He added that he did
not state that the record was complete
when be presented the papers TO the New
Orleans court. The witness, AT this
point, turned his attention % that part of
DR.. Rogers testimony reflecting on his
integrity, and he declared that there was
not a word 0ftruth in DR.. Rogers state
ment that Senator Harris had denounced
the witness as a scOundrel.
Mr. Ranney began to catechise the
witness with reference TO the omission of
the Nipher affidavit from the Interior
Department record.
A CONTROVERSY.
The witness had long controversy
with Mr.. Ranney about the matter and
declared that that gentleman WAS trying
To misrepresent his motive in Omitting the
affidavit. lie objected to the attempts 10
besmlIch him by the counsel for the other
companies,
"What do YOU mean by thatY inquired
Mr. Ranney.
The Witness-I understand that you
are here as an advocate OF the Bell Com
pany,
Mr.. Rauney (indIgnautly)-who told
you that? Where did you getitI
The Witness have been told that you
own stock In the Bell Company.
Mr.. Ranney-l will tell you that / do
not own any stock In the Bell Company,
do not know any officer In that company,
and have no more connection with IL than
you have.
THE LIE DIRECT.
The Witness (coolly Ill / we're not on
the stand and made such a statement you
would say that you did not believe me.
Now, unless you 20 under oath, / will not
believe your statement. ] have done q
proper duty here in the interest Of my
company aud of the public, and 1 do not
intend that anybody shall besmlrch my
character.
~ D.r,o,, I a,,s,rtIyN II vor dovyt oto,,