Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1886-03-21
PAN-ELEC1RIC,
Testimony of Mr.. Casey Young
Yesterday
Before the Telephone Investigating
Committee.
Unsuccessful Attempts to Influence
Mr.. Garland.

WASHINGTON, March 20.-CAsey Ioupg,
in his testimony before the Telephone In
vestigating Committee to-day, said not a
word had ever been said about the associ-
ates in the Psu.EIectric Company using
their official influence or taking advantage
OF their official position to accomplish any
thing for the company. No man had ever
said word that could be construed into
an intention to do anything corrupt or i'm
proper.
Mr.. Rsuney asked if they had had trouble
with the Bell Company.
The witness replied in the affirmative
and added, With tinge Of bitterness in his
tone:
Il had not been satisfied that there was
such monopoly (the Bell Company, a
monopoly that could control the newspaper
press, Congress and everything else."
A written opinion had been obtained
from Commissioner Of Patents Marble to
the the effect that the Rogers patents
WE'RE NOT INFRINGEMENTs
on the Bell patents. That had been done
to preclude the possibility OF deceiving any
would be purchaser of stock. He did not
believe Marble was the possessor OF stock
at that time, but understood from d..
Rogers he afterwards held some.
Van Benthuyssn asked him why be did
mo- call on Garland to bring suit
Wittaess replied that Garland wss e
member of his company aud it's counsellor,
Witness would not want him to do it.
Van Benthuysen had replied that he
would see if there was law OF that nature
it should be enforced,
In the meantime the Memphis bill OF
the Pan Electric had been filed, witness
hal gone to Boston to procure models.
Mr.: Young referred to DR.. Rogers state
ment OF commission in which he Wituess)
vas referred to as saying that Attorney
General Garland had consented to bring
sui. against the Bell Company. He as
c:rted that the doctor had been in error as
to the convePsatiGG.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES
as he (Young) recalled them were as fol-
lows:
On the 24th of May, 1884, DR.. Rogers
had written letter to witness at Mem phis
in which he said he had seen the decision
of Judge Wallace in the Cunning case, in
which it was held suit might be brought
by the Attorney General to annal patents
The doctor seemed to be "enthused" over
it, aud said NOW is our time we must
make Garland Gle bill to annul the Bell
patents" and be wanted witness TO write
to Garland at once
AsEING GARLAND.
Immediately upon receipt Of the letter,
w;,ras.- replied that Mr.. Garland would
"ot SIo ,be n,n ,n and be (witness) could not
ask him to do it. WI VII the witness re,
turned 10 Washington DR.. Rogers ,"'o lltn
of the letter he had written to the Attor' /
ney General, and the witness had told
Rogers that Van Benthuysen had written
to the Attorney General asking him to
bring suit. Witness said he had discussed
the matter with Rogers who was very snx-
ious that suit should be brought.
Witness had said that if Yaa Bsnthuysen
insisted upon it he supposed the Attorney |
General would have to bring suit, but that
they (the Pan. Electric) could take no part
in i. aud did not want it. That was all
the conversation had with either Of the
Rogers about the suit, and !
he bad forgotten the last until
reminded of it by Henry Roger s testimony
= | AN positive l never told either Of them
ths. Attorney General Garland had agreed
to briog cults against the Bell COM
psny to anuul their patent" said Mr..
Young. i
At this point the hearing was adjourned
until Monday.