Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1886-02-18
MIR. GARLAND UPHELD.
The Charges Against Kim and Their
Vmyue OOusidereds

10 Ls f1dGt0r OF Lte IIe'uste ~ q 80
seeius to me to be the injustice OF TIL,
| present clamor against Attorney -Ieneral
| Garland, and so half hearted IL mho'l OF
his alleged justification, tb" cannot is'
frain from assigning the reason i"f my
unreserved confidence in the continued
| integrity of public man, whom have
been taught, even by his political opno-
nents, to respect and honor. 40 me inc
| facts, even in their utmost scope, ili' 10
cast just suspicion npon Mr.. Garland
i good name. Let me state the IActs rs
they have appeared, with none Oi the
shadows of envy and unfuirness upon
them.
Mr.. Garland, while in the Senate Of
| the United States in the spring OF 1883,
became, with several other prominent
men, an owner OF stock in corporation,
| the property of which was inventions and
i paterft rights. Mr.. Garland was an active
attorney for tho company; for hisseryicess
/ and a small amount of money he received
| 1850, 900 of stock on II capitalization of
| S5, 600. QUO Two years atterward, when
/ he became attorney general and the clnet
| promoter of the company, put his oihcial
integrity to the test by urging hun to
bring a suit in the name of the govern
ment against the great rival of all tele-
phone companies. Mr.. Garland peremp-
torily refused to entertain such propo-
sition, because he was interested IN teie-
phone stocks, and, when again ap-
preached, declined to have further con-
versation on the subject.
August 9th, 1886, he left Washington
for his summer vacation, and the Pan
Electric officers applied to the solicitor
general with the same request, who
ordered the suit to be brought. The
President, considering that the Secretary
of the Interior was the proper person TO
advise such suit in the FIRST instance,
referred the matter to Mr.. Lamar, and
the solicitor generals suit was discon-
tinued. Mr.. Lamar, after long hearing
of all parties, was of opinion that the suit
should be brought, and now, with the
appreciation of the President, IT is in
preparation in the Office Of tho solicitor
general. The Attorney General has not
touched his finger TO the case since.
With proper dignity and honor, he re-
PEELED those who appealed to his self
interest.
These nre the facts as ] have been able
to gather them from the columns OF an
adverse press. Why did not Mr.. Garland
do Just u int lie should have done Upon
these facts lias been erected huge struc-
lure OF prescriptions, suspicious and
ears. Many of the criticisms arise from
sensiiiyeness for the honor of the
country and the integrity of the admins
tration; 1t will not suffice alone to ascrbe
all tho commotion to the power of a giant
corporation, though such a Fictitious
sentiment could hardly exist without
giant influences behind it.
The charges made against Mr.. Garland
are: /. That he should not have taken
the stock. 2. He should have given it up
when he became Attorney-General. 3.
The government suit is improper while
he continues to hold the stock. 4. MIR.
Goodies hasty action raises a presump-
ton of an understanding with Mr.. Gar
land. ~.
The first proposition is difficult I'd
answer shortly, because all the affairs OF
the company are involved, as well as GER
tain refnements of propriety, upon which
honest men may differ. 1 should be sur
prised as lawyer, to learn that it is i'm
proper to receive stock in payment OF
| fees, for hold thousands of dollars OF
such stock, some of which was even given
as gratuity to secure my active interest
in the company; it is even more common
| in the west and south, but nowhere con
sidered unprofessional apprehend that
| q lawyer, who is q senator, may receive
stocks in like manner, if congressional
| legislation is not involved, if he has faith
in their merits, and the stock is not forced
| upon the general market for speculation.
4 or all franchise securities in the market,
patent company stocks are less liable to
legislation, and there was in this case,
none proposed, 80 far as Mr.. Garland
knew. He made careful inquiry whether
the patents interfered with those of the
Bell company, and the highest hopes were
entertained of ultimate success. In the
sale of stock no improperly has ap-
peared; it was essentially close cor
poration.
But it is objected that the capitalization
of $4,000, 900 proves it wildcat enter
prise. This ignores the fact that success
full telephone companies require very
large capital; the organization of any
patent company is upon basis of capital
necessary to successful operation. The
value of the patent is, at best, only estl-
mate; the manner of floating the stock
and applying the proceeds is the true test
of good faith. The conduct of this COM
pany was, as far as appears, honorable
and business like. If Mr.. Garland had
visions of wealth such as the Bell patent
brought its owners, doubtless they seemed
as disconnected from his duties as sena-
tor as if they had appeared in rainbow.
l commend John Quincy Adams for
selling all his stocks, so as to avoid any
suspicion of interested motives, and wish
that senators would not speculate at all.
/ rf1t- =. A,x.,.NtaksA., cI4al ht1ci
ness, hence we deplore it; but when the
man proves superior to the temptation,
he should be honored for it. We may
hope for ideal standards of conduct, but
| we cannot condemn by those standards.
II is asserted that, when Mr.. Garland
became encouragement he should have
sold his stocks.
Now, it seems to me thatlegislators and
attorney-generals should be held to no
higher standards than our supreme court
Judges. It occurs every day that judges
decline to sit in railroad cases because
thew own stock which is involved. They
| do not resign or sell their stock, but
simply refuse to act. Why was not Mr.,
Garland entitled to do the same A legis
lator, or Judge, or prosecutor, who hai
bought stock originally with no reason X
believe that he would become ofiiciall.
| interested in it, as in Mr.. Garlands case
is not called upon to sell or resign; 1 an
: | willing to stand on this proposition with
out reserve. He may and must refuse +
{. act, and that Mr.. Garland did. There are
! almost invariably, associates who can &C
in the premises. To enforce such rul
l against an attorney general of the Unite
: States would deprive him inevitably of
majority of his Investments; it is cal
tious and unreasonable. There are PR
cedents innumerable for Mr.. Garland
action, and to demand that he shoul
n | row give up his stock, after he has r.
y fused to act and the matter has been r.
q ferred to other proper persons, seen
y absurd.
n The present suit is not brought for Il
a benefit of the Pan company, but for Il
= public.
lie This brings me to the third point, {
81 which the newspapers seem to me TO g
10 widely, to wit: that the interest of d
NJ Encouragement against the defendant
Id n government suit affects the rights
parties. Government attorneys are ~
tisan of course, and Jealous, and in Il
OF case il is to be hoped that the solicitt
ty general will properly represent the pu
he lie. but the encouragement has u
&C. opened his mouth about this suit since
r. finally refused to net, and how his int
We est can affect the litigation, fail to 81
M II it does, then, by the same toke
,er Judges must be affected by the intere
he of the inactive associate. 1t does l
seem to be material to this inquli
whether the case against tho Boil Tie
ef / DboDa nompanv WAS well brOuplt as