The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-08-28
ROGERS and GARLAND.
THE ELECTRICIANS REPLY TO
The ATTORNEY GENERALS
Cross Bill Asking for the DlssOlu-
ton Of the Pan. Electric
Company.

WAsHINeroN, August 27.-The an
swer OF j. Harris Rogers to Attorney
General Garland's cross bill in the
suit OF the former against Mr.. Garland
Tor damages growing out Of the Pan
Electric controversy vas filed in the
supreme Court Of the District OF Co
lumbis today.
In his answer Mr.. Rogers denies all
these allegations. which are intended
to support the defendants prayer fer
a dissolution" Of the Pan-ElectIic
Telephone Company.
Respondent denies that he ever
sold any stock contrary 10 his agree
ment as set forth in Garland's answer,
and pronounced the allegations which
accuse him of violating his contract
wholly untrue. de denies that he
was ever bourd by any contract
Tor even promised) to Gevote him
self to the perfection OF his various
inventions, or OF any inventions, but,
on the contrary, was free of his aeso-
clates and copartneri, defendants to
pursue any vocation Whatever, but,
nevertbelesa, did toll in his laboratory
necessarily for the compauy,wbile they
contributed nothing except that
equally with himself) all the defend
ants paid some ptiful sum 10 me-
chanics, electriciane, etc. He was
always advancing his ratio Of foul
tenths OF the money, and in some in
stances all the money when defend
ants were short OF funds.
Respondent denies that he ever
procured many falsa and malicious
statements to be published in the
press OF the country, both as to defend
ants and the company" and submits
to the court that since the defendants
never reads the newspapers according
to his own frequent statement to re-
porters) he has been imposed upon
by some malicious person and calls
upon him to produce in court a
single word degrading the defendant
or the company, which respondent
has caused to be published except in
his original bill OF complaint.
Respondent admits, as Gets forth in
GaFland's answer, that he is wholly
unreliable" II it be meant that cor
rupt politicians caunot rely on him to
cooperate with them in their nefsri-
Gus designs to run the United States
Patent Office and the Department Of
Justice under secret compacts to ad-
vance private interests as charged in
the bill OF complaint; but il it be
meant that honorable men cannct
rely upon him he denies the allega-
ton, and in proof Of such denial refers
TO exhibits filed with and practiced
to be made part OF his answer. THE
exhibits are the letters produced dur
ing the Psn.Eec,ric investigation,
written by Messrs. Garland and Hsr-
ris, recommending Mr.. Rogers to the
Hon. s. s. Cox, Abram S. Hewitt and
Prof. Baird, and petition recon-
mending Mr.. Rogers to the President
for appointment ss one OF the scien-
tiic experts to be appointed to the
Paris Exposition, signed by all the
other defendants except Gen. Jos. E.
Johnston and Mr.. Garland
Respondent submits that 80 exalted
a parsonage as Mr.. Garland should
not, at this late date, swallow his own
words nor prejudice the reputation
OF even OF an obscure young man, who
had done him many iavors, az set
fort h in the original bill of complaint
and admitted by defendants answer.
Respondent further denies the Justice,
propriety or expediency of dissolviug
or "winding up" the Pan-Electric
Company, for which purpose it Is
sought to make the defendant answer
a cross bill; and the respondent ad-
vises the court that such dissolution
would be disastrous to all parties con-
cerned except the defendents, whose
stock is really the property Of the
respondent, as shown in his bill; that
1t would entail irremediable losses on
this respondent, or hundreds of innO-
cent stockholders in the Pan-Electric
Company, and also in the subordinate
companies, whose stock has been sold
in many cases to widows and orphans,
and their money transferred TO the
pockets OF defendant, Garland.
Respondent further submits to the
court that when the defendant gives as
his reason for such dissolution" that
he wishes to get rid of respondent, he
contradicts his own statement,
to wit: The said complainant as de.
iendant is informed and believes, and
60 charges. has sold or disposed Of
a large part, il not his entire interests
in said joint property, and
has realized some $4,000 or $4,000
for the same.
The respondent therefore submits
thai the pretext aforesaid for "dissolu-
ton" is q mere sham, conceived in
malice aud born in fsleehood. He fur
Their submits that the said Pan-Electric
Telephone Company is not a party to
this cause, that the right OF subpoena
is as old as equity practice, and that
even an Attorney General is bound to
bring parties into court before their
cases can be tried. And, finally,
respondent submits that all the allie
cations Of the defendant in that behalf
intended to support monstrous pro-
ceeding as aforesaid are not only I'M
true and reckless in the extreme, but
most impertinent and scandalous.