St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-03-21
TELEPHONE TESTIMONY.
Young Never Said That Garland
Promised 90 firing suit.

WASHINGTON, March 20.-Casey Young
resumed his testimony before telephone in
vestigating committee to-day. He stated
that not word had ever been said about
the associates in the Pan Electric company
in their official influence or taking advantage
of their official positions to accomplish any
thing for the company. No man had ever
said a word that could be construed into an
intention to do anything corrupt or i'm
proper.
Mr.. Ranney asked if he had had trouble
with the Bell company.
Witness replied in the affirmative and
added, with a tinge OF bitterness in his
tone:
II had rot 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 the
commissioner of patents, Marble, to the effect
that the Rogers patents were not an infringe
ment on the Bell patents. That had been
done TO preclude the possibility OF any
would-be purchasers of stock. He did not
believe that Marble was the possessor OF
stock a. the time, but understood from DR..
Rogers that he afterward held some. Van
Benthuysen had asked witness why he did
not get Garland 10 bring suit against the Bell
company. Witness replied that Garland was
a member of his company, its COUNSEL and
witness would not want him TO do il. Van
Beutluysen had replied that he Wan Ben
thuysen) would. II there was a law of that
nature it should he inforced. In the mean
time the Memphis b.ll of the Pan-Electrlc had
been filed, and witness had gone TO Washing
ton TO procure models. Mr.. Young then re-
ferred TO Mr.. Rogers statement of the con-
versation in which he (witness) was reported
as saying that Attorney General Garland had
consented 10 bring suit against the Bell COM
pany. He asserted that the
DOCTOR HAD BEEN IN ERROR
as to the conversation. The circumstances,
as he (Young) called them, were as follows:
On the cath of May, 1854, DR.. Rogers had
written a letter TO witness at Memphis. in
which he said he had seen the decision OF
Judge Wallace in the Cunning case, in which
il was held suit might be brought by the
attorney general to annul a patent. The
doctor seemed TO be greatly "enthused" over
it, and said: snow is our time. We must
make Garland tlie bill at once 10 annul the
Bell patents" and he wanted witness TO write
to Mr.. Garland at once. Immediately upon
receipt of the letter witness had replied that
Mr.. Garland would not file the bill, and he
(wltness) could not ask MIN TO do il. When
witness returned to Washington, DR.. Rogers
told him of the letter he had written TO the
attorney general, and witness had told Rogers
that Van Benthuysen had written 10 the at
torney general asking him 10 bring suit. Wit
ness had discussed the matter with Rogers.
who was very anxious that suit
should be brought. Witness had said
that if Van Benthuysen insisted upon IL he
supposed the attorney general would have 10
bring suit, but that they could take no part
in it and did not want to. 1t had occurred to
witness that it might go out that his company
had something 10 do with bringing the gov
ernment suit and he had cautioned Harry
Rogers to say nothing about ii. That was
Aug. l. Then young Rogers had said that
Gardiner knew all about it, and witness had
remembered that he must have learned ii
from Johnson. That was all the convcrsa-
tion witness had had with either Of the
Rogers about the suit, and he had forgotten
the last until reminded of IL by Henry Rog-
ers' testimony. Il am positive that never
told either of them that Attorney General
Garland had agreed TO bring suit against the
Bell company to annul their patents" said
Mr.. Young empAatically.
At this point the hearing was adjourned
until Monday.