The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-05-22
Telephons Investigation.

Telephone investigation.
WAsHTSGros. May 21.-Garland. DR..
Rogers and his son and Messrs. Van
Benthuysen Sypher and Casey Young
were in attendance upon the telephone
investigating committee to-day. The
Attorney-General was the first witness
called. His attention was called TO
Brieson's testimony and he said there
were two or three mistakes in his &C
count of his interview at the department
of justice. He (Attornev-General) had
not expressed any opinion as to the
proper mode of treating Van Benthuy-
sens application. When Ericsson
asked leave to withdraw Van Benthuy-
sens application. witness had told him
be had no jurisdiction that the paper
had gone out of mis- Office. Witness
had not made any remark in reference
to what would become of the apphca-
ton fled in the office afterwards.
Was positive about that. He had
| purposely remained silent on
that point outrageous as It
may have seemed He would rather
have acted in the matter himself than
have made any remark on the proper
mode of making the application. and if
he was positive about anything, IL was
on that point.
Oates said that it had been alleged
that witness had visited Young's rooms
while the conference was in progress.
Witness replied that be had never been
in those rooms, ana DID not know until
he had seen il in the newspapers, that
Young had rooms in sc" Street. He
wished to repeat his former statement
that he did not believe he had attended
| the Pan-Electric meeting after the
presidential election of 1884, and was
positive that he had never attended one
after the Inauguration.
Oates inquired II any person had init
mated TO witness thSt the application
for suit would be made and that the
witness had intimated II would be
opportune II made during his absence
| Witness positively declared there had
/ been no such intimations.
Ranney read from Brieson's account
/ of his interview with the Attorney
General and witness smiled at certain
points in the reading. What did those
/ four men want2 inquired Ranney,
referring to the visit Of Ericsson and
others to the department.
II have stated about fifteen times"
replied the witness. but | will state il
again if YOU wish. What they really
wanted don't know; what they said
they wanted was, we want the name of
/ the United States to test the Bell tele-
phone patent. remarked, in reply.
that could not consider the applica-
ton, that / was q stakeholder and an
attorney for the rival company. Then
there was a question or two about the
procedure. l don't remember what
they were. / was determined to
cut the matter off. and l may
have been little abrupt, L
am afraid - Witness said be wished TO
say a word about that part of the testi-
mony of the New York Sun where in
answer to Millard's question he had
said that If he (Dara) had been in his
(witnesses) place. he wOuld have pro-
tected his department against this suit;
that he would have smashed il. While
he cared little a-out the matter he
might say a word in reply. 1t has been
conceded on all sides that he bad no
proper authority TO act in the matter
because of his being stakeholder in the
rival company, and his relationship to
the country had not changed in his abb
sence from July to October, when
he found that action had been
taken. The same disability existed as
when he had declined to act in the first
instance; if that same disability existed
then he put the question TO Colonel
Dana and the committee how he could
have smashed the suit IL he did not
have the ability TO institute it.
Chairman Your view was that yo1
had no power 10 interfere2
Witness-Not at all. had not been
denuded OF my disability.
Ranney discussed with the witness at
some length his power id such matters,
and the legal phase OF the case. Then
Willard asked il the witness had not
understood that Van Benthuysen's
original application had not been with
drawn with a view to fling another in
q different way. Witness replied that
he had no understanding on the subject.
Casey Young offered to show by COM
petent evidence that the patent that
had been attacked by the government
had been obtained by fraud from the
Patent Office; that the officer who gave
it was derelict in his duty: that he is
sued the patent through corrupt infiu-
ence, and that he was paid by the
patentee to issue the patent. These
facts he wouli prove by papers or
witnesses. e
The committee at this point ad-
Office will be considered in secret SEES
sion.
Mr.. Van Benthuysen to-day pre-
scented, in support Of the testimony
heretofore introduced, and the COM
mittee will tomorrow decide in secret
whether or not to go into this phase of
the case. an affidavit by Zenos Fish
WILDER. examiner Of electrical inven-
tons. division OF the patent Office
from 1875 till May, 1877. WILDER
states that in none Of the .afidavits
ne made in the suit brought at
Columbus to annul Bells patents
have the exact facts beentold in rela-
ton to the issuance of vhe first Bell
patent. WILDER then tells Of the in
iiuences brought 10 bear on him which
caused him to show Professor Bell
Gray's csyeat and 10 favor Bell in vari-
Gus ways. First Major Baily. one Of
Bells attorneys, cultivated his acquain-
lance, presented his wife with hand