New-York tribune., 1886-04-25
PAN-ELECTRIC MYSTERIES.
MUTILATING GARLANDs TESTIMONY.
SOME UNAccoUNTABLE COMMISSIONS DISCOVERED
IN THE OFFICIAL RECORD.

IN 1HE OFFICIAL RECORD.
tBY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNE,
WASHINGTON, April 24.-Some matters
relating to the testimony OF Mr.. Garland before
the Pan Electric Committee seem to require oxplanas
tion. He testified Monday, printed proof Of
his testimony did not members OF the committee
until yesterday. In the OF the witnesses who
preceded him tho printed record has been furnished to
the COMMITTEES within forty-eieht hours. This proof
record is subject to corrections by Witnesses with the
consent OF the committee. Senator Harris and Casey
Young both wished to insert such corrections they
desired In the manuscript written out from the stenog-
raphers notes before 1t the printer, but the
request was not granted in either comparison
OF the printed proof OF Mr. Garlands testimony with
senographers rerort OF the the possession Of
TRIBUNE correspondent makes IL pretty evident that
the copy OF the official stenographer revised by
the Attorney General somebody else before 1t was
sent to the printer single example will be sufficient
to show this In the printed report the follow
ing;:
came back. moving my family here early in septem-
ber OF that year 1855 10 put my children at school,
the schools all opened early In that month, and
next summer Q5Si). hai never brought my family
here before then
All this about the schools and Mr.. Garlands family
and the two dates in parentheses-lsS3 and 1854
appears to have been added after he left the witness
stand But omissions Of questions and Justify
gravei suspicious than the Interpolation of matter
which does not Affect the and may be regarded AS
purely explanatory Such omissions are found what
purports to DO the printed record Of Mr.. Garlands
testimony Hero is example, In reply to question
as to whether 1t would have been improper for him to
refer the matter to the Solicitor General Mr.. Garland
said: 1t would not have been improper hut there
question OF decacy In the matter" According to tho
printed record the next question and answer read as
follows;
DO you think you wero little sensitive
Answer-f might have been but | like Lorenzo
Dow's man | would DO damned II did and DO
damned Ii did not
There the subject dropped official record In
the stenograpnc report before mentioned which was
made by men whose skill aud honesty unimpeach
able, the part OF the testimony is reported as
fellows
Don't you think that a little over delicate
1t might have been, but you see was a lttle IKE
Lorenzo Dow's | would oe damned II did and
be damned II didn't and so you see was IN bad TX
We're you more par rticuarly sensitive at that time
than you had been AT any 0lhor
No sir. | have generally taken that course where
have been situated III that way.
II will be observed that the second quotation and
answer omitted from the official report Again,
when Mr. Garland questioned to whether he had
any conversation with any OF his subOrra In rela-
ton to the application to bring a Government suit
several questions omitted and given which
III the Official |" record appear follows:
Do you know any why you should have kept
silent On tue subject after what had occurred
After what had occurred it seemed to me the utmost
proprlety tna5 Shot Id be entirely silent VIII say
that considered delicate II impotic to say any
thing to anybody about IT,
The correct report Of that part OF the testimony above
quoted reads as follows:
Do you know any why you should have
kept silent tho subject after what lad occurred
Mell aof what had occurred IL seemed To me that 1t
OF the utmost propTiey that shoud be entirely
silent. think it would have been extremely ndelleate
II hot mpOliuc for to have said word to Anybody
about II.
Are you confident you said or intimated TO
anybody that yOu could not act aud Us you We're
going away Mr. GOOtc would have to act
know never said 1t To living SOUL
II never occurred &c you
No. sir. never thought about 1t at all.
In this case it will he that two questions and
answers disappeared from the Official report
How did that happen Either the official steuOerapher
was incompetent the record has been tampeed with
by somebody In either case The Official record OF
Mr. Garlands testimony is untrustwothy. II ia UNDER
stool that Mr. Lnney, the stcnographer who made tho
official report, has been employed by tho Solicitor
I'm the pending Government suit against the Bell Com
pany and it Is asserted that he his employment IN
that capacity partly the good offices OF Casey Young
II these statements correct and they are derived
from "A source which seems 10 he trustworthy AIr.
Lnney stands in relation the Department OF Justice
ms well as to of the men whose conduct Is the
subject Of Investigations which would to render his
cmI oymeut the senographer OF the Investigating
Committee nOpporune 10 say tie least II Is IrUDdDic
that the committee will md 1t necessary 10 have the
report made ny Mr.. Lnney subject to critical eXanl-
alton and revision must be regarded as extremely
unfortunate that the iirst material omissions and atIa
nns should have becn discovered Ill the record OF the
testimony OF the Attorney General himself.