Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1886-04-19
THE PAN-ELECTRIC INQUIRY.
Attorney General Garland Examined
To-day.
LUCKY AT Law BUT UNLUCKY AT POKER
TRovERSY.

TRovERsY.
The announcement that Attorney General
Garland was 20 appear before the telephone In
vesttgating committee to-day caused a larger
attendance than usual this morning. and that
fact together with the warm spring day. made
the atmosphere Of the crypt-like room where
the committee meets very oppressive. 1t was
nearly three-Quarters OF an hour after
the regular hour of meeting when the
Attorney General appeared. looking pale and
rather feeble. With a courteous salute 10 the
committee he Immediately took the stand and
on the invitation of the chairman began to
make statement of his connection with the
Law bere tS a sm ne sss mat 70
ter contained in his statement TO the President
on the Sth ofOctober last. In addition he wished
70 explain two or three points OF that statement
In February, 1883, Gen. Atkins had said TO wit
ness that he believed the Rogers inventions
, were OF great utility II properly handed and
poor man like himself Gen. Atkins had de-
sired witness TO enter into this
WON AT LAW AND LOST AT POKER
az told him." said the witness, "that had
never undertaken to make any money except
by law and poker; had always lost at poker
and generally won at law. was willing To so
ments."
Continuing, tho witness said that Senator
Harris made substantially the same statement
about the inventions, and two or three days
afterwards the witness had been introduced to
Dr. hogers and his son at their home. He briefly
told OF the organization of the Pan-Electric
company, as detailed by Senator Harris and
other witnesses, and then turned his attention
to the
APPLICATIONS MADE TO HIM TO BRING SUIT
against the Bell company. 1t was an inference
and not fact, he said, that the Pan Electric
company had made the application. The in
ference was founded on two reasops-frst, that
Col. Young came with the other gentlemen lin
nrf lrr, n
to be secretary and treasurer of the Pan Elec-
trio; and second, because witness had on May
ing suit TO be brought as q stakeholder OF that
company.
Coupling these facts together. witness took 1t
for granted that the Pan-Electric made the ap-
pllcation; IL was simply an inference, and no
name had been mentioned. Witness had treated
P Pp: hogers letter as personal, and he knew
ton; that such an application must come from
the president OF the company. Therefore, the
letter had remained unanswered, and, as a per-
sonal paper, had not been filed.
In July Van Benthuysen had presented his APP
plication for suit, basing it on the law which
Congress. The application had been referred
by witness to the Interior department, where II
should have gone In the first instance; and the
witness had heard no more of IL until il had
been returned last January with the other
papers.
After receiving Van Benthuysen's letter the
witness had set to work to examine into the
matter, for though he had no intimation to that
effect he was satisfied that other applications
would be made. Looking over the authorities
he had concluded that he could not order suit,
and when the gentlemen came Wan Benthuy-
sen, Young and the others ne had determined
| that he would not touch it at all under any cir
cumstances.
THE WITNESS DENIED
that he had ever given an opinion about the
validity of the Bell patent as had been asserted,
to him. The opinion he had given, and the only
opinion, was to the effect that the Pam Electric
nj mo anna ntS.f las how
were improvements upon telephones that We're
differently patentable-a well-recognized prin-
ciple.
Although witness was attorney for the COM
pany, yet Mr.. Young and Senator Harris usu.
ally drew up the legal papers. and when they
were referred to him he made such alterations as
| seemed to be necessary. Those papers have
been submitted to witness In the Senate judi
ciary room, but 1t was mistake to say that
any board meetings had been held in that
room. Witness was satisfied that he had never
attended meeting of the company since the
| last presidential election.
Witness. had never opened his mouth to Mr..
GOode about the case, because solicitor gen.
eral under the statute he was perfectly free and
independent, and witness had no more control
over him in his (witnessD absence or disability
than he had over gentlemen In Congress.