The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-04-13
A HOT.HEADED WITNESS.
VAN BENTHUYSEN BEFORE THE
TELEPHONE COMMITTEE.
Lively Tilt With Mr.. Kanney-Edit-
Ors Pulitzer and Dana De-
nOunced as Liars.


thuysen Of New Orleans, president Of
the National Improved Telephone
Company. was placed upon the stand.
He said that his company owned, but
did not use, seven Of the Rogers tele-
phonic inventions. His acquaintance
with Mr.. Young dated from the dis
misfal OF the PIttsburg suit. Young
had told witness of the passage of a
law authorizing the institution Of gov
eminent suits, and witness had de-
clared his intention to secure such &C.
ton. Young, however, had assured
him that the Attorney General, being
interested in q telephone company,
would certainly refuse to have any
thing to do with the matter, where
upon witnets had lost his temoer and
declared that the Attorney-General
bad no right TO interfere with his
Witnessed individual rights. There
had been an agreement between him.
self and Young at Memphis, but, while
there had been a few notes taken, it
had never been formally reduced
to writing. Under The agree
ment each party agreed to furnish
evidence and model, and
divide the expenses, but were to
furnish their own lawyers, for suit
against the Bell Company. Witness
hal gone to Waukeshs, Wis, then TO
Washington, and afterward 10 New
York, where he had received an an
swer to an application he had made TO
the Attorney. General, dated July IA,
1885, stating that the matter had been
referred to the Secretary OF the Inte-
rior, to whom it should have been re-
ierred originally. When witness after
ward called upon Acknowledgement
/ Garland, that gentleman had court
eously but firmly refused 10 hear him
on telephone matters, and witness
had become very indignant and
threatened to appeal to the President.
Within two days witness had called
again, with Mr.. BrieroD, an attorney,
to secure promise that be would act
promptly upon application for suit
against the Bell Company, il referred
to the department through district
attorney, Still the Atrorney-G General
had peremptorily refused TO touch the
matter. Witness had an iDdistinct
impression that the Attorney General
was asked II he had any objection to
the withdrawal of witnesses orig
inal application for suit, and
that he had replied that
he had no objection. Witness bad
gotten the paper from Commissio ner
Montgomery OF the Patent Office, but |
Mr.. Garland had never ordered the |
withdrawal of the application as had |
90 Il 70 xnyti d
draw the application after he learned |
that no law had been passed author.
ising suit as he had supposed, because
he YVES fearful that it would fall into
the hands of the same people in the
Patent Office who had been connect
cd with the issue of the Bell patents,
who might use the papers to forestall
the witness. He had also been told
that there were employes within the
Patent Office who were acting in the
interest of the Bell Company. Wit
ness did not believe that Young knew
anything about the Withdrawal Of the
papers.
The chairman inquired If it were
true that copies Of the Interior De-
pariment proceedings had been
printed for the New 0ileans suit, with
important omissions.
The witness, with great deal of
heat That was another lie circulated
by the Bell Company. THE Bel
Company has circulated the report
that it was a trick on the court" ex.
claimed the witness. "Those who cir
culated it are liars. and they know
that they are liars"
The witness at this point turned IFS
attention 10 that part of DR.. Rogers's |
testimony rejecting on his integrity,
and he declared there was not a'word |
of truth in Rogers's statement tha' |
Senator Harris had denounced witness |
as a sCOundrel.
Mr.. Ranney began to cateChiSe the |
witness with reference to the omission |
of the Nipher affidavit from the In
terror Department record. saw
The witness had long controversy
with Mr.. Ranney about the matter
and declared that that gentleman was
trying TO misrepresent his motive in
emitting the affidavit. He objected
to the a .temps TO besmiroh him by
counsel for other companies.
"What do you mean by thatH" in
quired Mr.. Ranney.
The witness-I understood that
you are here as the advocate OF the
Bell Company.
Mr.. Rauney (indignantly)-Who
told you that; where did you get itf
Witness--I have been told that you
own stock in the Bell Company.
~ FOL hat
do not own any stock in the Bell
Company; do not know any officer in
that company, and have no more con-
heotion with It than you have.
Witness (coolly)-If / were not on
the stand and made such statement
you would say that you did not be.
lieve me. Now, unless you 90 under
oath, | will not believe your state
ment, | have done proper duty
here in the interest Of my compsny
and Of the public and | do not read
that anybody shall besmiIch my char
aCter.
Mr. Rapney (sngrily)-Ii you don't
stop your impudent--
Witness (interrupttngl-When you
undeitlke 10 make It appear that
have tried 10 play trick on the court,
You can't do it with me.
Mr.. Ranney-I have asked you a
proper question and insist on an an
swer
Witness-I deny that the questions
are proper.
Mr. Rmney-Why did not you OBJ
ject when the Chairman asked you
about the malter2
Witness-BeCauee l wanted an OPP
portunity to reply TO the slandeIous
insinustions in this record.
Mr.. Rsnuey-By whOm2
Witness-By the questions asked
here by the cfo's examinations, IL
has been asserted here, and published
in the New York papers, the Sun and
World -and the editors OF those papers
ere lying scoundres-that there was
trick played upon the court. That
is a bareiaced, sIsnderous lie, and the
mau who uttered il is bgreisced liar.
This declaration threw The commit
tee into a futter, and the chairman
pounded The table with his fist to re-