The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-05-22
THE PAN-ELECTRIC.
Garland Again on the Stand-Sensational
Confession of Examiner Wiiber.


pication. the witness had told him that he had
no jurisdiction, that the paper had gone out of
his Office. The witness had not made any re-
mark in reference to what would become of an
application filed in the Office afterwards The
witness was positi We about that he had pur-
posely remained silent on that point Out
rageous 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 any
thing it was on that point
Mr. Oates said that it had been alleged that
the witness had visited Mr.. Youngs rooms while
the conference was IN progress The witness re-
piled that he had never been in those rooms,
and did not know until he had seen it in the
newspapers that Mr.. Young had rooms in G
street. He wished to repeat his former state
ment, that he did not believe he had attended
an-electric meeting after the presidential cleo
tion of 1884, and was positive that he had never
attended one after the inauguration.
Mr. Oates inquired if any person had inti-
mated to the witness that an application for suit
would be made, and that witness had intimated
that it would be oportune if made during his
absence. The witness positively declared that
there had been no such intimations
Mr. Ranney read from Mr.. Briesens accounts
of his interview with the Attorney general, and
the witness smiled at certain points in the
reading.
What did those four men want2" inquired
Mr.. Ranney, referring to tho visit of Bresen
and the others to the department.
II have stated about thirteen times, said the
witness 'but will state it again, if you wish
what they really wanted l don't know; what
they said they wanted was-we want the name
of the United States to test the Bell telephone
patent. I remarked, in reply, that could not
consider the application; that was stockhod
nd fnvo ov,v al thoro
was question two about the procedure;
don't remember what they were. was deter
mined to cut the matter off, and may have
been little abrupt, am afraid" The witness
said he wished to say word about that part of
the testimony of Colonel Dana, of the New York
Sun, where in answer to Mr.. Mlard's question.
he had said that if he Mr. Dana had been in
his the witnesses place, he would have protected
his department against this suit; that he would
have smashed it. While he cared little about
the matter he might say word in reply. 1t
had been conceded on all sides that he had no
proper authority to act in the matter because of
his being stockholder in a rival company, and
his relationship TO the country had not changed
in his absence from July to October, when he
found the action had been taken. The same
disability existed as when he had declined to act
in the first instance If that same disability ex-
listed them he put the question TO Colonel Dana
and to the committee how he could have
smashed the suit if he did not have the ability to
institute it,
The Chairman-Your view was that you had
no power to interfere at all
The Witness-Not at all. / have not been de-
nuded of my disability.
Mr. Ranney discussed with the witness at some
length his power in such matters and the legal
phase of the case Then Mr.. Millard asked if
the witness had not understood that Van Ben
thuysens original application had not been with
drawn with q view to asking another in differ
ent way. The witness replied that he had no
understanding on the subject
Mr. Millard then quoted the witnesses letter to
the President, where he says he supposed the
gentleman would come again with the applica
tion after the statement he had made and asks
reference TO the Solicitor general for permission
to present it to the President.
The witness replied: "You asked if had any
understar ding. I supposed that would be the
course, because the law indicated that course,
and I supposed they knew the law: that they
were not going to let the matter rest there. It
was suppostion based on the law"
DR.. Rogers was recalled, but his testimony
was unimportant.
Mr. Casey Young offered to show by competent
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 was derelict in his duty; that he issued
the patent through corrupt influence: and that
he was paid by the patentee to issue the patent;
These facts he would prove by papers or wit
nesses.
The committee at this point adjourned until
tomorrow, when the offer will be considered in
secret session.
Mr.. Van Benthuysen to day presented afida-
Wits in support OF testimony heretofore intro
duced, and the committee will to morrow decide
in secret whether or not to go into this
phase of the case An affidavit by Zenos Fish
Wilber, examiner in tho electrical division of
the Patent Office from 1875 till May, 1877, says:
When suspended Bells application because of the
Gray caveat, did not, in the official letter to Bell
give the name OF the caveator, his date of fling.
Major Bailey appearing before in regard to such
suspension allowed him to become acquainted with
so that he Immediately knew the exact facts
upon which to base the protest he subsequently filed
against such suspension. and which referred by
to the Commissioner in person. for instructions.
The Commissioner directed to investigate and de-
termine, if possible, which-the application of Bell
the caveat of Gray--was filed the earlier on Feb.
a. 1875 and to be governed by such finding of fact
as the maintenance dissolution of such suspension
From the circumstances hereinbefoAdetailed was
anxious to please Major Baiey-keep on the best and
most friendly terms with him and hence desirous
of finding that the Bell application the earlier
filed, and did not make as thorough examination
as l should have done. in justice to all
concerned SO when found in the cash botter
the entry of the receipt of Grays fee closed the
animation and determined that Bell was the earlier
whereas should have called tor proofs from both Bell
and Gray, and have investigated in other directions in
stead of being controlled by the entries alluded to-
and the statements of Major Bailey to me- The eff
feet OF this was to throw out of court, without his
having the opportunity to be heard of having his
rights protected and the issuance of the patent
riedly and in advance of its turn. to Bell.
After the suspension of Bells application had been
revoked. Professor Bell called upon me in per-
son at the Office and / showed him the original
drawings of Grays caveat and fully ex-
planned Gray's method of transmitting and
receiving. Prof. Bell was with quite time on
this occasion--probably upward of an hour-when
showed him the drawing and explained Gray's meth
DDS to him. This visit either the day or the
second day after the revocation of suspens ion.
WILDER then goes on to say that, on the after
noon of the same day, Bell returned, and, on
leaving, presented him with a 800 bill. Won
will probably deny the statement
made by afiiant-has, in fact already
denied some of them-but Wiber reiterates the
statement that they are true" In evidence Of