The sun., 1892-06-17

Mr. Cleveland. explaining his relations with
tho Pan n-Electric crowd. and admitting hi,
personal interest In the suit which had beer
Instituted by the Solicitor General He also
stated that the customary procedure was tC
refer such applications to the Department o.
the Interior. On the same day the President
| forwarded to the Solicitor General this state
ment OF Mr. Garland's. and wrote letter init.
mating to Mr.. Goode that II might be we'll to re.
consider the hasty action by which the suit
was ordered without previous reference oi
the case to the Department concerned. On
| the next day. Oct. 8. Just ono month after the
| Memphis suit was ordered. Mr. Goodo replied
to the President that he had instructed Dis
trict-Attorney McCorry to discontinue tho suit.
On the same day. Oct. O. these letters wore
given to the newspapers for publication.
| 1t ltisquite apparent that this correspondence
was prepared. after consultation. with view
to putting 1t ut once before tho country. in
order to remedy ns far as possible the political
damage already incurred.
Four days later. however. Mr.. McCorry re-
newell from Memphis his application to the
Solicitor-General for leave to bring suit
against the Bell company. This time the
Solicitor General referred the memorial and
| the papers accompanying 1t to the Secretary
OF tho 1nteror After an interval OF three
months. and a hearing at which the sew
| eral telephone companies Interested were rep-
resented. Secretary Lamar advised the Depart
mont OF Justice that, while no had no opinion
| OF the merits OF the question. he thought q
Government suit ought to be brought to re-
view the Bell patent: and he recommended
that tho suit be entirely under the control Of
the Government and at its expense.
Thereupon tho Solicitor General retained an
array OF eminent counsel. including Judge
Allen G. Thurman OF Ohio. Grosvenor s. Low
rcy OF this city. Hunton 4 Chandler and Charles
g. Whitman OF Washington. and Prof Cyrus F.
Brackott OF Princeton. the latter ns an expert
in science. On March %. 1885. the now suit
was brought at Columbus Ohio.
There is no doubt that this time the decision
to pursue the course first pointed out BY the
ridiculous Rogers OF Parthenon Heights was
takon deliberately by Mr.. Cleveland as def
mite policy and after serious study Of tho
political considerations involved.
The motives influencing the President and
his advisers to adopt this extraordinary
course. without precedent IN tho history OF
our Government without the slightest foun-
daton In right or reason. are not In evidence
and they can only be conjecturod. It Is not
difficult to conjecture them.
The Pan Electric telephone scandal disored-
itinG Mr.. Cevelands g Administration was ia
grant In the land. The obvious course Of a
President who held that public oflce was
public trust was to punish By expulsion such
OF his subordinates as were implicated In tho
scandal. to purge the departments Of Pan
Electricity. and to send that unolean thing
back to its nest at Parthenon Heights. The
evil required heroic treatment Tho alternative
was to face the music. to stand BY Garland,
Goode. Atkins. Johnston. and all the rest OF
u.s." to shoulder the scandal as an Admnistra-
tion issue. and to carry 1t along still further
on the road already travelled.
This Is what Mr. Cleveland did: and thers is
reason TO believe that he was impelled to this
course not only by dlslnclinatton to confess tho
scandal. but also by the expectation that a
Government attack on the unpopular Bell COM
pany boldly undertaken and vigorously pros
ecuted. would be good stroke fpolitical pol
10y. or course the popularity or unpopularity
OF tho party assaied made no difference about
the right or wrong Of the proceeding: but the
right or wrong Of tho proceeding made no dif-
ference to Mr.. Cleveland.
VI.-Mr. Cleveland Lends the United States
Treasury to tho Pan Electric Crowd.
Up to this time the Government had boon .
party in suits to test the validity Of patents In
only ten cases.
The first suit OF tho kind was brought By .
private person to repeal q patent for an I'm
provement in egg carriers. The second was q
suit In a private interest aGninst tho Rumford
Chemical Works. Tho third concerned n pat
ent planning machine. The fourth was Edison
against tho Western Union Company. where
the Governments appearance was without re-
suits. The fifth was private suit to revoke q
patent for certain elastic paint Tho sixth
was private suit to revoke . patent for an
improvement in enamelled figures. The sew
enth was the private suit OF West L Bond
against Frazier. The eighth was the Zenas O.
Warren case. The ninth was the Roberts tor
pedo case. The tenth was tho barbed wire
case. In these ten cases the application OF
the private parties for the cooperation
OF the Department Of Justice had been grant
ed; by Attorney General Williams and under
the Grant Administration in flve instances;
by Attorney General Taft in ono instance: by
Attorney General Brewster IN three instances.
and by Mr.. Garland once. Seven similar ap-
plications had been refused by tho Depart
ment OF Justice.
Observe now the very important and signin-
cant difference between tho ton suits pro-
viously ordered by the Government at tho ap-
plication OF private parties and the suit to re-
woke the Bell patents which the Department
OF Justice. under President Cleveland's Ad-
ministration. undertook ut the instance OF Dr.
Rogers OF Parthenon Heights.
In every one OF these ten cases tho Govern
ments appearance as q party was merely
formal and 1t involved no expenditure from
the public Treasury. The bill was prepared
by the applicant who expected to profit by tho
repeal Of tho patent called into question in tho
courts. The case was prepared. and the coun-
sci were employed and the costs were paid By
the private plaintiff. This was made the con-
dition on which the suit was ordered. Where
tho condition was not complied with by the
private contestant, and where the Govern
ment was not secured against expense by a
satisfactory indemnity bond the suit was at
once dropped by the Government This hap
pened in tho barbed- wire case.
1t is not equitable or constitutional that tho
people OF the United States should be required
to pay for the patent litigation OF private par
ties. even II for reasons OF form and con-
venlence OF procedure it may properly lend Its
name to the proceedings. Upto the days Of Mr.. |
Cleveland and Mr.. Garland and PAT Electricity,
t. II. IT, 10