Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-05-26
AS TO A REFEREE.
A Decision From the Attorney Gen.
eral Asked For.
PATENT OFFICE SCANDAL
The Full Answer of Messrs. Foster and Free
man, Against Whom Charges Were Made
They Deny All the Allegations of Messrs.
Church and Church.

The investigation Of the patent Office scandal
was continued yesterday afternoon at 2 O'Clock
before Commissioner Seymour. After The
STARS report closed Mr.. W. W. Swan, one Of
the attorneys of the Bell Telephone Company.
stated that he had in his possessiona number of
the papers mentioned in the case, that he had
obtained them in legitimate way and he
offered to show them to Messrs. Church Il
Church.
At this poin. Commissioner Seymour an
nounced that he was ready to appoint referee
to take testimony in this case and report to him
the finding of facts. Mr.. Church said he could
not consent to the appointment of an outsider as
referee, for the referee would have the prlvi-
lege Of examining the Drawbaugh files and no
one but an official Of the patent Office should
do this
A question was then raised whether the COM
missioner had the right to delegate his powers
to another or whether he should conduct the
investigation himself. After some discussion
Of this point Commissioner Seymour said that
while he was satisfied in his own mind OF his
right to appoint referee. he would neverthe-
less ask the opinion of the Attorney General
before going further. II it is decided that he
cannot delegate his authority to another, he
will conduct the investigation himself. He
would not detail an official of the patent Office
to do it. as it would not seem appropriate that
a subordinate in the Office shoult, pass upon
the conduct of former chief of the Office. 1t
il expected that the Attorney General will re-
ply by tomorrow.
The answers Of Nessrs. Foster and Freeman
TO the charges to which brief reference was
made in yesterdays STAR, are given below in
full, as follows:
Mr.. Fosters Answer.
And now comes Charles E Foster, and. Tor
answer to the rule to show cause. issued pur-
suant to said petition. says: That he Is MEM
Der Of the firm of Foster Il Freeman. men
toned in said petition. and admits that the
firm at the time mentioned IN the petition, and
for many years before. was and was publicly
well known 70 be. IN the employ as attorneys of
the American Bell Telephone Company. he
AYERS that he had. personally, no knowledge
whatever TO the matters and things set forth
in said petition nor had he any information
in that regard. except such as he derived
about week before the petition OF
Church Church fled; and, there
fore. he il unable to make any answer
TO the matters and things set forth In said
petition except upon information and belief,
and. on information and belief. saws that he
denies that the firm of Foster & Freeman, or
either member thereof. by the consent and al
lowance OF the then commissioner OF patents,
and the chief clerk of the patent office. and
with the connivance of the said commissioner
and chief clerk. any other person or per-
sons, otherwise. was permitted TO In
Bpect any paper or papers mentioned or re-
ferred to in said petition. or that said paper or
papers. mentioned and referred to in said petit
ton, were laid open to the inspection OF said
firm, or any member thsSeof. or to any other
person or persons whomsoever employed by
them or connected with them
As TO THE COPIES.
And Charles E. Foster further, on informa-
ton and belief, denies that he or the firm OF
Foster & Freeman, or Freeman, or any person
employed bv or connected with said firm, was O
were permitted to make the copies OF papers
mentioned in said pc itlon; and OF his
own knowledge denies that any such permission
was granted to him. He further says that he
never saw the said papers. or any OF them. or
any copies of any OF them; that he never,
directly or indirectly. applied for, procured
examined or inspected the papers. or any OF
them, or any copies thereof, and that he never
colluded or connived with any of the parties
named in petition, others. to procure the
inspection of papers or copies thereof. He
denies that any such papers were submitted for
his inspection. and denies any knowledge what
ever of the matters and things averred in said
petition, and AYERS that, so far as he Is person.
ally concerned. every allegation OF said petition
in respect of connivance or collision, applica-
ton for copies, procurement OF copies, examl-
nation or inspection Of said papers, and each
and every one thereof. is wholly untrue, and,
on information acquired about a week before
said petition was filed, hereinbefore
stated, and from all the information
he now has, he denies that the
said Freeman. the firm of Foster Freeman,
made any application for copies Of said papers,
or any Of them, or procured copies thereof, or
the inspection thereof, any OF them, or
copies thereof, or ever received such papers, or
any copies thereof. or of any Of them, or ever
colluded or cOnnI-ed with any of the persons
named in said petition. or with any other per-
sons vhomsoever, with a view to procuring said
papers, or the inspection Of said papers,
or copies thereof. any of them in
said petition averred; and he expressly denies
that he. in any way, manner or form. directly
or indirectly, had any knowledge or informa-
ton whatever in regard to the matters in said
petition set forth. except the information ac-
quired BY him at the time above stated. and.
upon which information, he denies the allega-
lions against the firm of Foster & Freeman, and
each member thereof, as hereinbefore stated.
DENIES COLLISION.
And Charles E Foster further specifically
says that he never inspected, copied or caused
to be inspected copied, colluded or con-
nived with any of the persons mentioned in said
petition. or with any other person persons
vhomsoever, to procure the inspection or copy
ing Of the file wrapper and contents OF applica-
D,
or any records or file of any character whatso-
ever connected Herewith. directly or indirectly
and. to the best of his knowledge and on in
formation and belief, says that no one con-
nected with his Office firm has had re-
eeived any Of said copies, or made any inspec-
ton or examination thereof. and that any and
every allegation insiuuation of any wrongdo-
ing BY him. or with his connivance, in relation
to the matters forth in said petition is utterly
without foundation in truth
FRANK l. FREEMAN, ANSWERING, SAYS:
never requested copies of any of the files or
papers referred to in the petition 1 never saw
copies Of them or of any part of them, except
so far as i have seen some lawfully made and
duly certified copies today to assist in prepar-
ing this answer. / never had any such copies
In my possession or in nv Office or under my
control, or in the possession control of my
partner, or Of any person in my employ or
under my control. / never. by collision or by
connivance with W. Z. SimOnds or Joseph l..
Bennett, or any one, procured sought to
procure any copies or any inspection of any of
said papers by or for myself or for any one
else. far l assisted hereinafter
stated in procuring duly authorized and lawful
certified copies. No one else has procured such
copies inspection with my knowledge, and
have no reason to believe, and do not believe
that any copies of any of said papers were ever
procured seen or any inspection OF the
VTe-a,Va T.. IL