Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-10-20
Mr.. TYNER'SPOSITION
Replies to the Statements Of the
Patent Lawyers.
INTENDED NO DISCOURTEsY TO TEEN
Resumption of the Hearing in the
Wedderburn Case.
AGREEMENT BY COUNSEL

The hearing in the case of Wedderburn &
Co. before the assistant attorney general
for the Post Office Department was resum-
ed shortly after 10 o'clock this morning.
Before the hearing began a Star reporter
asked Assistant Attorney General Tyner
how he regarded the letter addressed to the
Postmaster General by Messrs. Edison,
Doolittle and Somes, representing the Pat
ent Law Association, which was published
in The Star last evening. Gen. Tyner re-
Piled:
Mr.. Tyner's Reply.
"It will be observed that the first ap-
pearance of the first letter to the Post
master General was in newspaper.
when I referred to the extraordinary
proceeding l did it not for publication, but
simply TO explain my own relations to the
case and to put these gentlemen at ease
in withdrawing from it If they were dis
satisfied with the hearing. The PROPOSE
ton they made to the Postmaster General
to preside at the hearing, in view Of the
fact that the regulations Of the department
devolved that duty upon the assistant at
torney general, is akin to a proposition
made by an attorney in a case before a
court that a tribunal should be changed be-
fore he proceeded to try his cause.
''1n case in court of justice where a
party fears to try his case the law pro-
videS for an application for a change of
venue, and no judge would be disconnected
by such an application. In this case. how
ever, there was such application nor
anything similar to 1t. and the appeal to
the Postmaster General to appear himself
was an extraordinary proposition of Great
ing tribunal precisely il accordance with
their suggestions and to meet their wishes
and interests. Therefore l consider it ex
traordinary, and ] referred to it in that
way.
No Discourtesy Shown.
But l claim that discourtesy was
first- instarce. nor in anything connected
with It since. That the gentlemen them
selves did not regard it, at the time as
discourtesy to them is clearly evidenced by
the fact that when Mr.. Edison was asked if
he proposed to continue in the case, he
answered Certainly and the further fact
that they We're present at two hearings and
continued in the case until it was an
nounced by the prosecution (and they were
here as prosecutors) that they had pre-
sented all their evidence. At the close of
the last session at which they appeared
SUCH statement was made, and 1t was
understood that they had presented all
their testimony.
Hence 1 am justified in inferring that
their conclusion after the lapse of four
days that they had been treated discount
eoIsly is not very logical. I repeat what l
have said, that if any time during the fu-
ture hearing these gentlemen should appear
they will be treated as courteously as If
no misunderstanding has ever occurred,
yet II they have decided positively not to
return 1 will try to give the case from their
side quite as frank consideration as ii
they had been present every moment"
Dividing Time for Argument.
The hearing was opened by council on
both sides agreeing upon a division of time
Tor the presentation of their arguments
1t was agreed two hours should be given
each side, Mr.. Small will occupy this
amount OF time and Messrs. Jere Will
son, VIM. l.. Ford and Ross Perry will d.
vide like amount of time between them.
These arguments will be made tomorrow.
when, 1t is hoped. the case will be closed. y
MI Ford then continued with the pre-
seneation OF testimony similar to that
which was laid before the patent office.
and which has previously been outlined in
The Star.