Democratic Sentinel, Volume 10, Number 23, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 July 1886 — PAN-ELECTRIC. [ARTICLE]

PAN-ELECTRIC.

Three Separate Reports to the House from the Investigating Committee. Mr. Garland Defended by the Democratic and Censured by the Republican Members. [Washington telegram.) The Pan-Electrio Telephone Committee presents three reports to the House, neither of which is signed by a majority of the committee. Chairman Boyle’s report!* signed by himself and Messrs. Oates, Eden, and Hall—all Democrats Mr. Banney’s report has the signatures of himself and Messrs. Millard, Hanbach, and Moffatt —all Republicans. Mr. Hale submits a report signed by himself alone. THE DEMOCRATIC REPORT. The Democratic members of the committee,. in their report, say : “What Dr. Rogers offered to Messrs. Carlisle and others was stock in an incorporated and organized company. What he transferred to Garland, Harris, and others was an interest in inventions, in their then condition of no value whatever, and only to be made valuable by the joint effort of the Rogerses and those who joined them in the undertaking. The property might turn out to be worth much or nothing. It had no commercial value. The evidence aoes not show that these gentlemen were admitted by the Messrs. Rogers with any expectation of profiting by their official positions or official action. Gen. Atkins, the party to whom they made the proposition, was not in office. They certainly expected no official aid from him. It was Gen. Atkins who spoke to Senator Harris, so that the Rogerses did not select him because he was a Senator. The right to select the other three was given absolutely to Senator Harris, and no condition was imposed that he should select persons in office. At that time Mr. Garland was not thought of for Attorney General. In view of his previous life and character it was not thought he would use his official power to forward a private enterprise in which he was interested. Casey Young was named by Rogers. He was not to appear in Congress until nearly a year after. Gen. Johnston was not in office, and did not expect tobe." Of Solicitor General Goode’s treatment of the application to bring the Memphis suit the report says: “Mr. Goode’s statement is not only uncontradicted, but is fully supported by all the witnesses who testified about the same matters.. He was not connected with any telephone company, had no interest of any kind to be affected by the suit, and had no knowledge of any previous application. He had not been informed of Mr. Garland’s connection with a telephone company, and had he been that should have made no difference in his conduct. In the view of thecommittee, while it would have been better tohave let the application take the usual course by referring it to the Interior Department, still his failure to do so was at mo6t only a mistake." In conclusion, the committee finds that therewas sufficient reason and authority for bringing, the suits, but it expressly refrains from attempting to find whether the Bell patents wereobtained fraudulently, or whether Bell was the inventor of the speaking telephone. THE REPUBLICAN REPORT. The report of the Republican members cites testimony to show how the Pan-Electric Company was organized and three and a half millioni of its stock given to gentlemen for the use of their names and reputation. The opinion of Senator Garland, declaring that the Rogers patents do not infringe on the Bell patent, is quoted with the statement that it had been got. because the Pau-Electric could not sell rights without it and it was, as it intended to be, theinducement which led large numbers of persons: to pay in money, a part of which was divided among Mr. Garland and his associates. At thesame time the Pan-Electric knew that their instruments did infringe on the Bell patent. The; report then refers to the postal telegraph bill as explaining the motives of the Pau-Electric organizers, and states that $2,000,000 of the stock was held by members of Congress, because it was expected that the bill would be a subject of legislation. It is charged that the Pan-Electric people, including Mr. Garland, tried to get Congressional indorsements for their scheme, and the evidence is cited where it touches upon theeffort to secure the appointment of young Rogers as House Electrician. It is alleged that Senators Garland and Harris and General Johnston busied themselves personally to accomplish this. Mr. Young put up a telephone ini his committee-room, and this, says thq report,, was “ pretty near to a Congressional indorsement. ”

Touching the Attorney General the report holds that it was his duty, considering how much he was interested, to make sure by calling Mr. Goode’s attention to the application that whenever it did come it should receive the fullest and most impartial investigation, according to all the usages and practice of the office. The report says that he should have been solicitors enough of the honor of the department to have made certain that this was done, but ho did not. The report continues: “Taking all these things together, it does not admit of doubt that the Solicitor General, acting as Attorney General, was by some means led to grant this application without the usual reference or inquiry, without any pretense of competent examination, with unexampled speed, and in violation of the practice of the department. “In an ordinary case such action would be held to be positive proof of fraud; at least proof of gross negligence, which in a person of his position is equivalent to fraud. There is no reason why the rule should not be applied here. It can not be forgotten that this request, granted in so extraordinary and so unbecoming a manner, was a request in which the head of the Department of Justice and a Senator of the United States, who came in person to the Solicitor General to inquire about it. and seemingly urged speed, and other Government officials, for two years had—and had notoriously had—a vast pecuniary interest.

“Upon these facts, no one of which can be disputed, no jury would hesitate. It is enough, however, to say that it cannot be tolerated that the business of tho Government can be so conducted. It cannot escape observation that Senator Harris and Mr. Casey Young acted just as men would act if already assured of what was being asked, and that the conduct of the Solicitor General is most easily accounted for on the assumption that he understood the matter in advance, and had predetermined upon his course of action. “The best that can be said of him (Attorney General Garland) is that he lent himself to this scheme because he got his stock for nothing. If he was not active in it himself, he suffered his name and influence to be used by others. He was then only a Senator of the United States. He was next placed at the head of the Department of Justice. The man from whom he had received tho half-million of stock wanted now to borrow the name of that department and get its indorsements; then an ally asked for it; then the official representative of his company asked for it. Some men would easily have found a course for themselves. He took one also, hut his associates, who knew him and speculated on his character, were certain they would get what they wanted--and they did. His Intelligence told him there were two things he should not permit, and then his vacillating will let him argue that he might stand aside and see his office do them for his benefit. He had not the strength to deny what his associates asked, nor to return the stock and cease to be an associate; he had not the boldness to do personally what they thought was a fair service for the stock he kept. But it was done by his department as such a thing never was done before. The evidence is more aggressive, however, arid the facts according to ordinary rules of law are direct and positive, and unless controlled are conclusive proof that all ex-parte Government action at least was affected by the influence of those interests or the knowledge of them.” „ MB. HALE’S REPORT. Mr. Hale (Mo.) in his individual report denies that the gentlemen Interested in the Rogers company ever intended to use their official positions in its behalf. He holdß that the opinion delivered by Mr. Garland was that of an attorney simply. The general report estimates the cost of trial at *300,000. Mr. Hale thinks that public curiosity should' not be pandered to at such cost, and, in short, that “there’s nothing in it."