New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1843-01-24
eoro,,seur Touson comc again g

monsieur Tonson come again.
We have been favored with polite and conr-
t.ous spistle from our old friend RICHARD Coo
PER. ESQ, of Cooperstown. written III behalf and
~ the direction OF his uncle Fenimore, which, hav
ing special reasons therefor, and presuming thut
no offence can be taken where no harm IS lnten-
ded, we herewith submit to the public. 1t 49,
verbatim, as follows:
CcopEssrowN. January 2oth, 1913.
C;EnrLEMgH: The New-York Tribune, IN an alleged ac-
copn, OF The recent TRIAL at Basen Spa OF the case OF
Feamore Cooper sgans, yourselves contains several o5
on that aen,ernan. For these bels am Instructed 10 pro-
coed agains, you ega unless they sbond be promptly
and broadly reaced viii direct your attention 70 ;hose
manly unpen,iemany or ungrnerous conduct and mos
especially the charge that Mr. Cooper wond nor he 10
there.n
Ny Instructions are watwentv days from the date OF
this Letter. and then 10 proceed unless satisfactory
As Mr. McEir,h was not Balston, Mr. Cooper desires
plre with errors OF fact he doubtless ascertain Dy
application inessn; and impartial 5Gag who
Mrss.s. GREELEY L. McELR.rH, Eai:urs OF the Tribune
Our object in printing this letter is to solicit
the many who attended the Trial at Balls
top, of which our Report is pronounced libelous
on Mr.. J. f. Cooper, to favor US with statements
regarding the correctness of that Report. If any
one of the FIVE hundred then and there present
Judge Willard, Messrs. J. F. e r. Cooper, and
Fenimore's highly respected counselin attendance
included,) vii! favor us with succnct statements
of any points on which our Report Of the Trial
does injustice to MIR. Cooper, we shall be very
happy to publish them in justice to him, and viii
thank the writer's for their trouble.
i L.
led TO very correc. conclusions in regard to this
matter from the above note Of MIR. r. Cooper.
We had writ,ea sccoun, of our Trial at Baliston,
giving uerbatim the articles on which Mr.. Coop
er's sui. against was founded also his Declara-
ton and our pleadings in reply; we gave nearly
yerbatim our own defence, with the points made
by Mr. r. Cooper in opening against US, and the
substance of Fenimore's summing up in reply
Judge Wizards Charge we hardly ven,ured to
.euoh merely stating the undoubted truths that he
put the case very strongly against us, both the
law and the facts, ard declared the ege citations
made by US napplicable. The only chance, then,
for mistake or injustice part is in sts.e
rnent from recollection of Mr. Fenirnore Coopers
summing up, for Richard makes no complaint thai
we have misrepresen,ed him. Well: the charge
is that our Report is "rep!ete with errors of fact;
but wha, say the spee.feations7 They Psiui
simply-1st, to our expression OF optaton that Mr..
Cooper's inpu,stions on the integrity and conduct
of Mr.. Weed, and his ridcule of the sickness OF
MIR. WIS family at the time Of the Fonda Trial,
were not the handsome thing Cd, to our remark
made Nov. 2elb, lS4l, (the dey before our article
hsrh he ri Rail, Nv
view Of Mr.. Cooper's threat to sue US, that be
"will not like to bring his action in New-York
City, for we are known here, nor in Otsego, 70!
s. he is known there" How far this remark was
warranted by his suing others previously in Mont.
gomery County. AID US subsequently, in Saratoga,
The reader will judge fox himself. Yet we made nc
allusion in our defence to this paragraph, nor 10
Inc fact that hs had sued us in strange and out
of,he-way County for US both. But when, after
our moa,h was shut, he first, and then, alas the
Judge after him, stated to the Jury that we per-
sisted, in the face of his correction, in our cores
ponden,'s mistake that he insisted on pushing his
cause against Weed TO trial in the defendants ab-
ssnce on the FIRST day Of The term-and thus repre-
sented Us to the Jury as aiscreaising MIR. c. 5
statement when We published it, and adding nsu
to injury-we were obliged to quote this paragraph
In our report to show that they were surely mis-
taken. And these two are the only specifications
TO sustain the charge tina, our report is 'replete
with errors of fact
We close with single reoues, ef Mr.. Cooper.
which we trus, he will not consider libel. 1t is
his he 'Etimases disposition to sue US for libel
on some point or points of our Repos, of the Balls
ton tT'ai This raises questions Of TACT, which car
only be properly adjudicased ia the County whence
the testimony Is to be procu,ed-shas is. Sara,ora
We trust. therefore, If he does sue US he viii "a.
and respect the absolute propriety of bringing th.
suit in that County. twill save the witnesses i'm
men.s tronble and vexasion, to say nothing of III,
cost to one or other of the parties. /. ca, h,
properly tried no where else.
Bur, Kenmore, do hear reason minute. Thi
whole business is ridiculous. Ii you would ssimp!
sus those of the Press-gaDg who displease you,
would no, be- SO bad; bu. you sue and write to,
which is no, the fair thing. MIST use in belistlin
the profession Of Literature by appealing FROM il
courts 10 these of Law? We ought TO lingai
1pscdrd, not down Now, Feniuore, YOU push
very good gull of your own excep, when you q
terspt To be fanny-there you break. down. 5,
in the way Of cutting and slashing you are NJ
l, and you don't seem averse to it either The
why not settle this difference at the point Of Ii