The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1845-06-27


recollection Of the two gentlemen whose atidavs he
has published they do not require any remark. N
AZ to the letter from Messfs Holdsrness Chiffon 1t
~ clear from Its tenor that Richard Harrison Chiffon
not before empowered to represent the owners OF the
Aldebaan and far his liability for falsely mpri
sonng Capt York and for other illegal and unauthorized
acts is concerned the ratification power now receiv
ed in nowise protects him. This he will learn in due
Chiffon held when he testified three several occa
sions before as many courts, that he then held til Also
in Published card supeIadding that no was ready to
snow It when properly called before court possess
ing competent Jurisdiction. III -
This announcement reminds Of the saying of a
Dutch Governor " that he liked to hear more
than one side of story that when both parties were
heard bothered him to make up his mind gave him
the trouble Of changing the first opinion formedn ss
These persons have obtained ratification Of their
on ex parte representations representations by H. b.
which he knew to be pure ctisn by Chiffon whose
declarations under oath had been dsproved before the
court Very respectfully
lH eeIs JACOB BARKER.
.Nt New ORLExss, goth May ls45.
from Mr. Mure--hs mind must DO unsettled to continue
thus to write to after the receipt of my letter of the
acknowledges that letter, IN effect tell him that
in consequences Of his violation Of his plighted faith in
relation to the settlement of the difficulty with Captain
York, cond not correspond with him urthor.
Alter the lapse OF six days he returns to the CHARGE
aihough was not in possession OF his first letter ten
minutes before he had my answer in effect far
ther correspondence with him
MI Hurc AFTER induiging in much abusive language,
reanming his intimation that Mr. Stringers pamphlet
pages 80 and 49, does not contain report my
speech-says attdavits will appear in due time esa-
bshng the inaccuracy Of that report; when they do
appear will be time enough to notice them. Several
dsinerested persons who were in court have mention
ed to mo that the report could not be accurate
giving my exact words, and have not heard any one
VINO was present express doubt This, however, is
affair OF the reporter. tl I'll
the substance since avow the opinions there said to
be put forth by me- and to him paper to
IF
cd mpuations which had not the courage to avow
in open court under the shelter and with the ati
tude OF counsePs privilege" that should repeat them
in and out Of court when called to speak the SUBJ
ec. mus throwing away the protection Of the proes;
myself Of r4 lsE4
If Mr. Mure feels that the facts Of the case do not
warrant the opinions have put forth why say So
and endeavor to point out wherein there error Of
fact conclusion and not much ink in endea
orng to show that the reporter had not been
u IN Catching all my expressions which delivered
with great rapdity and fervor too much for the
convenience Of any reporter
His next charge is that in my remarks before the Re-
corder on the 10Th April, l expressed an opinion on
law which had not read His for this was, that
on the aist, asked the lava very farfetched
conclusion this nothing more common than to refer
to the context Of laws many times and often as any
point is raised which such law Is supposed to bear
Tbe facts Of the are that had not met with this
law before the dispute about the Aldebaran arose-
was enacted in 1874 Twas indebted to Captain Richard
r. Jones' master Of the barque Ellen Bryson of Glas
cow for the use of volume containing the law In
sequence Of the very extraordinary uspaons and pre-
tensions OF Mr.. Mure, Captain Jones induced to
bring this book into Court and put into my hands
one or two days before attempted describe its provi
sions and when did this read the sections in question
70 the Court Here again Mr.. Mure to be pursu.
ing the shadow in place Of the substance. The only
question with him should be whether the opinions
put forth by sound if not sound he should de-
monstrate the error by exhibiting true meaning Of
the law. Il matters not II in how was led
into it, how attempted to escape the refrom His not
having done so, will leave the conclusion on every
readers mind that the law was correctly understood,
and described by me.
says nv Ia al in
pers on Monday the 2ls that applied to him on that
day for sight of the law; and that the newspapers Of
Tuesday, the 22d contained version of my speech
This he urges another for the superstition that
had not read the law when made the speech. Sup.
tho merit o. the advocate provided he correctly clear
~ freely and iorcby described every provision of the
sui would not in these enlightened DAYS consider ntui
tive knowledge fault, much less a crime.
The whole object and aim of Mr. Mure seems to be- to
escapetrom the charge of bad faith--whch charge
make directly against him. This bad faith took place
the DIST Of April hence what appeared in the news
papers on the 22d had not anything to do with the mat
ter and if it had been ever so Objectionable il could
not in the slightest degree have influenced the Consu
resortcd to in the hope Of misleading the superficial
reader
when reac the report which appeared in the Jefe,so
ndn of Monday perceived that errors and omis-
sions had been committed and urged the parties the
necessity Of its republication with the corrections which
accordingly too place the following day. did not
the manuscript the proof sheet Of the report
originally published And here it may be proper say
published in the different papers any of the proceed
ngs in relation to the Aldebaran referred to by Mr.
Chltons card published in the Bulletin Of the 10Th of
April, did know who made them I was aston.
shed at their general accuracy there some
rors adverse to the interest Of Captain York, at which,
happening to complain in the presence of Mr. Stringer
he informed me that he had made these reports and
caused them to be published in the Je6sonan and other
newspapers, which the first intmaton had of how
they became published
Compare the original with the corrected publication
when 1t will be that the variations in relation to
The law are very rifng The first represents me to have
''Wha is the whole extent of the consuls authortyun.
der that law! Why this merely to withhold permission
from the Captain who may wish to discharge his mates
seamen apprentices and If such captain should dis
charge either in foreign port or at without such
permission then the captain subjects himself to penal
~ and imprisonment on proof made before their urics
in the British realm" Nt
The second repres ents me to have said
What is the Consuls authority under that law Why
this, merely to withhold permission from the captain
prences and il such captain should discharge either In
foreign port or at sea- without such permission then
the captain subjects himself to penalty and imprison
ment on proof made before the courts Of the British
realm
should like to know in what consists the difference
at which her Britannia Aajestys Consul finds so much
cause to express high Indignation in erms
perhaps he did not know that the jury part of the
court
Some other immaterial things said, which had been
omitted in the first publication appeared in the second
and there were also some autographed and clerical
back to whether not any false statement made
any unfounded conclusion drawn--or any material fact
withheld. |
The ground assumed by the Consul for excepting to
the testimony gave, is little extraordinary he goes
on into long detail Of what he said about the construc
ton OF letter Of apology admitting his recollection in
this particular, to be ortunatethan other
matters, IL amounts to nothing stated was the
opinion entertained before hearing his explanation
Not word was uttered by me about his statement.
The whole conversation described by the Consul as |
having taken place from the drafting the letter the
18th until the being foreign and having any thing
to do with the point in controversy, will trouble
you with much explanation Of the manifest fralty Of the
made any proposition to the Consul that he should
discharge the whole crew and II is also utterly untrue
that there was any agreement or understanding that
Captain York should take Mr.. Turner for his mate il
that had been condition. why was ii not put in the let
tiers of Mr.. Mure Messrs Gordon Wylie Co.. OF Capt
York they all treated the subject of mate what can
be palmer from the contents of Messrs Gordon Wyle
Co.'s letter to the Consul than that the selection Of mate