New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1847-04-01
Reply 10 James Watson webb.


To The Editor Of The Tribune;
SIR; In your paper Of Monday you have long
article from James Watson Webb written appa.
rently for the purpose of proving that you were
mistaken when you said in a former paper, that he had
paid his efounder debt of 5000 in lump, by his
Bankrupts certificate, though enjoying lordly income
and living in expensive luxury and he has reprinted
the same article in his paper, the Courier 81 In.
quirer ofihis morning because he ntimates would
not be read in The Tribune by many persons had
read the previous article In this way though enemy
to The publication of private matters particularly
lating to himself he has coutriyed 10 present TO a
few thousand readers a tale injurious 10 my
character, the unfortunate typeiounder whom he
paid with his Bankrupts certificate rs you said and
very lauds,ory OF his the honesty OF which no at
least not disposed 10 arragn. He tries even 10 make
il appear that he owed such debt Ia reality for the
money which should have been paid to me. he says In
substance belonged TO himself and Daniel f. Tylee, who
partners in $780, and lost about $500 then BY my
refusal 10 endorse the notes of the Brothers Booth to
whom they advanced money a contract for new
fashioned printing press (Which he pretends they failed
to ful6 on the promise that would endorse the said
notes the Booths having given me mortgage on their
printing Office for my protection. The result Of bis
statement understand it. is this, that he has paid
Webb Tylee or retained In his hands for that
purpose the money which he owed me.
Be assured notwithstanding what he says that your
with his bankrupts certificate, substantially correct
Il was Lot entirely because the sum due al that time
was not less than $4,000.
Webb, Tor his own purposes, chooses TO consider the
debt due to alone, though he well knows it was due
10 George Bruce Co 10 whom he gave his notes for It.
Not satisfied with what he himself could say respect
Ing Webb s. Tylees contract for priEtingpress from
the Booths and my conduct respecting the endorse
ments which pretends TO have called for he includes
a certificate or statement from Tylee, sustaining his
views, and told with great particularly. II makes them
appear like very simple but have not leisure to
examine either of their statements at present
They, Col Webb and Col. Tyee seem to have agreed
together that il IL viii be good thing deprive George
Bruce and his partner OF the above $1,000 now In TACT
amounting to 5000 and divide It between themselves
but all that they have yet succeeded in doing IL to place
themselves in situation in which their word cannot be
believed. They like two rogues taken 10 the Police
Office on criminal charge, who permitted to give
their own version Of the affair and never Tall by II 10
prove their own innocence but II Is regarded as worth
less when il comes before the grand Jury go II must
be with Webb sad Tyees Interested as they are, no
court in Chstendom would receive their statement IN
der oath. They speak doubuy OF the amount OF their
contract with Booth, and other matters contained In H.
although they could lay their hands on II If they wished
and they are only positive about circumstances depend.
ing wholly on their memory. There is not word OF
truth In il. GEO. BRUCE.