The New York herald., 1850-12-27
(A.)
ERIE, November 70, 1850.

| MkSSkD. ROWLAND " ChASk-
GENTLEMEN Your favor, covering extrac
from the affidavit Of Edwin Forrest, is received
lkhosid take no part IN the legal proceedings now
progressing in your city between Mr., and Mrs
absolutely necessary. / have, however, no hesi-
fancy in saying that my feelings and sympathies
| are with Mrs. Forrest; SO much so, that what
can honoraby do out of the suit, will cheerfully
| do. j have with care and with much asionish-
ment, read the extract you enclosed d me; must
| say that Mr.. Forrest is much mistaken in
| atlnbuupg my opposition to his bill TO mys being
| his personal and political enemy. lie does me, la
this, great Injustice. IL was not party question;
| nor was any divorce that was before tina Senate.
| opposed with all my power the bill OF Middleton,
and am told be Is u wing. l said harder things
in the discussion of that bull than did when the
Forrest bill was before us; so in the bill Of Wethe-
rill opposed the bill Of Forrest because thought
neither The Legislature nor the courts of this State
had jurisdiction in the premises, and because did
net believe he sustained the charge OF adultery
endeavored to satisfy the Senate, from our consti-
tuil0n and by authority. that we had not jurisdic
tion; that 10 pass his bill would be 10 stuufy
| selves; opposed it to protect the honor of the
| State and the legal reputation of the Senate In
| doing this, lost sight of Forrest. ] was not his
personal enemy, for never knew him or saw him,
Save on the stage, until ~ winter. did not
know to what political party - belonged until late
in the session. had endeavored TO define my
position on divorces, long before knew how rabid
House will show that the Senate and House did
not vote by party these questions. Mr. Forrest,
making this charge against met may show that he
hoped for from party in his application last
session; his defeat demonstrates that We were not
so corrupt as he hoped TO find us.
He states most rashiy that the bill was defeated
but once in the Senate. If you can procure the
journals of the Senate and House, the journals of
the Senate will prove that he is mistaken.
AT page GO Of Senate, you will see motion was
made TO amend the bill by striking out all divorce
delphia city and county jurisdiction. This was
carried, Il to ii. The bill thus amended was COM
miited TO the judiciary committee, and reported
BY the committee again, with an amendment.
Upon the vote in the Senate, at page 625, this
bill was rejected by tie vote, Is to l6-at page
676 q mstion was made to reconsider the vote,
which, at page GIG, was taken and carried-l7
to 16
So you the vote defeating his bill was once
reconsidered Upon the bill thus again, by the
to reconsider beioresthe Senate, the final vote, at
page 69l, was taken, and the bill again rejected by
l6 to IL.
Thus you zee that the bill was therefore twice re-
jected in the Senate. But this is not all. bill
had been introduced into the House, which finally
page 90l of the Senate, you will see that this bill
was also defeated, Is to 18 The vote was upon the
10th of April. and we did not adjourn until the 18th
defeated in the sensae s the S b xss 5ss is in
Senate, and then the bill of the House. Distinct
bills, and at different times
Mr.. Fones. is then incorrect when he swears that
his bill was only rejected once in the Senate. Ii
was rejected often as it came TO a vote he Is
also incorrect when he says that his bill was only
finally lost because there was no OPT ortuny afforded
susained by the fact, for you see it once
considered-the Senate bill-and it could not be re-
considered again.
The Heust bill was defeated the 10Th of March,
and we adjourned the 18th of May and yet no OPP
portuny To move a reconsideration, when that can
be done any day. The truth ID, no OF the seven
teen who voted on the majority would move re-
consderaiin and every effort was made by Forrest,
but without success He is false to truth when he
says that no time was allowed TO reconsider. He
had time, but no Senator would move reconsidera-
ton.
Mr. Forrest also states that in the discussion, /
admitted that | was in correspondence with Mr..
N. p. Willis, and was charged with acting the
attorney instead of the legislator did state that
why; saw his name connected with the matter
in the New York papers; l think, excusing the
visits of his brother to the house Of Mr.. Forrest;
and knowing no one in the city in any way con-
nectod with the matter, had written him. Mr.
Willis is AT liberty to shew you the letter or letters,
i wrote more than one sdtIesscd to HIM Mr.
and with him Icorresponded after this. Mr.. OConor
may show you the letters written TO him there is
nothing improper in any OF the letters, so far as
know; the imputation that was charged as act
ing the attorney of Mrs Forrest in the Senate, and
made no reply, is nothing more nor less than a
fslsehood There was no such charge made
that heard; and more than that, no Senator dare
make it. did oppose his bl-and with soma en-
erRy, and had good men with me-men beyond
suspicion, above reproach. / have written more
than intended when eat down, for which ex-
cusc me.
One thing is strange in the whole matter-why
my name should be introduced into this paper by
Mr.. Forrest. Suppose were all he says, can that
aid him nowl IL might at Hanisburgh, but GER
tainly not in New York city. II Mr. Forrest wishes
thus vent his modification at defeat last session,
he IS welcoms To indulge himself; still, cannot
help believing that he would have acted more like
gentleman, had he omitted all these unnecessary
things
The record shows how l acted and how voted,
and they show Mr. Forrest persisted in his appllca-
tion for divorce wish, tor the sake Of Mrs For
rest, that they showed all the efforts made by Mr.
Forrest to meet with success
Your, JoHN Ii. WALKER.
R.DSoR, Del Co, Dec 9Th, 1850.
GFNTLEmKN-Mr Reed has informed me that on
or about the 10Th ut letter 10 me was forw warded
by You, making some inquiries Of me in relation to
the Forrest divorce case, asst was presented 20 our
| Legislature last winter. have not received the
letter, and therefore cannot precisely answer any
inquiries upon the subject But have seen a copy
of the Nstc York Herald, Of the 29th Of November,
in which my name, as that Of senator, is most
ofiensivey introduced. pronounce all the insnu-
ations, snd intmatons and accusations Of that pub
tcation, so far as ! am concerned, 10 be utterly
| false and calumnious.
| Iopposed the bill 10 divorce Mrs. Forrest, be-
cause Thought and still think, livery wrong andin
violation ~ every rule of night and decency. OPP
| posed IL actively and earne stly, with no PERSONAL
acquaintance whatever with Mrs. Forrest, and no
| correspondence whatever with her or her counsel
| saw, or thought saw, very dangerous iniiu-
encss work In favor If the bill, and used my best
and most disinteiestsd exertions 10 countersct
them, end project the rights Of an absent and rela-
| lively fiendlees woman. | have no reason 10
| think was wrong Very respectfully,
| H. JONES DRooNR
Messrs IIowIASD S CHASE.
| CafLartas W. E6vrot against Edrtn Forrest.
| - Cifg aud County of Neu fOrk. @.-Chsrles ,.
French, ofsad city, clerk in the Office of Henry ".
| Leeds " Co, auctioneers, doing business AZ No.
Wall street, in said city, being duly sworn, says
| iollewt.- On the second day of November, lSie,
| the above named Edwin Forrest purchased Of
| Henry III Leeds " Co., al their said place OF busi-
ness, two covered sofcs, for the price or sum OF
| one hundr and sixteen dollars. At the time OF
sbid purchase, Mr. Forrest gave directions TO have
the soi sent over 20 the North River To be trans
Ioftcd up said river, To his place, known az Font
4 tu bea Va nCCOFd-