New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-10-29
NEWyOeK DAILY TRIBUNE SATURDAY. OCTOBER 90, 1883



Dy,r SIR received vour e--a0,inary note II yes-er
d., IN regard 10 your recent publications a'a s Mr. Ctr
scr in viii D. eftr having tbci hin ~, ely % ne lsr
alton 81 ls een-s bat 20 the PERI 81 losing hs On =
By the charges which goa have mlde, t94 81 -. y2l
AZ Him = rak tescc q aEbilrate whether y0n slad 10
him justice BY making the ar1e1fe hos'rafs VI
course you could rot seriously expect a suca al aosard
Mr. Carson contains no. only Of the charges which yOa
have h acht proper 20 make. but II the i7 when you
seSCcd doing H. viz IN issuing your mrs, article on ne
morning OF the day which the question Of hs coana
arcc f. oce 70 up fore The Board Of Assistant
Aldene and which he would have No opportunity Of
Answering until sl',r tie meeting.
He lsoclams thu, your motive in mskng the paAlca
tons against him. for the promotion OF the pablo
good but for other reasons which caused You 70 make Sir
state the nature Of Mr. Carsons complaints against
you that you may Know the grounds, and may. III you
can meet III m the trial.
Mr. Carson has therefore no other course le in Justice
himself and the Fire Department, of which he is the
bead but to commence suit against y,l which VII %
done this day when be hopes TO receive that justice from
jury, which you think proper 20 deny him.
ar. very respectfally your ooedeni sesvsnt -, c
EoRAcE GEEELEY Esq J. w OsSaso
simultaneously with the above we were served
with legal rescrpt requiring to respond to Mr.
Carson in the sum Of 10000 damages OF course. we
have no complaint 70 make; but considering the sbom
inable tightness of the Money Market, we do think
Mr.. Carson should have been satisfied with S19,5OO
Now we are perfectly willing 70 abide the public
judgment as to which OF the above letters may more
Justly be characterized as extraordinary but it is
due TO truth to remark that weeks before we published
tie first of our articles rejecting Mr.. Carson, he
himself had addressed to the Common Council q Re-
port calling tie majority of that body the hardest kind
of names accusing them OF most dishonorabe acts and
daring them to remove him-eyidently delying them
and counting a remoyal-whch branch had accord
Is directed soue days before we said anything about
Mr Carson except 70 back him up in his browbeating
Of tie Council Neither Mr. Carson nor any body else
expected that lie would be kept in by those lie had
grossly nsultad il not sbameully abused and though
We, in writing our first article on bis dealings with
tie Corporation, had no reference 10 or thought
al the action of the other Board in his case We have
now no doubt that be has been rained in Office longer
Il an he would have been if we had said nothing about
him.
AS to our motives-but no matter. The facts are
before the public by whom they will be fairly cOnii-
e7ed We certainly DID not imagine that in offering TO
submit the whole matter implicitly to an umpire to be
chosen by Mr. Csrsons attorney alone and to give the
whole case into his hands on Monday next, we were
either seeking delay or proposing what was alb
surd and we certainly did seriously expect that
Mr. Gerard would promptly and cheerfuliy accede
to our proposition. lie had written us demanding
that we should do his client Justice, and we proposed
to let an arer Of his choosing say what is justice
in the premises, and thereupon would promptly do
it. This is secuted preposterous, and we are told
that we have alternative but to say what we do not
think step up to the captains Office aud hand over
that $4,000 Happily bears were tOlerably thick in
the region where we were broughtnp