New-York daily tribune., 1856-03-19
JUDGE PEABODYS LETTER,
WITHDRAWING FROM HIS OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS
1rN1II A DrCIsJON OF HIS TITLE CAN RE DE.

UNTIL A DECISION OF HIS TITLE CAN BE DE-
CLARED BY THE COURTS.
NEw-YoRK Monday, March II, 1856.
GFsTLINEK: The question of law, which de-
neDded the claim of Judge Ccwles to the office left
vacant by the death of Judge Morris, having been
authortativey and finally decided against him, and he
having therefore withdrawn from the bench, you were
constrained at the commencement of the February
tenn, to determine from the beet light within your
reach, whom among the claimants OF the seat you
should recognize as entitled TO 1t.
Upon q statement, well known to be untrue in par
tculars deemed very important, and suppressng vital
facts of great notoriety it had been udciay declared
that Mr.. Davies entitled to the office. And it is
quite clear that after deciding against the title Of
Judge Cowles the Court of Appeals, upon the facts
before It, could not have avoided affirming the title Of
Mr.. Davies.
Considering that judgment binds only the parties
TO il considering that the statement of facts on which
this decision proceeded was not, and could not have
been verified on oath by any one, its only sanction
being naked admission of the defendant IN that suit,
whom the record itself treated IA an intruder, and
consequently of all the citizens of this State, is per-
hape the least authorized by his act assent to
create title to the office in any one and considering
also the known incorectnees OF that statement l
feel warranted in claiming that the Judgment which
Mr.. Davies was about entering up should not be
deemed to affect me.
submitted the facts, together with record evidence
of my having received all the votes duly given for the
Office in question and claimed to be recognized L
should not have done this if could have hoped that
after entering upon the Office in virtue of what in
substance certificate of appointment by Judge
Cowles, Mr.. Davies would have united with me in
any method Of procuring judicial decision Of the
QueftiOn between us.
Neither would have accepted recognition had
not supposed that, when accorded an unanimous
foimty thereto would have been exhibited in the ju-
dcia action of the court within this district.
should certainly have declined it could have i'm
agDed among its results the scenes which have ensued,
tending as they certainly have DONE to cOnsequen es
which every good citizen must deplore.
The recognition which received, which | then be.
Geved and stil behve was my highland l do not
know that either Of YOU think diiereuty-has had
tendency to coerce or to accelerate due submission
Of the question 10 the court. 1t has therefore -ed
to effect the ony object sought by in demanding it,
and has also led to state of things which l feel
bound to terminate. l shall, consequently, adopt a
course which must have that effect. The contemplated
Judicial proceedings to place my title b.tond doubt
may be thought TO require that Mr. Davies should be
in the Office &c acto, and, therefore henceforth unit
my title shall have been established, shall present no
impediment to his assumption OF that character and
hope that none may be interposed by Others.
How soon shall be able TO test the question seems
somewhat doubtful. Had Judge Cowles answered Mr.
Davies's suit sgreeably 10 leave given him by the
Court of Appeals a prompt decision might have been
had. This he was under no obligation 10 do; and in
compliance with the urgent request OF Mr. Davies and
Mr.. DGvess counsel, he declined to do it. On the
very day Of my recognition as incumbent OF the office
addressed TO Mr.. Davies letter. requesting him 10
cooperate with me, in any method of obtain
ing judicial decision Though cessation of friendly
relations has occurred between us that letter remains
unanswered Repeated applications to the same effect
have been made by other gentlemen, but without
success.
In such case as the present supposed that the
proper action cannot be prosecuted except in the name
Of the Attorney General. Personally, aud by the in
tervention Of friends, 1 have repeatedly urged that
officer to bring quo pGrrane against me- or TO grant
leave to prosecute one against Mr. Davies; but his
assent TO either course to any step whatever in the
premises, has not been obtained.
After the adoption of certain strict and formal meas
ures, to which am advised, ought not to presume
that leave 10 prosecute viii be denied me by that officer
Should refusal however occur, il is believed that
there is remedyi and to this remedy in that event
shall of course, resort.
Thee obstacle may retard they cauno. prevent