The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-08-12
LETTER OF Mr.. O. A SEWARD.

answer.
You ask me to give statement in answer to the
cards enclosed in your letter, and do with plea
sure, finding in the obligation of duty to yourself
sufficient occasion for departing from the rule long
since adopted for myself not to engage III newspa'
per controversies 1t Is but just to you that can
did and accurate statement of your title and the
litigation concerning it, far as these cards relate
to either, should be made, so that hereafter, when
you come to enforce the rights now judcially deter
mined to be yours, it may not be alleged against
you that you permitted erroneous statements TO
pass unanswered
The statements made in so much of the card as is
signed civilian Judson," will answer in detail.
The first allegation is "that the editor of the Ti-
bune was deceived" but the manner of the decep.
ton or in what it consisted is not stated. II it be
intended to intimate that in eitoriay attributing to
Judge Giles decision the effect OF confirming in
you an exclusive right to manufacture import and
sell elastic vulcanized India rubber goods the ed
tor of the Tribune was deceived, it may be con
ISOLATION for that omnipresent person to know that
his deception is participated in by you, by your
COUNSEL by Judge Giles, and by nineteen wentieths
of the reading public to whom the Tribune, Times
HERALD, and a host of other papers, have made the
decision household word.n' The dividing line
between such universally Of deception and public
opinion is shadowy and indistinct.
The assumption, on the part of the author of the
cards. of an exclusive possession of suiciect saga
city to discover the true effect Of Judge Giles de-
cison, recalls the anecdote Of the escaped lunatic
who assumed the exclusive possession of the only
sound mind in the world, gravely alleging that IAN
the rest of mankind we're insane" He poor fell
low, did not perceive the joke. Perhaps Mr.. Jud-
son will not but the public however, perceive it in
both instances, and may, perhaps, be willing to
adopt Mr. Judson's adjectyes, "groundless, ridicu-
lous and crazy as happily characterizing the as
sumption in both cases.
The second allegation is, chat Mr.. Day is the
licensee Of Mr.. Goodyear for the manufacture Of
shirred or corrugated India rubber goods; the Nash
awannuck Company and are licensees for woven
elastic rubber goods. Days title accrued in 1876;
ours accrued to those who granted it to u.s. in 1914
From l845 till the present time the owners of our
title have been making and selling large quantities
of goods under it, and Day pretended till 1857
or 5S that the two rights conhicted that our title
was subordinate to his"
1t is true that you are the exclusive licensee Of
Mr.. Goodyear for the manufacture of shirred or
corrugated India rubber goods and that your license
was granted In 1876 1t is also true that by con-
firmatory grant made to you by Goodyear in May,
1858, you acquired the exclusive right to make a
variety of India rubber goods which not either
shirred or corrugated and that by virtue Of these
two grants Mr.. Goodyear succeeded in conveying
to YOU he states in his licenses and accounts,
monopoly of the right to make and vend shirred
or corrugated goods of every kind and descrip-
ton, however made, whether woven, cemented,
sewed or otherwise, 1t is also true that you
"never pretended till 1857 or 1852 nor, indeed,
till any other period that the title alleged by the
author of the card to be in the person who signs it,
was subordinate to your own. | am not aware
that by pretence or otherwise you ever dgnified
set up by Mr. Judson by designating it as "a title''
of any kind. Nor am aware that either the author
OF the card, the person who signs it, or the Nasha
wannuck Company, are the licensees Of Goodyear
for woven elastic rubber goods. have never yet
seen license, prior to 1916, which conveyed to
that company, either Of those persons, any such
right; does Mr.. Goodyear in his verified account
OF licenses granted, and of tariffs received, mention
any such license.
1t is also true that in 1857 and 1858 you caused
suits to be brought against various parties who
were selling woven elastic goods without license
from YOU It is not true that no ,obtec tons
in those suits. Those suits were brought
in the name Of the Congress Rubber Com
pany, when it was the possessor of a portion of
the title now owned by You against various parties
residing in Rhode Island, Massachusetts,, Pennsyl-
vania Ohio and New York, and injunctions were
granted after opposition made by the defendants
and arguments by their counsel.
Immediately after the title revested in you, you
commenced various suits against different parties,
some Of which were amicaby adjusted by the de-
PENDANTS, and others of which are now pending.
In three suits brought in New York, motions
were made for preliminary iniunctions. Those mo-
tons were argued on both Sides and, after advise
ment, were denied. BY the request of two of the
counsel, whose names do not appear in the cards
swers in those three causes. While that time was
running, and before its expiration, motions for
preliminary injunctiOns were brought on before
his Honor, Mr.. Justice Grier, in Philadelphia, who
did not "refuse to review the decision in New
York." but who did decline to entertain the mo-
tons, saying that it was the practice of his
Court on contested motions for njunctiOns, to deny
the injunctiOns, and to remit both parties to IA
final hearing. Such final hearing will BE had in the
Philadelphia causes, soon as they can be prepar
ed. While the time for the defendants in the New
York causes to file their answers was still running,
you did, as Mr.. Judson states, "renew the attempt
in Baltimore to procure injunctons. OF this re-
newal those who have signed the cards had notice,
and not only they, but the counsel for Mr. Judson,
who have not signed either of the statements. Mr..
Judson was personally advised that the motions
would be made in Baltimore. He was further per-
sonay advised that the causes were to be brought
on for final hearing upon the evidence which had
been used before Judge 1ngersOl, in the New York
cases. and such other evidence as the parties might
see fit to introduce His counsel also spoke of the
case and Of the probabilities that they would be
there to take part in the argument. There was no
agreement" between yourself "and" any of ode
PENDANTS in Baltimore" by which you agreed with
them "to make up case for final hearing before
Judge Giles"
There was an agreement made between Mr.. Mar
SHALL the counsel for the Baltimore defendants, and
Mr.. Latrobe, the counsel for you, to the effect
have before stated. cannot exclude the conyic-
ton that Mr.. Judson was aware Of this agreement.
This conviction arises not only from my own know
ledge, but also from the following facts:-.
l. The New York answers were filed and copies
same answer was filed in Baltmore the type was
the same, the paper was the same, and, if am not
mistaken, the filling up of the blanks in the print,
with the exception of the names, was in the same
handwriting-that of a gentleman well known as
the associate of Mr.. Judson's counsel.
2. Mr. Bradys argument before Judge Ingersoll
was printed. Judge Ingersolls opinion was printed.
Portions of the afidavits of defendants in New
York, and the various parties whom theyvprocured
to act as atlantis, were also printed. Mr.. Marshall
appeared in Court with printed copies of Mr..
Brady's argument Of Judge 1ngersolrs decision,
and Of the defendants affidavits
3. Judge Curtis argument and reply to the de-
PENDANTS re.argument were printed by you. Copies
were furnished in New York to Mr.. Judsons coun-
sci. They were not furnished to Mr.. Marshall in
Baltimore, and yet Mr. Marshall appeared in Court
with copies of Judge Curtis argument and reply.
4. There are to my knowledge but two copies ex.
One ofthose copies is in your possession, and the
other is in that of Mr.. Judsons counsel. We pro-
duced YOU, copy at Baltimore, and by some means
thes ee 10 M anGter
to convince the Court, in the language of Mr. JUDD