New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-08-10
the INDIA RUBBER CONTROVERSY.
STATEMENT OF MR. DAY AND HIS COUNSEL

The gross attacks by William Judson and f. n.
Dickerscn upon my titles, my business, aud myself
which have appeared in the papers soce the dnal
decision in my favor of the United States Circuit
Court at Baltimore have surprised no one acquainted
with Judon Dickerson, or with Their hostile rela-
tons toward Inc for mary years past. Nevertheless
the magnitude Of the interests involved mskes 1t
incumbent uon 20 expose so much of their attacks
as bear imme lately upon the important rights
finally decided in my favor, in regard not only to al
my titles derived from Goodyear, but especially that
portion Of them which covers elastic fabrics, and in
which 30 large portion Of the whole community have
q direct interest
The Congress Rubber Company and myself con-
tcaed for many years during the original term Of the
patent in many different circuits and against many
different firms and recovered over fifty njunctions.
After the patent extended obtained about fifty
ipjunctions more. j commenced some thirteen suits
in Baltimore aganst many respectable firms there.
They combined together, and employed able counsel
who was instructed to insist and did insist that Judson
was the owner of the rights claimed. The court de-
cided in my favor, and against Judsons alleged title.
1t seems to me that after such prolonged contest, and
victory 20 fairly obtained, highmnded or honora-
BILE man should be guilty Of further trying to sustain
Judsons pretensioDs TO impose them upon honora-
BILE merchants or fair business TO their injury ard
my loss.
The insinuations against the decision Of the Court
will be understood by the public a. being the not I'M
usual grumbngs of defes party, who has the bad
taste TO express them in public prints After the ad-
mission Of Judson that be was appedt to and tor ward
ed papers to the counsel in Baltimore; and OF MIR.
Dickerson that he had conference with that coun-
sci, who is styled as "a very promising young law
eyer" those rho choose, may believe that 1t was not
known to both Judson and Dickerson that the case
was et down for final hearing, and that the defense
Yves not based upon Judsons pretended title The up
shot of this Joint and several card seems to be that
because Judson was not physically in Court at Bati-
more and because DickersOn did not argue the case
orally to the Court, "the result was as might have
"been expected-Mr. Day beat Mr. Stellman.' Ana
the public arc asked to infer that, without DOUBT, II
Mr.. JudsOn had been then present. and Mr. DlckerSoh
had actually addressed the Court upon the same plead
ings and proofs, an opposite result would nave been
arrived at ard that with these helps, Mr. Stellman
would have beaten Mr.. Day. There are some who
will read this who have had some acquaintance with
Mr. Dickerson's style of Argument, aod who perhaps
have admired both his logic and his rhetoric (which 1t
must be admitted are somewhat peculiar, and if any
such believe that honorable learned and ust Judge
would have been turned from his convictions by any
such display they will continue to entertain that be-
lief But such faith, think, is confined to the gentle
men themselves.
The suboined letters from those of my distinguished
counsel who were mmed iately engaged in tue argu'
ment of this particular cause, Will satisfy all who
know the high personal character which is deservedy
theirs, and will consign to stl more lasting shame
those who would rob me of my just rights, by any
means or appliances which avarice, malice or despe-
ration could invent. HORACE III. DAY.
Ner York Aug. 9, lSj9