New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-08-10

| that there 10 document shtA nSs pceu '"No4
upon BY adverse par:ies a, previous hsuing' when
was absent from TIRE case at Baltimore, ara
some new ones, which I was informed had
been forwarded BY Mr.. Diekersou, were admitted as
evidence BY consent Of your counsel after the aFgu-
mer, OF the case had comneeced. am not aware Oh
having omitted TO call the attention a the Court 10
each and all Of these documents and to state the bear
ng which, in the opinion of your counsel, they hac
upon the questions at issue Oue Of these pspers was
copy of an affidavit of William Judsop, annexed to
what purported to have beea printed copy of pro-
posed bill in equity against you, with exhibits at
tached. containing upward of one hundred and fifty
cls sely printed oc'svo pages in which Mr. Jutson 5
pretended title, and the history of IT, were stated at
length. Upon an examination of Mr. Judsons csrd
do not find egeston thst the record of the case at
Baltimore does not contain every document that AZ
fects the claim set up by him. l was DOT aware till
after the papers in the had been read that Mr.
Dickerson would not take part 10 the argument. He
was expected TO have been present, and did not learn
that there any obecton the part of the deien-
danis or their counsel to bis arguing in their behalf
II Mr. Judson and Mr. Dckerson were no. present and
active in the conduct Of the cause, it was clearly be-
cau.e they chose to be absent and doubt if any one
who has read the opinion Of the Court and their sew
eral cards can perceive where they have gained or
lost al ythiDg by such elected absence. Their case
was fully made up and presented to the Court.
think II will be difficult to perceive how their personal
preserce would have affected the result. Their ab.
senoe was regretted by none more than by your
sci who argued the cause.
This controversy has been settled, where every
one will agree that should be determined in Court
which has full Jurisdiction ofthe whole subject matter,
"a, L. ,nla ptar al
decree upon final hearing and full argument. In the
usual course Of litigation in the Courts of the United
States that decision will stand the law Of this con-
troyersy unless reversed by the Supreme Court II
the cause reaches that tribunal your counsel will be
happy to argue it; but, in the mean time, cannot
advise you to accept Of the appeal which Mr.. Judson
and his counsel DESTROYS of taking to the public
press and to reargue questions OF tgated titles in
that form. Such questions belong to the Courts, and
awabiding citizens conform TO their decisions. Tue
present state of this controversy is rot such AZ will
satisfy those who are DESTROYS OF trespassing upon
your rights and Of pirating your inventions But the
right and justice Of your claim is made 80 apparen, oy
the clear statement and logic Of the Judge whe has
decided in your favor, that all honorable merchants
ard dealers in the articles which the Court has de-
clared to be included in your titles, will not hesitate
to acknow ledge them.
Your opponents, in their published cards, have re-
erred the public to two decisions of the Circuit Court
of the Tilted States for the District OF NewJersey, IN
other branches of this Inda.rubber litigation One of
those decisions upon motion for new tnal by
your edyersaries, after verdict in your favor, al
rmng your rights under the contracts of 1916, be-
tween Yourself and Goodyear, after al attempt to
violate them on the part of Goodyear and some parties
claiming under him. The other was decision
against you upon suit brought by Goodyear, and in
which you alleged the invadity of his ps,ent as one
of your grounds of defense, is usual in all patent
causes The contracts of 1916 and the rights and
Liabilities of the parties to them were reatfirmed In
this decision Both decisions final in that Court,
and have been generally acquiesced in by all other
Counts of the United States of coordinate jurisdiction
There was much newspaper controversy over each
decisions but the public and those engaged in the
trade whose interests Immediately affected, re-
garded the Judgment of the Court rather than the crt
cisms upon the opinions of the Judges. In the present
position of this Inda-rubber litigation, the Circuit
Court of the United States for the District OF Mary
land has affirmed yeur right under the same contracts
of 1916 to all kinds of shired corrugated goods,
" whether cemented, woven, or sewed, containing
yulcanized Indiarubber. This Court has the same
jurisdiction as the Circuit Court Of the United States
for the District Of NewJersey, and its decisions upon
final hearing should have the same respect, and
should be regarded az of the same binding effect as
the decisions of the latter Court for which your oppo
nents have always claimed implicit obedience.
Nor is this decision Of bis Honor Judge Giles, with
out precedent While the titles under the contracts
Of 1916 were owned by the Congress Rubber Com
pauy at least four of the District Judges of the United
States and two of the Judges of the Supreme Court,
holding Circuit Courts Of the United States in differ
ent Districts, took the same view of these contracts
and awarded ipjunctions against dealers in woven
SHRED goods. AIN not aware that any different con-
s,ruoton has been given to those contracts by any
judge except Judge Ingerson when denying motion
for preliminary Injunction. It is true that these de-
cisons upon preliminary motions not regarded as
of binding authority as the Court is only called upon
to determine whether the party seeking relief shows
title which the Court will protect during the pro-
gress of the cause to final hearing But this question
of construction raised and argued in those cases,
and the great majority of the OPINIONS expressed upon
such partial hearings were in concurrence with that
arrived at by his Honor Judge Giles upon full and
iLal hearing.
You ask lie to prepare correct history OF your
titles and of the litigation which has resulted in this
late decision Permit me 10 say that think those VINO
deal in the articles covered by your contracts with
Goodyear are more interested in what the Court has
declared 10 be the effect of those titles as that imme.
diatey concerns their business than in the history OF
them, or of the litigation which has arisen upon them.
Besides full and accurate statement ot tnese titles,
and history of this litigation, would fiji volume.
Mr.. Judson has found an octave volume Of hundred
and fifty pages, hardly sufficient to set forth IN me
rnost succirct legal poraseoogy statement o. his
pretended title to one branch of your business. The