The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-08-12

for the last fourteen years, and is as well known in
the Supreme Court as 1t is to me.o
8. "This is no settlement of the question, nor any
| approach to one."
4. ~ have suit pending against Day in this Dis
trict to enjoin him from any further troubling the
country with this crazy claim and that suit will set
! tie our rights"
| To these four positions it may be answered.
First-That this was final hearing. not by con-
sent, but upon the pleadings and proofs.
| Second--That the decision Of Judge Giles decides
that your title is the older title and that 1t has not
been adudcated by the courts for the last fourteen
years. II the various Judges Of the Supreme Court
are acquainted with Mr. Judsons alleged title, their
acquaintance must have been derived from state.
ments made to them when of the bench, because
there is no report to be found of any decision by
that, tribunal in relation to shirred or corrugated
| goods of any description.
Third-That the final decree entered at Baltimore
is not only "an approach to settlement out is
final and conclusive settlement and one ~hich me
comfy of other courts, if exercised in IL partlcu
lar instance as it usually is exercised In cry other
case will adopt, reafirr and follow.
Fourth-That it is that Mr.. ) son has sued
1.-THE crazy q , Mr.. Judsoh Omits to state, how,
ever, what is Qually true (and it undoubtedly
casual omisson) that before he instituted the suit
against him under the impression that his was "the
crazy claim" and that your suit would result en-
joining "him from any further troubling the coun
try" II may be well" for those who sympathize
|
| have been engaged in endeavorng to protect your
legal rights; and although you are alleged to have
| always been defeated the opinion and decision
| OF bis Honor Judge Giles would seem to indicate
that the wilful mssatement in this particular may
warrant the belief that the other statements in the
card are to say the least questionable True il is that
you attempted to repudate this very shirred goods
license" and il is also true that such attempt was
made at the invitation Of Mr.. Goodyear, in suit ia
| which, as complainant, he himself set the example
ofrepudlation, and that your attempt was sustained
in al Tho nruI wi n
Goodyear attempted to enforce the collection Of his
tariffs 1t is also true that you attempted to break
down Gocdyears patent" Such little experience
as have requires me to believe that such attempt
is always made in patent suit, and it is so usual
not to excite in my mind any particular degree of
surprise. You did not succeed in defeating Good
years patent, but to quote remark of one Of the
Judges, it required " nine big volumes Of testimony
and thirteen counsel, led by Daniel Webster" to
convince the Court that you ought not to have de-
feated it; and the victory then and there gained by
Mr. Goodyear was OF such character that even
Mr. Goodyear himself has not always succeeded
in procuring from the same Court second deci-
ssion of the same kind. 1t is true that you claim
ed =" to be the owner of the Chafee patent" but
do not find in the card any statement that, in the
only suit that went to jury founded upon that
claim, the jury sustained it.
The last charge made against you individually is:
"a fitting finale to his career Is this attempt to
stretch his SHRED goods right, which he has by
oath upon oath declared fraudulent and void, over
subject never included in it; and certain end of
his attempt will be repetition OF his former de-
| feats"
| l am not aware of any oath ever taken by you as
to the proper legal Interpretation to be affixed to
the instruments which constitute your title; and
know no one of your counsel would permit you to
go into court and attempt by your oath to narrow
or enlarge the scope of those instruments In the
cases in New York such an attempt was made by
the client of Mr.. Judson, and the affidavit was be-
fore Judge Giles at Baltimore. That attempt stands
solitary and alone. 1t was Intellectual for any
purpose, and is useful only as monument to warn
clients not to permit themselves to be induced by
the mistaken zeal of their counsel to endeavor by
their oaths to determine the legal effect OF written
Instruments.
The broad Interpretation put by you upon your
title is neither novel nor unwarranted. In 1916,
Immediately after you acquired the title, you COM
menced, under it, the manufacture Of woven shirred
| goods, as well of cemented shirred goods, and
| you continued the manufacture and sale Of both
kinds, until you conveyed all your interest in the
title to those who Immediately formed the Congress
Rubber Company
II the certain end is to be repetition of for
mer defeats" can only say, sufficient unto the
day is the evil thereof" You have now final deci-
sion in your favor, and doubt not that its contem
plation will afford you more satisfaction than you
could possibly derive from speculations as to the
prTTbba6e ment Of doubtful prophecy III.
of decision in all the papers is obvious 1t is to
enable Day to brighten merchants into paying him
something before he is enjoined by me in the suit
pending against him."
This statement is partly erroneous, and if I'M
derstand your intention, is also partially correct
1t is your intention to do all that you may find
necessary to do in your business before Mr. Judson
procures an injunction against you in the suit to
which he refers, and this for the simple reason,
that injunction in that particular suit can never
be an actual fact. That suit was attempted to be
used like the sword of Damocles, and has hung
suspended about year, having obtained among
your counsel the sobriquet of "the Paulo Post
tuuruna suit" Your counsel have often requested
that the future might be merged in the present
tense, and that the suit might actually be COM
menced but Mr.. Judson found it inconvenient to
accede to their request till he himself had been
The object of furnishing the decision to the
press of the country is, as is correctly alleged,
'obvous." 1t was to inform the public that
your claim had received from one Of the ablest
jurists who adorns the federal courts, an autho.
ritatve and final decision; that the merchants,
importers, and other persons interested in the
manufacture, importation and sale Of elastic val
canzed India rubber goods, might know that, SO
far as the law could do it., it had given you ex
elusive monopoly of the right to manufacture, i'm
port and vend such goods; and finally, that if a
in the en- oyment Of that monopoly, you were the
person to whom the law said the tribute was due.
The card of Mr.. Judson appears to me to be an un-
candid and an unfair attempt to deprive you, by
suits of victory which was only won after severe
condensation. Iuse the phrase "improper means"
advisedly: Certainly that phrase properly denomi
mates and designates misstatements and epithets,
and insinuations upon the integrity not only of
counsel but of the Court. To these insinuations
and epithets have not deemed itproper to advert
They are the invariable accompaniments of charges
and statements which ought not to have been made,
and derive all their importance and point not from
the person who uses them but from those to whom
they are directed and applied.
There is one statement in that portion of the
card which is signed by Mr. Dickerson to which
deem it proper to allude. He says:--'I do not
now know what papers were laid before
the Judge, nor Except from the opinion) upon
what he decided; but, as very important papers
are not mentioned by the Court, / conclude he did
not see them"
1t would seem to be the intention of this state
ment to convey two impressions: first, that Mr..
Dckerson did at one time know what papers were
used before Judge Giles; and second that certain