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


Dickerson upon my titles, my business, and myself,
which have appeared IN the papers since the final
decision IN my favor OF the United States Circuit
Court at Baltimore, have surprised no acquant
ed with Judson or Dickers0n or with their hostile
relations toward me for many years past. Never
theless, the magnitude of the interests involved
makes it incumbent upon me to expose so much of
their attacks as bear Immediately upon the impor
tant rights now finally decided in my favor, in re-
gard not only to all my titles derived from Good
year. bat especially that portion of them which
covers elastic fabrics, and in which large por-
ton Of the whole community have direct interest
The Congress Rubber Company and myself
commended for many years during the original
term of the patent in many different cir
cults and against many different firms, and
recovered over fifty injunctions. After the
iDjunctiOns more. Icommenced some thirteen suits
IN Baltimore against as 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 decided in my favor, and
against Judson's alleged title. 1t seems to me that
after such prolonged contest, and victory so
fairly obtained no high minded or honorable man
should be guilty of further trying TO sustain Jud-
sons pretensions, or to impose them upon honora-
Die merchants or fair business men, to their injury
and MY loss.
The insnuations against the decision of the Court
will be understood by the public as being the not
unusual grumblings of defeated party who has
the bad taste to express them in public prints After
the admission Of Judson that he applied to and
forwarded papers to the counsel in Baltimore; and
Of Mr. Dicherson, that he had conference with
young lawyer" those who choose may be-
1ieve that it was not known to both Judson
and Dickerson that the case was set down
for final hearing, and that the defence
was not based upon Judsons pretended title. The
ppshot of this joint and several card seems to be
that, because Judson was not physically in court
At Baltimore, and because Dickers0n did not argue
Ale case orally to the court, "the result as
might have been expected Mr.. Day beat Mr.. Stell
man." And the public are asked to infer that,
thnpt dnnht Nv IuIcn bad haav t1,Av,.N
sent, and Mr. Dickerson had actually addressed the
court upon the same pleadings and proofs, an op-
pesite result would have been arrived at, and 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, and who perhaps have admired
admitted are somewhat peculiarly, and if any such
believe that an honorable, learned and just Judge
would have been turned from his convictions by
any such display, they will continue to entertain
that belief But such faith, think, is confined to
the gentlemen themselves.
The subjoned letters from those Of my distin-
gushed counsel who were Immediately engaged in
She argument of this particular cause will satisfy
all who know the high personal character which is
aeservedly theirs, and will consign to still more
lasting shame those who would rob me of my just
nights by any means or appliances which avarice,
HORACE H. DAY.
NEW YORK, August o, 1859.
New YORK August 4, 1852
JOHN Fl. B. LATHoBE, ESQ.,, Baltimore, Md.-Dear
Sr:-I inclose to you an article that appeared in
the Tribune of the Sd August. Will you do me
aware of them, upon the points referred to by Mr..
Juds0n, on the occasion of preparing and arguing
the case of Day and others vs. Stellman and Helm.
Kicks, in the Circuit Court United States for the
Maryland district. l regret the necessity of trou-
bling you in this regard, but not having been pre-
sent in Baltimore myself, and your colleagues Mr..
Jenckes and Mr.. G. A. Seward, having attended the
trial no longer than required to make the open
ing argument in my behalf, it seems that have no
alternative. Very respectfully, HORACE H. DAY.
LETTER FROM J. H b. LArRoBE.
HORACE H. DAY, Esq, New YOrk-Dear SIR
have received your letter of the 4th instant, and
AT your instance, I filed some three or four
months ago four bills on the equity side of the Cir
cult Court United States Maryland District, pray
ing Injunction to restrain the defendants Stellman
and Heinricks being among them, from selling
articles alleged to fall within the meaning of the
term "shirred or corrugated goods used in the
exclusive grant from Charles Goodyear to your
SELF dated October 20, 1916, and which, containing
vulcanized India rubber were covered ge by Good
SO far as such goods were concerned, you were the
absolute owner.
suspenders elastic cores in boots, garters and
other goods which do not now recollect sufi-
sienty to characterize name appropriately.
No answers being filed, injunctons were granted
in due course. In the case of Steman and Helm
rck's, however it was insisted that the litigation
then pending in New York would obviate the ne.
epHslty ntlgatlOn IN Baltimore, ana furtner
for putting in an answer was granted by the Court,
Notwithstanding the opposition of your counsel.
No answer having been filed, when the enlarged
time expired an injunction was granted. Mr.;
Charles Marshall was the counsel for Steman and
Heinricks, and he represented himself as then in
correspondence with the counsel in New York.
Judge Ingersolrs opinion having been soon after
published, ] commenced, at your instance, nine
other suits of the same character as the above,
making thirteen in all. The defendants now came,
it seems, to an understanding among themselves;
ILL uatur sOIyn
tiers in Baltimore of the goods in question, taking
the lead, Mr. Marshall acting for all the parties
sued, it was agreed, with view Of obtaining at the
cision of the Supreme Court Omitted States) to set
the case down for final hearing upon bill, answer,
and the testimony that had been before Judge In
gersoll on the motion for preliminary injunction.
With this view, certified copies of all the New York
afidavits were procured, additional testimony on
both sides was let in, and with the whole mass of
documentary evidence, the case was argued before
Judge Giles. There postponement from the
day first appointed, but on this day or the day be-
fore, met Mr.. Judson and Mr.. Dickerson, accident
ally, in Baltimore, spoke to them about the case,
referred to the postponement, heard from them that
they had seen Mr.. Marshall, and was left in doubt,
when it was asked, if Mr. Dickerson would take
part in the argument, whether he would or would
not. Certainly on this occasion, there was no ap-
pearance of ignorance about the case, or any dis
claimer of interest in the result, on the part of
either gentleman. Indeed, it was naturally inferred
from the coincidence Of their appearance in Balti-
more at the day appointed for the hearing that
they were both to be present at it, and that one of
them was to take part in the argument.
When the argument did take place it is very true
that neither Mr.. Dickerson nor Mr.. Judson were
present at it; but Mr.. Marshall whom always re-
garded as representing Mr.. Judson, as well as his
more immediate clients, had by this time Judge In.
gersolls opinion before him, and the full benefit of
the reargument in print, after the close of Judge
Curtis argument for the complainant, of Mr.. Jud-
sons counsel in New York, well as of consulta-
tion as I understood from him. with both Mr.. Jud-
son and Mr.. Dickerson. That he was engaged in
preparation for the trial long before it commenced,
had reason to know. Employed as was to eXpe-
dite hearing in view of an appeal, if necessary,
was more than usually DESTROYS to learn how far
the defendants counsel was authorized by the par