New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-08-12

which the case was heard: 1.-Two agreements have
" been fec Ibis csuse-one setting the cause do~n
" for fnal hearing ard arranging the terms Of d.
Cree # the Court should decide 10 favor OF tie COM
" claimants an IA to dispense with the toub. and
" delay of taking al account; and the other in ref
eIence TO the testimony on which the tas been
heard So that the cause hes been heard under
these agreements on final hearing, and Is before
"the Cont for final de rec
Ifthere could be any doubt whether the Judge or
Mr Seward told the Truth, that wouli be di-peIed by
Mr.. Latrobes letter which precedes Mr.. Ss~ards on
the same page. He thus states it. "Mr Marshal
acting for all the parties sued it agreed with
vsw Of obtaining AT the earliest dsy and with the
" FEAST expense, the deci'ion Of the Supreme Cour:
" IL. S.. to set the down for final hearing
" bill, answer, and the te'tDo1 mat had been bforc
" Judge IngersoH on The motion for preliminary Ia
junction. With this view cert fed copies Of all the
" New-York efiidavits were procured, add"to"ot
" testimony both sidts uas ief an, sud With the
" whole mas Of documentary evidence tue cass was
argued before Judge Giles
Having thus presented both sides Of the question,
submit that Mr. Se~ards bold assertion tost this was
" fosl hearing not by consent, but upon ples1iDgs
" and proofs, although it may excite the admiration
Of those who believe that the truth modesty asserted
is DO better than its contrary prrssteuty advanced
must be considered demolished This letter Of Mr.
Batrobc, by the way lets IN another food OF light
upon tins transaction II says, testimony
" on both aides was let in-that is affidavit, ID ad
0it,on to those used in New-York were read by Day
What these were neither Mr.. Ju ison his counsel
have ever heard TO this hour and OF course, cannot
infer how they affected the case but we are at liberty
to hope-Mr Day aud bis counsel to the contrary,
Observation-Disclosures the Courts, when they come to
a Indicate Mr.. Judsou's rights will afford him
opportunity TO cross-e1ambe these aft avitmak7rs,
and ftd out what it is which makes it desirable for
Day to Try bis cause in Baltimore on consented
case where Mr. Judson is not defendant.
1t may be asked why Mr.. Stellman and others made
so ecetsary consent as that upon which they
tried the case The answer is obvious enough-they
had not entered in the matter which mace it Of any
const queuce to them how the case was tried. The
Whole extent of their profits probably selling the
email quantities Of elastic goods year. would DOT pay
the costs Of one trel and Mr. Day could easily araoge
matters 80 az to make it desirable for them to
submit to bis terms than TO fight. His object not
to niure them but indirectly to affect Mr.. Juison,
i bow manifest from the fact the We hear nothing
about the real defendants, but only know Mr.. Judson
is efeated.
Mr. Judson stated that he bad no connection with
the SUIT except to furnish on request some papers.
This not denied directly; bu, Mr.. Seward nsouates
that be had some private communication with Mr..
Marshal about this case which, if bis Of honor
woulo permit bin to publish, would contradict this
averment. The impression which derived from the
few minutes interview | had with Mr.. Marshal is
such. that ] cannot believe it possible he ever sad
ANYTHING about this case to Mr. Seward but the
truth, and knOp the truth to be as Mr.. Judson
stated il. Mr.. Seward however, resorts to a com
mon device to SANDER NJ. Judson, but is caught in
his own trap lie clothes bis SANDER in this language
Were it not for rule of professional courtesy, l
A" should aude TO wi at sad to me by MIR. Mar
" shal upon this point; but ! cannot, without consul
&" tation with him, repeat what he said but am al
liberty to state that Mr. Judsons assertion that lie
"bad no connection with the Baltimore cases, would
be much strer ghened If lie would produce from Mr..
Marshal a statement to that effect.
TIE English of which il, that Mr. Juison published
an III truth, well known to be so to Mr. Marshal who
bad privately exposed the facts to his opponent, Mr.
Sc ward but that from matters of deiic-cy-somc-
what like those which actuated Mrs. Stiggns wno
from motives Of decacy, always kept her gin in
tea.pot-the aforesaid Mr. Seward would not expose
Mr.. Judson. Unfortunately, however, for MIR Sew
ard have the very certificate OF Mr Marshal which
be calls r, in the shape of letter written to me
July o. before this opinion published, and before
any expect alton existed that these issues would be
raised in answer TO an inquiry addressed by me to
him. whether it was true that oal hearing had been
agreed TO in these cases. After explaining the reasons
ehy his clients made this consent and they are very
good ones for hcm), Mr. Marshal sdds, " As for the
form in which the case came up, you did not Know
IT. II wss fault of mine, nor am aware that MI
"Judson has undertaken anything Ill connection with
this case beyond furnishing me with some few
"papers used am unable to see that his case is
" al all preiudced, further than the other side may
&" claim the decree as giving moral weight to their
"canse" And further after sta ing the measures we
have taken in vain to induce Mr. Judson to assume
this defense for the defendants, Mr. Marshal adds,
" SO you will perceive that Mr. j has no connection
with the case further than the interest he had IN
4" setrg up his title" TINS letter was written TO To-
form me Of the true state Of the Marshal as
sum,ng as the truth was, that WAS iguorant OF it
ano il never was expected 10 serve the purpose to
which il is now so admirably adapted; but | have
noticed that frequently these Day gentlemen call for
proof they do not expect TO get, AMI hpd themselves
suddenly confronted by what they have supposed not
to exist. The truth is mighty and will prevail.
As to the attack upon me for the few remarks upon
The case in my short letter, have this to reply:
When read tie opinion and found no mention ma1e
of important documents but their existence, virtually
ignored, inferred the Judge did not see them
IL was only inference, and not statement OF TACT,
and like all other inferences It may be erroneous One
of the facts from which drew the inference is TINS;
Judge Giles says in his opirion-" Is 1t not then per-
" fvcty clear that far as the acts OF Goodyear
were concerned in none Of those acts is there any
hon ha cd no