New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-02-01


rals-siQned by Hazard and nearly thoosand Of ks
fellow townsmen--csme no 10 the Assembly 70 he
came eff as the former, and we're referred 70 Select
Committee At the time the late Ch'ei Justice
assumed Office the former reporter Of the Court had
been constrained under extraordinary circumstances,
since detailed before Committee Of the House, 70
surrender bis Office Of reporter 20 the Chief Jasace
the Offices thus being vested in the same psrson Inc
Committee on the Hazard memorial, at one OF 1t, at
tDgs found lying on Their table pamphlet signed bJ
ROBERT II. Ives, containing what purPoned 70 % an
Official report Of the case Ives AT. Hazard, @ II was
TO be found in the forth couing fourth volume OF
Rhode Island Reports, (which volume did not, how
ever maize e appearance unti some elk months after
ward. This Is the report that Hazard set forth IN q
memorial TO the Assembly "a being grossly unfair
toward him. from which charge the reader might be
led 10 infer from some remarks in Tar TRIBUNE, the
reporter was fully exoDeraed by the Committee Of the
House. This Is not the fact II 10 true that Joint
Committee Of both Houses, especially appointed mere
ly 10 hear the reporter at bis own request did 90
r.poIt almost Immediately after its appointment and
that an ATTEMPT w8s made to rush the Comnittee's
W marie ac1uittal nsan,er through the Assembly and
hereby forestall the invefgaa) ms OF the Commiaee
4 the House. bnt the movement failed OF success, and
he Houee Committee, 30 far from clearing The re-
norter expressly except in their report aganst the
ntre mpartialy of the official report OF the Ives and
Hazard CAGE. 1t is known TOO that ths repo" re,
cejyed the signature Of the lawyer Chairman ony, and
that there were members oil The Con WHO eouio
not have been prevailed upon 70 sign the report IN the
absence of stronger expressions OF censure aad tn
their consent 10 the report IL was made was ony
extorted from them under the implied threat, that the
repoIt OF the Joint Committee would otherW1se De
passed over their eads amid the hurry and conf1Eon
incident 10 the last hours Of the session.
Nor is this all: charge bad also been preferred
ssainst the reporter of having failed TO report the
Ives and Armstrong case decided at the same term OF
Court az the other but against the complainant. One
ground alleged by the reporter and his counsel for his
omission, that there was no opinion made oat IN
the case but merely some loose memoranda LEFT on ME
by accident otherwise, which the private prop
erty Of his predecessor, and which would be AZ I'm.
proper for tie Committee to read if the papers had
been surreptitiously taken from bis private desk.
majority Of the Committee stll insisting the reading
OF the papers, the clerk Of the Court vas placed on
the stand apd testified in behalf Of the reporter that
be bad received directions from him, Chief Justice
of the Court to deliver the papers in question TO the
former CT Justice This would doubtless have
auashed the proceedings, were IL not that demand
was Immediately made Oh the COMMITTEES TO retain tie
papers, until the Judges Of Court shOnd be summoned
before them. When these appeared they one and all
testified that the alleged loo.e memorandum was, ss it
was intended TO be, regular opinion Of Court 10 tue
case Of Ives sgt Armstrong, and il nov came out
through the testimony Of the Judge who wrote the
opinion in the Ives sg,. Hazard case, that the re-
porter had taken the liberty, ubbebnown TO the Court
TO make some material alterations in his report of the
opinion ITSELF it was read, 10 say nothing OF the
alleged unfarness of the statement OF facts preceding
H. These facts were not knowo 10 the Committee al the
time they made their report otherwise 1t IL not probable
they could have avoided reporting more decidedly than
they old, Notwithstanding the overwhelming pressure
brought to bear upon them. This Ives and Armstrong
Gaze has since been reported, but ont OF 10 place, OF
course and in subsequent volume, and thoee who are
curous in the matter might derive in truction, not
profit from a careful peIusa Of the two reports, in
iuxtapOstion as they should have been reported AT
the session of the Assembly previous TO the report OF
this case another bold attempt wac made to qussh the
| whole proceedings of the Committee Ia majority OF
whom were anxious TO report but we're prevented oy
lis lawyer Chsirman), by dsmissng the Committee,
and all further consideration Of the matter but faied
| in the Senate where the motion originated.
1t IL also ntimated in Tar TRBusE that certain de-
positions taken shortly after the last Spring elections
in Rhode leland, as contained IN eynopsIs IN ne
| Proridenet Journal, gave somewhat new aspect 70
the case of Ives ag Hazard uofavorhle tn the later
This would be true ifhe synopsis De relied upon
But this is not the Gaze az hs. been shown s1,ng me
now presume, doubt left on the mind Of any hon.
est man in Rhode Island who has read the testimony
and statements that have been published In The Provt
dence Post and THE TRIBusE thattbe dispositions ain
ded TO- wDen taken q whole are decidedly in f.yor
of Hazard and that the Rarbed and in many parts sg
ously untruthful articles that appeared almost sinai
isneously last Spring, in The Providence Journal,
The Boston Ldso Rcporter, ne Boston Courier, and
other papers were in reality the work of paid law
| yer, well known in Providence. u has been offered
10 be proved if denied that of the mos, srocous
Of these arclesbat which appeared in the editorial
columns Of The Boston LdD Reporter and which
afterward reprinted in pamphlet form, and circulated
in Rhode Island being the unbiased production Of
the editor of periodical, especially meant TO convey
| the real facts connected With Important law suits 70
! the bench and bar throughout the Unionwas really
furnished by the council employed by the complainant
in TIE Ives and Hazard case, and the reporter, and
that he had large fee for coneocting the same. 1t
will be readily understood what fearful odds psor
and illeraie man, like Hazard, bias 10 contend WITH
while pressing his claims for justice, against com.
bination of Influences sufficiently po'ent 70 con-
troll not only such Of its legislators and conductors
Of the public press are Susceptible OF beng cor
rupted but who competent 20 approach and dehie
the editorial columns of sheets claiming TO occupy such
! high ground as The Boston Lao Reporter. The 0uly
allegation that has any bearing on the case al issue in
the depositiOns alluded TO is contained 10 tina. OF bit
ter personal enemy of Hazard aud his family, and
Which Hazsrd afiuns to be wholly untrue, and feels
confident OF being able to satisfy any impartial jury OF
that fact. This point is thus alluded TO in TIE
| TRIBUNE:
| 1T il now shown that on his return 10 Neg-York,
Hazard mentioned TO teve'sl persons, with evident
satisfaction that he had sold the la1d for SIS GEO. bot
that some Of them called him fool for having sold at
price which fell far short OF the rate Of 500 per
acre for which Ives bad at the time authorized
| him to buy adjoining tract the Armstrong lott
evidently tending strongly the conclusion that the
only real ground Hazard had for repudatDs his writ
ten bargain with Ives the increase of the land be-
| tween the time when the bargain was made and the
! time when il was 10 be executed"
| Now for the facts. Not single person has been ss
yet produced who called Hazard fool Ii is in proof
by Iyess own brother the late N. Is. Ives that s fsr
back as 1851 he ves atthe period that he told Hazard
TO offer $40 600 for The Peckham farm also told hie 70
ofsr 500 per acre for the Armstrong lot The price
was offered and refused $500 per being then asked
for it. Shortly after, Hazard bought the Peckhsm
| fam for $4,000. IL follows, OF course nA]
| when the alleged sole Of the farm was made We
| next year for $4,000, the Armstrong lot tnouid
| have been worth from 81, 600 70 81 40 per sore 70
| keep pace with the other Ia market yaloe; PROOF
positive that Hazard could not have orokeo az
! from the motives assigned Again. Ha1srs shsSsa
sale Of the farm 10 Ives was on tne on oi my lo'
| .1rusff ad Inv