New-York tribune., 1871-06-01
ERIE'S LAWYER.
MIR. CURTIS's DEFENSE OF MR.. DAVID DUDLEY
FIELD.

and Susquehanna litigation Of 1869 and Mr. David Dud
ley Fields connection tn rewh In note pretixed to
the opinion Mr. Curtis says that he was requested in
April last by intimate friend of Mr.. Field to examine
the proceedings in that litigation in connection with the
charges made in certain newspapers and other perod
Gals, and 10 give his opinion upon the whole matter
This Mr.. Curtis says, he regarded as professional
service" Being professional service it is inferred
that MI Curtis charged and paid for the same as for
other professional services although he does not in terms
say The fact however that Mr. Curtis employed
by person who is not only intimate friend, but
brother OF Mr. d. D. Field and he paid for the ser
vice any other counsel is paid for his advocacy.
Mr.. Cstis a peculiar semi-iudicial tone
throughout his opinion giving the public to understand
that he is in the position Of simple inquirer after TRUTH
when he is the retained advocate of one of the
parties TO the controversy He informs us on his l03d
page that ain the prosecution OF his inquiries into the
and involved controversies which he has had
TO examine he has found him (Alr. Field constantly
ready TO afford him any information that herequred" "
while it clearly appears from the context on the same
page that has neither required received any in
formation intercourse either with Mr. Fields "ac-
. cusers" or his opponents in the litigation That Mr..
Curtis really in the spirit Of the advocate rather
than Of impartial judge appears from many things IN
his opinion He repeatedly and in the strongest man.
ner deprecates the drawing of unayOrabe nferences
from facts which, suspicious, consistent with
favorable ones and yet on page S. he insinuates OF
suggests that very likely, in the case OF Ramsay ag
Erie, the plaintiff originally applied for MS Wits W
Judge Bacom and refused, and after such reusdl
applied TO Judge Murray.
The only fact from which he makes this insnuaon is
that the original complaint was first entitled as OF
"Broome County" and was atterward altered 10 De-
ware County" whether" says Mr.. Curtis, 1.-THE
plaintiff applied 10 Judge Balloon or TO any Judge in
Broome County make the orders for which the com
plant prayed, and which were granted in Delaware
County is perhaps not sufficiently indicated by the fact
that the complaint as entitled OF BrOome County" Not
only "peraps" but certainly not. But may be asked,
"Why, Mr. Curtis, your own theory OF the proper
method pursuing this investigation do you make this
insnuaon when many other perfectly bameless ex-
plantations such change must have instantly suggested
themselves TO youl"
Again, the very nature OF the employment prevented
the result from being the work Of other than an advo-
cate. When business man asks the advice of lawyer
In order 10 direct his actions every perceyes that
he wants the we-considered impartial judgment Of his
counsel even though it may be directly against him.
but in like this where no action is to be taken
and where but result is desired it is clear that Mr.
Curtis and Mr. Fields intimate friend" do not beaS TO
each other the ordinary relation Of client seeking the
professional services of his counsel On the whole Mr.
Curss pamphlet is not entitled TO be regarded as the
work OF impartial judge but rather as that OF the re-
tanned advocate Mr. Field is not entitled TO claim the
position character, and reputation Of MI Curtis as In
dOrsng his acts, and this "opinion" should have SO
much influence only fairly belongs to the arguments
1t contains.
As IN the conclusions arrived at by Curtis they
certainly completely acqut Mr. Field Of all the charges
that have been made against him. If Mr. Curtiss view
If these transactions be the correct one Mr. f1ed ana
his partners are not only free from blame but have
fairly earned the admiration and respect of their fellow
members Of the bar and of the public at large Whether
this HIGH prae Is at all diluted by The fact that in the
opinion Of Mr. Curtis, Geo. g. Barnard Is perfectly uI
exceptonabe Judge and that Judge and Advocate are
acquitted by the same process OF reasoning may per-
haps be doubted. Mr.. Curtis says OF Judge Barnard p
98 that he does not believe him TO be man capable OF
usinc bs office contrary TO law and what is right TO
promote the interests of anybody" Whether he has
arrived at this conclusion after full mvestlga- |
ton of the many charges that have been |
made against Judge Barnard or whether with |
regard charges outside OF the connection OF the
Judge with the susquehanna tigations he Is in the
same condition Of absolute ignorance he claims TO
have been prior his Investigations OF the charges and
defenscs of Mr. Field page - he does not inform us.
The character of Judge Barnard however, is 100 well
known and too firmly established, not only III thls COM
munty but unfortunately wherever III the clVlhZed
world information our judicial proceedings has been
carried to disturbed by the mere tpSe dlTt OF Mr
Curtis and cannot be great gain to Mr. Field to be
cleared in the same breath with his notorious CO.
defendant.
tits almost impossible. in the brief limits Of news
naper article to discuss the arguments urged by Mr. Cur
lis in reply to those Of Mr. Fields various accusers His
pamphlet Of l25 pages published aud is open TO all
who are interested in the controversy and will 1t is
hoped he attenvey read by all who have read the other
side few of the prominent points, however, may
deserve notice.
l. AS to the first Wilbur suit TO compel the transfer
OF the Oneonta stock page 12 The action was brought
on the allegation that the plaintiff had bought ana pad
mar for the Oneona STOCK and that the Treasurer OF the
company had refused transfer the stock on the ground
that plaintiff had not paid par for IT, ltfuther aegeu
ON information and belief that the Treasurer acted under
tn ,nte of Ramsey. and that his
real motive was desire prevent the plaintiffs voting
AT the approaching election. On this complaint he de-
nands iudgnent that the defendants be enoined from
not transferring. The complaint is dated the Ath
August and alleges that the books Will close on the 7h
On this complaint the plaintiff obtained from Judge
Barnard an absolute order for the transfer OF the stock
Mr. Curtis says this order rightly asked and rightly
granted Now after that order was made, VIII Mr. Cur
It's please state what there left 10 try in that suit
Had WILDER asked for mandamus, 1t would have been
denied on the ground that he had his remedy by action
(See HILL 243) On the bare statement IN the complaint
that the plaintiff has the right of an existing ISSUE with
out the statement OF single fact other than that the
attendants "pretense was untrue Mr. Field asks and
Judoe Barnard grants without hearing the other side,
An order which is equivalent 70 final judgment and exc
cution at the very commencement of the case. Com
ment is unnecessary.
H. As to the Fuller recevership and the arrest it will
be perceived that there are two aspects III which all
these preliminary suits may be regarded FIRST AS sim
pie suits in themselves to obtain the relief prayed for
Second: As part Of scheme or conspiracy TO Illegally
affect the election Mr.. Curtis does not deny that II
brought for the latter purpose all the hard things tRat
have been said his client would be well said but
he insists that they brought for proper purposes
and that their after consequences IN the interest VI lis
clients were merely happy accidents.
Judge Smith who tried the cause and who was merely
Judge (uot paid advocate OF one of the parties who
has heard only sde comes 10 the conclusion that