New-York tribune., 1871-03-24

IL is proper say that MI fuief estes 'ha' nc hu
not 20 to Albany at the request of any one and that
neither Field nor shoarman requested him TO come mp
there and vote on the stock though, Mr. sheaman
he did request him TO vote after he arrived there. IL
was not necessary for Mr. Field Mr.. Shearman to re-
quest in words Mr. Fuller TO come up and vote" All
the circumstances show that they expected and intended
him 10 do Here is Receiver, who in theory Is the
Court, indifferent between the parties, and merely
charged with the custody OF the stock which is thus
supposed to be in the blossom of the law" This indll
person goes TO the election consorts with fsh
attorneys, goes with one Of them TO the meetng aiu
gets admission the pretense that he Il stoekhou
and receives from Mr. Shearman his ballots peioo
gets to the meeting. Why did he receive MS o"lo's
fore he got there II the intention TO vote diu iu'
until after he arrivcdl Coupled with thS is MS
ton that he was undecided whether he should Noe' "
intended TO watch the proceedings and be governor ~
circumstances If any can believe IN tho i'o " ,i,
this evidence. that he had no Intention VI ,o'n A.
the Injunction was served, and mat ne ohy No'ou -
obedenco beretothat he seized by the strons arm
Of tbe law and forced into this disgraceim "o"or
hin, do so This evidence among other things sa'sicu
T1 smith that FuIlers voting did not arise upon 'he
service OF the Injunction, as Mr. fled asser's' oi ~
finds fos we shall afterward see that the sun ~S "S''
tuted FOR The rery purpose among Others oi on"De i'
to vote. . III. ,,.,,o,. ,.,,i,,o which was tbe
worst part Of this That is only one very rluc
uous feature it, The most serious point Is .na' tS
eroundess Receivcrship obtained from Juuse bar-
nard for the purpose Of deprivng Groesbeck Oi the
power of voting for Ramsey found by Judge smith,
omitted 10 state my former letter that one OF the
Inspectors who canvassed Fuersyote was
Mr. Bush the plaintiff in the suit in which Fuller was
oppointed who swOre to the complaint which alleged
that the stock rOfd.
If should be stated here dhough it has especial
bearing on this controversy what the expense to
stockholder of having his stock taken from him and
for Euller
expect nv full fees is Receiver.
.. How much A. Five per cent on 5000 shares
O How much do you expect to receivel A. $4,000
have gone thus minutey into details and evidence in
order to just what reliance be placed upon Mr.
Fields statements that Fuller had no intention OF voting
until the injunction served that he was compelled
bv Injunction to vote that the election could only have
proceeded by permitting him to vote and that the Fisk
ticket had enough independent Of the 5000 shares
OF course and space forbid anayzng all his state
ments and denials III this way You must Judge al Dy
one instance.
THE TwENTY-THIRD-sT. INJUNCTION.
To follow Mr.. Fields letter:
lie does not deny that Judge Barnard was teegraphed
to on Fisls pass TO Poughkeepsie under the crcum-
stances stated and that he told TO, and did, SEND MS
answer TO Mrs Manselds house and that he came down
and was visiting somewhere in the neighborhood known
to Fisk and that the order signed just alleged IN
my letter except that he says nAwas not signed
in Mrs Mansfelds house.
Where toas it signed Did Jtdge BARNARD come dorm
from POughkeepsie at dH and ,cds the order actually
signed nat night, as Mr. Shearnan Spearsg
There is good deal Of mystery about Judge Barnards
orders Of the few days from Aug TO Aug TO- They all
purport to be signed in York and Shearman sredrS
that this one appointing Fisk Receiver signed here
This order cannot be found, and is not file in the
County Clerks Office As the order and writs of as
sstance teegraphed for from Albany on Aug Z, which
purport to be signed in NewYork, Mr. Smith declared in
judicial proceeding crcising them in the presence OF
Mr. David Dudley Field that the eth day Of August
when they purport have been issued at Chambers.
in New-YOrk "it was known to counsel on both sides
that Judge Barnard was not in New-YOrk, but at
tending the bedside OF his dying mother AT Poughkeep
sie" Mr. Field though he addressed the Court after
ward, did not deny this statement.
Judge Barnards mother died on Sunday. Aug s. and
her funeral was Tuesday Aug TO- Two orders in this
susauehanna case purpor have been signed by the
Judge at Chambers in NewYork on Monday. Aug o. and
one on Tuesday, Aug. TO- He not sitting III Court
at all on days. and il he signed the order 1t must
have been when he not on the bench, and lie
must have sought to the exclusion of the Judge
sitting at Chambers the Judge in NewYork at all
on these DAYS Considering these facts and some Others
there is some question whether Judge Barnards sigma
ture 10 the orders which Field Shearman procured
was not placed there by some other person than the
Judge whether they were signed by the Judge uf at
an al the time and place at which they pupOrt to be-
Why does not Mr.. Field tell us about all this He says
the order was not signed at the "house mentioned"
which implies the knowledge, OF knowledge, as
TO where ,cds signed. or he has this knowledge
for il was partner Sterling who got the order signed
Why does he not tell usl No will believe, If this order
were signed in any place where it is decent aud proper
for Judge of the supreme Court to sign an order or
counsel to ask for one, that Mr.. Field would not
gladly tell u.s. and relieve the matter from the suspicion
which surrounds it. And it were signed in any int
proper place. why does he call his partners who sent and
went for it 10 such place "men of probty ana honor
Is it Mr. Fields notion Of "probity and honor that
counsel may seek Judge at places which they do not
dare to mentions His silence this point is clear
admission that there is something about this matter
which will not bear the light.
The only other statement Of my former letter as TO the
proceedings upon the appointment of Fisk as Receiver
which Mr.. Field denies, is the statement that
he was in person and rode to the Albany depot.
did not the statement positively, but stated it
very guardedly from the evidence contained i'll the
printed prepared by his own firm Mr.. Field says
that the question was, Was Mr. Fisk mot Field in the
carriage ?" This question not asked by Mr. Fied,
by the counsel the other side who probably know
best they intended to and did ask The witness had
just stated that Mr Fisk Mr. shearman. and Mr. Cour-
in the carriagethus leaving vacant seat.
1t is extremely improbable that counsel should nave i'm
mediately asked, Was Mr.. Fisk in the carriage!
But it is not worth while to inquire Just what was
asked and answered inasmuch Mr.. Field says that
bOn he ana MS son were out OF jOWn III Is vi very Ho
consequence whether Mr. David Dudley Field was there
not shall have few words to say hereafter as to
whether he throw off all responsibility for the acts
OF his partners who there.
FRAUDULENT PROCEEDINGS AT ALBANY.
Mr.. Field next denies Judge Smiths statements that
the enjOining of Hand &c, from acting Inspectors
and the arrest of Ramsey, Smith, and Phelps,
abuse OF process OF the Court that the injunction
and warrant of arrest intended to be served just
the election about TO begin. and that they
part of a corrupt scheme of Fisk and his associates to
obtain control Of the susquehanna Railroad. He says