New-York tribune., 1871-03-24


to clear himself by throwing the responsibility for un-
questioned outrages upon his partners and In the
Ramsey he has such resource because they
mainly proceedings In Court, which he conducted
In person. BY answering THE TRIBUNE summary instead
my letter. he avoids the greater part OF what he was
called upon to explain. As to what he does say, have
mainly anticipated and answered his objections in my
original letters He harps again on Ramseys motives
Yet even his own Barnard said upon the trial. that n
Ramsey had the stock ne had right TO suit
no matter what his motive was" And when Mr.. Field
made motion before Judge Parker to dismiss the suit
this very ground the Judge says "Ramseys thus buying
the stock and bonds a. for the purpose OF bringing the
suit upon them. wrong donO to the defendants,
with whatever intent II done" The intent with
which he purchased does not affect his rights
or raise any equities respecting them in favor OF the
defendants In regard to them his hands are cean.'
IL Is very likely that Mr. Ramsey's indignation wos
aroused against the Erie managers by their outrageous
attempts to get possession Of the susquehanna foad
Most men require something stronger than an abstract
love OF Justice 10 induce them TO enter into fight with
such powerful adyersaros II that impetus were gwen
by an actual experience in his case, ana he there
upon bought and bonds to give himself the right
10 attack these people most will not condemn bis
action, but will consider him TO be public benefactor
And one thing may be said OF Ramsey's Dtigations
They were all brought in the proper counties and his
njunctions obtained from Judges who were above
suspicion and the natural and proper persons to
apply TO- Judge Peckham ia man so respected that at
the time his last election to the bench OF the Supreme
Court the Republicans nominated no candidate against
him. but all parties supported him. In May 1870 when
both sides felt the necessity Of nominating their best
men for the Court OF Appeals he placed by the
Democratic party their ticket and elected, and now
sitting highest Court in the State Mr Fields OD'
iections to his signing the order appointing Pruyn are
without weight He the Judge at hand and the nat
ura and proper person TO do it, The exgenees OF the
case often require Judge act in the evening and he
went TO his Office "where" in the language OF the tes-
timony from which Mr Field quotes, "he has his library
writes his opinions hears arguments, and transacts his
business as "A Judge" In fact he went to his regular
Chambers to do it. No will pretend that Ms son
should counsel in this case because his ather
was on the Bench. And Judge Cute, who granted some
of the orders, is whose integrity IS not mpeached
What must we think Of the fairness OF man VINO dres
TO compare this action OF such Judges with the disgrace
full circumstances under which Fisk was appointed
Receiver The objection TO Fisks appointment is not
that it was done in evening but to the other ccum
stances attending it.
Field & Shearman. on the contrary must sehd 10
Poughkeepse for Judge Barnard and when they wanted
their writ assistance the next day. must get IL by tee
graph from NewYork when there one Judge Of the
supreme Court in Albany itself and no fewer than nYe
Of them within thirty miles ingalls,, at Troy six miles;
Boekes at Saratoga twenty-eight miles; Potter, at
Schenectady fifteen miles Miller and Hogcboon, at
Hudson thirty miles. They could have got their Wits
of assistance and iniunctonsf hey cere entitled to
hem-from any one OF these Judges, sooner than hey
could hare got them from New York by telegraph.
In the face OF all these things, which Mt fIeld does
not think it worth while TO explain it seems ike trihg
with the subject to give for the outrageS on
Ramsey that he brought his suit In county when was
Inaccessible" the Judge being man OF the highest
character
AstoMr Fields explanation of his forcing Ramsey to
trial when he had had only four week days free from IN
iuncton-I repeat what said in former letter thal
man b entitled to absolute freedom from all interfer-
ence with his right to prepare for trial and that win
any injunction hanging him he cannot exercise that
right Mr. Field says that his notice Of trial waived the
Injunction" If Mr. Fisk and Mr.. Field were me court
they might perhaps waive" the njunction but What-
ever the fqct may the theory Of the law that coun
sci are the Court and that an injunction Il com
nand the Court which counsel cannot dispense WIN
at their pleasure TO authorize the party enoned 10
disobey M Ramsey did refrain from seeking discovery
OF the Erie books until the injunction was dissolved ana
he would no doubt have been again fined II he had not
done so As he could he made the attempt The
first attempt was frustrated by petfoggng objection
OF Mr Field the form OF the Ycrihcaton OF the pc
tton That being corrected Judge Ingraham held that
the particular entries wanted and their existence In tho
books had not been described and alleged with suti-
cient partcularty He gave Ramsey an opportunity to
correct these omissions and to the notion Before
this could be done Judges Barnard and Cardozo stayed
Ramseys proceedings again in the General Term These
being the facts my ingenious adversary seeks 10 have
understood that the motion for discovery was denied
because Ramsey not entitled 10 1t at all.
And trying pallate the outrage OF forcing Ramsey
to trial without it, says that he should not have begun
his suit unless he had the information which the books
would afford. What wretched arguments Is MI Field
reduced to Almost every man who gets discovery
under our present practice gets 1t to prepare for b1d
not to enable him begin his suit II is to get eridenet
Ramsey alleged certain facts and wished to prove them
by the Companys books, any other htigant would
have done No has all his evidence prepared when
he begins his action To lawyers this will seem
udicrous do not believe that there is proceeding
for discovery the course OF year which Is not OBJ
tanned after suit brought; not to enable the preparation
OF the complaint.
Mr. Field seeks to create the impression that after
Dec IT, 1862 Ramsey might have felt at liberty to go on
notwithstanding the injunction, whereas the fine OF
s5s25 was imposed upon him May 25, 1870, the argu
ment I'm favor OF its imposition being made by Mr. Field
and the contempt proceedings having been pending Tor
several months and the order sending it to referee to
compute the damages for violation of the injunction not
having been made until Feb 15 1870 With these contempt
proceedings pending against him all this tme 1t Is idle
to say that Ramsey could feel at liberty 10 proceed III
the case.
Mr. Field savs that he did not abandon the Erie
Ramsey suit for want of evidence. He did not "aban
don it, in the sense OF not appearing, Dut ne caeu
only two or three witnesses, whose testimony as bear
ing on the material allegations OF his complaint, was
simply ridiculous go much that on has opn testimony
rithom RamSes calling ritnesS, even Judge Barnard
dismissed the case to Ramsey and Taller on the spot
and as to GroesbecK the next morning, and said as 10
Eaton that there was legal evidences that he had
done anything wrong, though he felt morally satisfied
that he had repeat, that this trial was perfect arce
showing clearly the animus OF the whole proceeoihs
have thus replied to the points made in Mr Fields
answer To the great body Of the distinct and specific
charges contained in my former letters he makes no
only which he could clear