New-York tribune., 1871-03-24


when and in the city whence 1t purported
to be issued. Mr.. Field has denied tho
report that he received a fec OF $4,000
for his services to Mr. FISK during
certain shameful proceedings at Albany, and
of course his denial is accepted without re-
serve. Mr.. Field asked, "Who fabricated
"[tbis storyl, and where did your corre-
&" spondcnt obtain his false information 7"
Anybody who will turn to Gen. Barlow's let
fer this morning will find n tolerably explicit
answer to this question. Mr.. Field appears to
have fabricated the story himself.
These are trifes. On the main matters COW
cred by Mr. Fields reply it seems to US That
Gen. Barlows rejoinder is overwhelming. We
shall not recapitllate all the points of this
very damaging communication but we may
say in brief that it sweeps away all Mr.. Fleids
excuses and explanations convicts him of at
least two gross and inexplicable misstatements
1--WE mean in relation to Fullers voting with
the Groesbeck stOcl), and exhibits the
shameful character of the Fisk Field and-Bar-
nard transactions in clearer light than
ever before. In his attempt to show
that these transactions were not inn
proper, Mr. Field repeated in summary
form the arguments he has already made In
court and it will perhaps be sufficient for the
public to remember that reputable judges, who
have heard all the evidence and peadings on
both sides, have been very severe in their con-
demnation of the proceedings, in spite of Mr..
Fields ingenuity in defending them We do not
believe that anybody, except Mr.. Fisk and his
followers. will dispute these judicial decisions.
al ,v.tu fn nall Iat Ia
the proceedings of the Erie Company in any
of the Ramsey suits, or to justify their extra
ordinary resorts to Judge Barnard, his reason
ing is 80 weak that it hardly deserves an
answer, and Gen. Barlow has had little to do
except to state the facts and correct misrepre-
sentatiOns.
The chief reliance of Mr.. Field, after all, has
been disclaimer of responsibility for the ac-
tons of his son and his partner. 1t is not |.
he writes, who went to Judge Barnard for in
functions 1t ia not | who instgated Fuller to
vote with the Groesbeck shares. 1t IL not
who stood by Mr.. Fisk when he brought
gang of roughs TO the directors room to pre-
vent n election. 1t is not | who telegraphed
10 POughkcepse for an injunction under sus-
pciOus and disreputable circumstances. My
partners will speak for themselves. L wash my
hands of all this. MIR. Field cannot wash his
hands of it, The whole course of the litigation
on the part of the Fisk party has been, rs Judge
Selden said of a part of it which came before
him as referee, "a conspiracy and fraud OF
every gross character" and the responsibility
must be evenly divided between the subor
dinate agents who did the dirty work and the
leading counsel "whO always appears in court
" to defend these judicial rascalities after they
care done" There may have been orders,
motions, &c, of which Mr.. Field was not adj
vised beforehand; but they were all made as
parts of u consistent scheme of operations, and
he has invariably given them his full sanction
and support. Under such circumstances, to
tell us that he is not responsible for the pro-
fessonal acts Of his partners is to insult our
intelligence. In some cases his direct partici
patton has been clearly shown; in all his full
accountability must be taken for granted.
The last sentence of Gen. Barow's letter
will be read with almost universal satisfaction.
I" AS concerns Mr.. Field,' he says, 81 shall
4" take care that his conduct is investigated
before a body of men who cannot be de-
ceved by small tricks and petty evasons."
When the case comes before this body of
men, we advise Mr.. Field to reply, if he can,
to the actual charges, and not to such brief
and necessarily incomplete summaries of them
as he may chance to find in the newspapers.
And if he should think it wise to attempt
breaking the force of the crushing rejoinder
we print this morning before pleading to the
arragnment in the Bar Association, we
hereby give notice that these editorial re-
marks are not a fair and sufficient sum-
,naryV of Con Rorlowis lettnr