Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1871-06-15

We copied few days ago, Washington dis
patch to the New York Evening Post, telling
the existence and cause of an alleged serious
misunderstanding between Mr., Fish and the
Russian minister, Mr., Catacazy. 1t was there
stated that Mr.. Catacazy had written letter to
his government, which somehow came into the
possession of the state department in Washing
ton, speaking in very contemptuous terms oil
Mr.. Fish, and accusing him of having privately
expressed his disbelief in the justice OF the fer-
kins claim, which he was at the time omciaiy
urging upon the Russian government ana OF
having recommended the Russian minister 10
employ Mr.. Webster, a son-in-aw OF MT FISH,
as counsel for his government against the CLAIM
The Post now publishes an explanation, show
;ng that this statement was not only untrue,
but that it was an old and long ago exploded
story; the letter in question was an impudent
forgery, and that there is not now, nor has been,
any unfrendliness between Mr.. Fish and the
Russian minister. The following letter from
Mr.. Catacazy, written more than fifteen months
ago, disposes OF the whole story
WASHINGTON, March 10, 1870.
"Aly dear Mr.. Fish: l am very grateful to
you for giving me an opportunity TO contradict
in writing, and in the most categorical manner,
the unfounded allegations that some persons
have dared to impute to me regarding your att-
tude in the Perkins case.
Gas to the first question which you propose
to me, assert:
"That you not only have never expressed a
doubt or contested the validity of the Perkins
claim, but that from the first day upon which l
spoke of it to Won till this morning you have, to
my great regret, sustained and firmly support
ed it, taking advantage of every occasion to tell
me that, without entering into details, you be-
lieved it TO be founded in justice, and insisting
on the necessity of arbitration.
off the rules of propriety, and the duties of
my position, did not prohibit me from divulging
my official relations with the federal secretary
of state, might have complained of the persis-
tent rigidness with which all my explanations
have been received by him, but certainly had
no motive, no interest to put forth such false
assertions
GAS to the second question, answer, affirm
ing: That you never advised or suggested to me
to consult or to employ your son-in-law, or any
other lawyer, in the Perkins case; that, quite to
the contrary, you have even appeared to disap-
prove of every step on my part, with reference
to receiving testimony against that claim; and,
finally, that 1 scarcely know Mr.. Webster
whom have only met twice in New York, with
out ever having spoken to him of this pitiful
Perkins claim.
81 give formal contradiction to all those
who would affirm or maintain the contrary.
" 1t is not in very diplomatic terms that re-
ply TO you, my dear sir, but one cannot refrain
from a feeling of disgust and indignation at the
view of such abuse.
cone is able to judge of the worth of case
by the methods which those who defend it en-
ploy.
"You see that \ # \ are obliged to
insnuate infamous things abont man like you,
who has gained claims TO respect from the
whole world and to impute to me, the minister
of the emperor of Russia, calumnious and gra-
tuitous absurdities,
&c l have the honor to be, with respect and the
highest consideration
Yours, very truly,
&c. CATAcAZY."