New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-01-30
v,y vopu n.uy TRIBUNE MONDAY, JANUARY 30 1871

IcIy Won had written me line or w an honp could
boya atiaacd Won that acting e'te VIII
THE however il of no impor,GTe Of lust public opinion
S 70 ,, line comes IL will he known tnat 10" mai
may be tho faults y y, s speak with knogedge,has
nu, aovcrned by nothing hut ".n'c " - not been
may well suPPo INV taste BESIDES. have been Tor
five Years you may S hne !" t profound Conviction
Io t coud not with honor retire IRON ild" h '
kent me in them Being ID Ihoi H SnS Gefcrded
g I'm a single wrongful act Am assured ny tneil ~
the most solemn manner 1tns mum I ~ her own se
80 dollar's worth OF the Erie Conpys property OuI
one unndence up your last letter and this reply,
% Rad mt into type and sent 10 few friends under
ninetons not ut present to make any pubic use OF II,
ycnny Is sent 10y tO-days post VIII add these Two
1919 and the spondencc between you and nv
TO The same pamphlet THIS VIII distribute among my
friends and will send yOu nifty copies for yours; hut
l moi publish 10 in the newspapers without giving you
Inc notice. Yours truly, DAVID DUDLEY FIELD.
ITO this letter proposing to Gloss tho correspondence
Mr. BOwles replied that he quite content that the
letters should he printed they stood, but he added
I your sons two letters also added to the pubea
ton, must demand that my answer To his second "a
we'll that 10 hi, first. shall along with them" Mr
Field would consent to this. and published his pam
phet with only much Of the correspondence with MI
Bowles "a we have given above To this appended
the two letters OF 'Dudley Field TO Mr.. Bowles and tho
letter Of David Dudley Field 10 his brother Cyrus, which
arc given In part, il in full below. Mr. d. d. Fields
letter TO MT BOWltS uhttu Jan 10, fluH'H ~
Since this correspondence began have ceased to care
about your agreement with upon this or any other
subject Your second letter to my dated Jan l5th
has been received by him and shown to me- All that
need say Of it ls that it is disgrace to You to have
written it, and that it is not III for me to print It's NJ
place il published at all Is in The Springfield ReFH6
can" Mr. Bowlcs has printed in his pamphlet the entire
correspondence
DUDLEY FIELD SON 10 SAMUEL BoWLE'
No. PiSE-sT.. NEw-YoGK. Dee. q, 1850.
SIR: I not personally acquainted with yo"
Int once put myself 10 serious inconvenience 10 10 YOU
a favor. when YOU were arrested here and lodged In
Iudlow-st Jail you wrote to my father. Mr.. David Dud
lev Field begging him his influence 10 get You re-
leased We had nothing whatever to do with the suit
against you and did notknow anything of IT, but at my
fathers request set oh 4" see Mr. Fax ana hteiue
fry our discharge out and HOOK ttlfiliSt
and drove place tO place where Thought hSht
ud him. continuing for hours unul fihay iounu nun
nt O'Clock night, then insisted upon M cohsehtlhS
I" ~ }V o''r nnd and that il he would give
me a written assent and the address of the lawyer VINO
nrIugn' ne S'i iii Mr. Fi.t had hren client II
mine for wears and ncd his refusal 10 take my al
vice in This instance. lie very indignant NJ your
inc nilIi.hrd At cmcnt about his fathers lunicy
aud Was much dspcascd at my undertaking t. interfere
Wr cyrns " Field TO the shcrfrs Office and became
one of your bondsen Neither my father nor ever re-
ceiyed a word of thanks from You, ana we do MOI want
any ON the contrary, having done you one faver Nv
yor solicitations propose To do another unsolicited
VIZ To Give YOU an opportunity to make rcparatiou
for an attack upon my father In your newspaper some
body connected with The Ncr York Times has spite
against firm and almost every day some malicious
and lying article appears about some Of u.s. When mi.
began some wears ago. We attempted to answer. but
they altered reply and each lie heu
10 answer with one 20 we have since Tiid no az
teutiOn 10 them NOT satisfied with attacking u7 IA thr
editorial columns, they take malicious pleasure IA 'hg
cling ont anything against MS III Oher papers lcsur
dav was surprised 10 find in It's columns what pnfp1r'5
To be extract from the correspondence Oh me SP"9
Extract published at bottom Of Mr. David Dudley
Your article winds up with stating that 4" James
r. Brady dubbed him tue king of pettuosgeis' whlch
title has stuck to Field ever since" Mr. Brady wa.
personal friend of mine, ana during me ttI part Oh
his life friend, also, OF my father They at one time
engaged in great legal contest whGre notn com
batans used warm language. hut Mr. liady never gave
him any such title in my hearing ana am sure was
present during the entire cOnt2Hrt-y haNe lph
Tour untruths IN an article OF % nc inc whoe o Wncn
is evidently dictated 10y malice You can best judge
whether one who knows PERSONALLY o, VIVA. ne IS a f
ity aud have personal knowledge on the subject
is most worthy Of crcdencc
MANY Of the newspapers getting to be public nni-
anc. and am sorry to have that tendency spread to
old Massacu-c, which PRIZES herself ON her feSoc'"
'''''' DrDLEr FIELD.
SAMUEL BOWLEs TO DUDLEY FIELD t,oNl
THY EiPUBLICAS, !
SPRINGFIELD, Mass, Dee. -, lS'b.D
DEAR SIR: Nv letter 10 your father, In reply to note
from him. answer. In large part your own letters aud
beg to refer you it. But there other points in
yolr letter that seem to call for explanation or
I /
from an incidental conversation with your relative aud
NV friend Mr. Ashburner OF your prompt but unaysil
ing to relieve from Ludlow ST. Ior me SAKE OF
nv wife aud then determined 90 take the hrst OppOr
tunty 10 express You my grateful senfe OF your kind
ness. Let render to y0u my thanks, ana say
that fully appreciate your kndness, and shall not e
likely to forget it, On the professional point IN
voyed the conspicuous relations OF your father Win
Fisk and Gould, and their desperate measures eeheye
the feeling pressed by Tho Netr York Iits and hndinS
utterance in s Republican, is almost an universal one
At any rate. | share il very decidedly, and The Rep'
lcdn would long ago have gwen most DECIDED ana sharp
expression TO IT, but FOR my personal relations YIN your
family, and the thought that it, Judgment might he as
socated, in the public mind with some supposed grev.
ances connected with the Fisk sut The right or wrong or
this feeling need not be discussed between You ana h
Is a very large question: and well understand that there
something to he said on the other side But me Reub
lc0H had long ago u,in'a and applied 10 ciscs IN
the doctrine that lawyer wac re-ponsihr,
i'm decided degree for the character Of his cnent aud
the character Of the suits which he undertook III Their De
half and believe no professional conduct Is more open
10 criticism In this respect than that OF your father II
he is no more guilty than other prominent gentlemen OF
the New York bar much the worse for the Newfork
bar But whether correctly or not the pubic nave ldei
notorious or your distinguished Erie clients, and
are disposed, II would 10 concentrate upon him
responsibility which, perhaps should be shared in some
degree by others. beg you 70 believe, s, that lt-
main, yours very truly aud very gratefully, po,,,s
P.s-Pardon il yield unfairly to the temptation
to aay that do not recOrct OF saying or even thinking
ANYTHING more decisive Hcisye AS ~ your father
professional relations than that which, am creiby in
formed yOu said 10 him the morning after my arrest
namely, "MGt wasd dtSgrGct 70 ne J"m"y ~ ma" S"h
a client as Fisk"
DUDLEYIFmLD sos TO SAMUEL EowLEs.
PISE-sT., NEW YORK. Jan. Q. 1871
DEAR SIR: am in reGoiI: "a Your letter dated the
?9h IN answer mine OF the 2th ult, and have been
prevented by illness from sending earlier reply.
think with all respect that n You had written such %
letter az mine to these gentlemen whom you term my
distinguished clients" and they had returned such an
answer yours The Republican would have pronounced
the answer evave, Ia say The least took the pains TO
explain 10 YOU relations with certain ciens and TO
point out four distinct misstatemons In 70 lines OF your
paper You is That you refer me To letter
10 inv father written by You to him on the same sub
iect and on reference to that find that you "regref'
certain matters that stated in that article but ill.,
rst on your opinions in regard to his professional con
duct in the Erie suits. You DO draw my attention
or his in your letter 70 HIM TO any disascwa In the
nlnnns OF The Rfpnbcan Of what yOn do not deny 20