New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-02-02

ia inst what Ramsey, and Burt, and Thomp
son. and we know not how many others, have
hoon trying TO introduce for the last two
wears: and the whole strength of tho Eric
bor and the Erie bench has been successfully
cxcrted. not to rebut their evidence, but TO
keen il out of court We speak what we have
reasonable cause to believe true. 1t is alb
surd to call upon us, under the existing cir
cumstances, for legal proof of our state
ments; ace have no authority TO summon or
examine witnesses, and besides we are press
ing for a conviction not at the tribunal Of
Judge Barnard, but at the bar of public
opinion. litigant who will not meet evil
dence in court has no right to call for it in
the newspapers.
When MT. Field travcrscs Our statement OF
the case of the People VS.. Fisk and Field,
and demands the opportunity of publishing his
defense in our columns, we might answer that
we have arrived at our conclusion after q care
full examination of both sides, and have pre-
scented it not as the advocate of either party,
but as judge in the court of public opinion
and he has no more right to cumber our space
with repetition of his case after the judgment Is
pronounced than he would have to rcargue a
after the decision had already been entered
against him. We have no disposition, how
ever to insist strictly upon our rights; and
while we cannot promise, as rule, 10 extend
our hospitality to technical expOstlons such as
he has favored us with to-day, we cheerfully
admit the present communication, and answer
it as follows:
/. Mr. Field says that Ramsey had no rights
and his suit was fraudulent. To this we re-
ply that Judge Parker, III an elaborate opin-
ion, has decided to the contrary Besides, II
he has no rights, why did Mr.. Field offer to
pay his claims to avoid suit, and why does
he prevent a trials
2. Mr.. Runkle, whose appearance is cbarac-
terized as colusivc, had appeared for tho Ere
Company before and testiics that in this case
nc was desired by Mr. Eaton, in the namo OF
the President, Mr.. Diven, TO put in on
appearance, but 20 do nothing until some
action was taken by the Board of Directors,
tlc object being to remove the suit from the
control of the private counsel of FISK and
Gould. When Mr.. Owen failed to stand by
that appearance, il was revoked and the APP
pcarance of Field and Sherman was accepted.
These facts were given in evidence at the trial.
g. Tho Injunction suit against Ramsey was
intended TO do much more than enforce The
appearance of Field S Shcarman, and WAS car
ried ON for year after the appearance was
recognized. Ii was successful III sitting tho
Ramsey suit until the injunction was vacated.
4. The Injustice of which Ramsey complains
in the further prosecution of the suit Is that
while tied up by injunction he was forced to
trial, refused an adjournment. and nOn-suited-
Judge Brady afterwards deciding that the nom
suit was illegal and that, by repeated Illegal
and unprecedented adj0urnmcnts from time 10
tine before the same jadge, the action was kept
under the control of judge TO whom the
plaintiff objected, until Judge Barnard and ono
of his associates stayed all proceedings. We
cannot perceive that Mr.. Field explains away
any of these serious points.
5. Mr.. Field holds It improper to discuss the
suits of the Preferred Stockholders, because
they are now before the General Term. Only
one is before the General Term-the suit of
James Thompson to recover dividends for the
year 1870 Judge Rosellrans, however has
sufficiently stigmatizcd the conduct of the
counsel in another of the suits, while in
third it is in evidence that Thompson was
paid his dividends Gor 1862 to stop
litigation, though jay Could sworc
tllit the tNilclS'S VI lilt loli tH'tt N''' N'i'
t20OO,0OO in excess of the receipts. We have
alreaGy explained that our criticisms are not
Giroo' against one partner in the finn moro
80 another, and the precise connection be-
tween Mr. David Dudley Field and hcssrS.
Field a. ShcaTman ia therefore immatcrial.
g. We have not asked Mr.. Field about tho
English suits, and are very glad TO hear that
he has no connection with them.
T. The charge in tho Churchill case il. that
where the plaintiff clearly had justice on his
side Mr.. Field delayed and disputed until it
was too late for a remedy.
g. The Haskin case we leave entirely to the
common sense of our readers; and that they
may form an intelligent opinion, wo reprint
the testimony.
o. At Mr.. FIELDS request, we print The ai1i-
davit which Judge Rosckrans struck out ~
unprofessional and improper. It's impropriety
depends q great deal upon circumstances
which the Judge understood much better than
we do But it is only fair to say that Judge
RoscIrans's denunciations Of " Tictery," eva
"sion," "mtruthfuness," "subterfugc," &C.,
applied not particularly to this affidavit but
TO the whole course of the defense.
---------------
"MR. Combines JOBS"
Certain merchants and ship-builders, mainly
cf this City bovn submitted IN COnpTpss n