New-York tribune., 1871-03-24

| "
the charge OF professional misconduct upon one ta,
about which there Is manner OF donb-tbat when on
October 3 Rameys counsel objected 10 irving the ca
before Jndge Barnard, because OF bis evident ba. Mr.
fleid ihslsed on gong on. II the only thing charged
against Mr. Field were this one act OF forcing an adve
sary TO trial. before Judge whom he kue,g 10 be, ,
rupt and whose friendly relations with nj. cont an,
hostility TO his adyersary he well knew-I submit In
every honorable man. whether ould not s,rr min, A.,
lawyer who did not seek mere Justice What man who
sought only justice would have resisted for moment
this appeal OF his opponenti Who would not eagerly
| have yielded 20 tl
These great facts TO the constant employment q,
Judge Barnard stand forth without eny denial or cr
planatiOn except this He says he never personay ,t
any parte order from Judge Barnard nor any ninnc
on except in open Court. " not necessary for him
! 10 perform the oficeboy's work Of going for order,
which he knows will be granted In these cases upon tho
presentation OF the papers does not deny that
ali the orders in the tgatons which have described
except one, proper in ITSELF granted by
| Judge Barnard but he says, with an air O,
triumph that Of the ten suits pending AT his moment
against the Erie Company mot Fish md G0U-he say,
nothing about their SUITS aud nothing OF the which
have heretofore been brought against his clients such
for instance. the notorious Union Pacific brought By
Fs only the Ramsey suits have been before this Judge
or the ten the parties in three had the good fortune
be able TO bring them in the United Courts whers
they could not get before Judge Barnard
The five Of which he speaks being I'm the country
districts brought there by the other side. He
has never prior 10 this discussion, brought Eric
or Fisk suit anywhere but In Judge Blrnar1s
district. and he can find no Judge, with per
haps one exception who will remove them here.
That is the reason why the five are not here
now No Judge in the District where they pending
would them here IL asked so in these five suits
he cOud not before Judge Barnard except - get
trinng orders wrTclf would affect the ltatiOns.
r.,, fopp rfrarg nd
As to the other suit In this district which he says has
not been before Judge Barnard, it IS the suit in which
Judge R0sekrans finds that br Fields clients bought on
the plaintiff and conducted the litigation cOlusiyey FOR
their purposes. Being thus on both sides and abb"
TO prove just much, little suited them, er"
was necessity OF seeking any particular Judge Iney
were willing to let IT remain before honest Judges to
create an impression that they did not always seek the
same Judge.
OF the four suits for the Erie Company, whic.5
are the only suits in which Field shoarmaA
could select the tribunal, all were brought IN this
district where Judge Barnard be called on
when required In two Of them Judge Barnard.
"a Mr. Field SAYS has been the Judge One has not been
in condition TO come before any Judge The one before
Judge Sutherland, The Erie Railway Company agt
The Ohio and Mississippi Railway company
one in which, so far as the papers on "hieh
the Injunction was granted showed, the Ire
Company was in the right. II it turns out that
they are in the wrong let see whether Judge
sutherland has much to do with it, For OF course these
Erie people are sometimes in the right. All claim IL
that when any grievous wrong to be doEe there Is
never any question a to who will be the Judge.
And again ask has not Mr.. Field publicly and re-
peatedly denounced Judge Barnard corrupt and de-
serving Of Impeachment l am not pryng into mans
private beliefs but asking about those expressed IN the
most public way and in judicial proceedings
And while on this subject. will state the opinions OF
his partners as to Judge Barnard In 1885, Mr. snearman
ms corrupt In July 1861 he wrote the article IN he Aor
American RecieW. entitled, The judiciary Of New YORK
worst Judges on The bench and described at be
ing utterly unfit 10 hold his Office Mr. Dudley Field IKE
erIy Influenced for in 1893 he is proved by testimony
| OF Mr.. John b. Haskn to have said TO him tHashm;
| unction) signed by Judge Barnard. will give you
5000 and II that sum Is not suihclent VIII max II
| Fields request to make the modification; Mr. Dud-
ley Field further said that unless ne lHodncaVoR Mero
obtained it would 10 hard with the Judge AZ AlDay
g. e.. by impeac chment in the Leeisature) MT Duley
Field prOessed great desire 10 give his own testimony
about his matter but Judge Barnard thinking that the
investigation the subject OF attempts To DrlDe MN neu
better 90 any further struck Haskns testimony ont
and stopped ;he inquiry He told Mr.. Dudley Field
that he could make his affidavit eX paTe, aud Wold
given that taken yesterday" qIaskinsl No aifdayt
I'm denial appeared. Mr.. Haskins statements
under oath should be met by denls under OATH II Al al
To show the propriety OF Mr. Fields objection 70 my
thus discussing pending litigatons, will only refer 10
his own letter Of Jan 81 to TIE IRBJ Ne IN Whcn ho
discusses Ramsay agt Erie and prOnOunces sl0st ma
and calls Of the proceedings IN monstrOu- anu
agitiOus abuse Of judicial process He has there done
rule TO abstain from public discussion OF undecided cases
il proper one, when litigatOns cOnducted fary,
site circumstances. The only safety OF a hlgam AZ
tackled Mr. Field attacks Is the utmost publicity ana
the consequent indignant criticisms of the puDc prints
1t only remains to say few words about letter OF
i8 He chooses TO answer The Nation rather than my
letters thus following the example of his partner ana
| ffrrh fpf- la n4H fa.l
Sherman says that Fuller not appointed Reeeyerot
the stock on me gF9ud m na abs VI % ee s'
and that only the title of the particular persons
holding il which was alleged to be void The facts
that th was stock which had been forfeited for the
payment calls and which the Company had resod at the
market value it is well settled they had right TO DO
N the stock were properly issued il belonged To Groes
beck and others. II improperly issued then was
property of the Company as unsued stock on when
nobody had right to vote. Mr.. Shearman's complaint,
in the suit referred to- alleges that the issuing 9 sag
unauthorized and roid aud prays That the Issue % q
said amounts OF stock oe deet@rea @ t 5 cg
ceed" The controversy not then, as to the uhe .,
t0cH which should be "eanceled" II Mr.. shearman's
statement he true, the judgment OF the Court % s%houa
have been that the other of two persons shomd
have the valid stock The Judgment asked Tor was thn
| should be delivered up 10 be "cdncettd' as pvs'i
would be sufficient Mr.. shearman to decline
any further controversy with him until he has purge"
He further charges The Nation with mine falsehoois'
that the material alterations OF three Oh Tue
and belief mo sources OF the information being stated
the law requires). The Nation inadvertently quoos
that the complaints were not sworn to- MI ns
does not and cannot answer my statement 90 ~ nns
advantage OF the of The Nation 10 nAe a t
rent denial OF what really charged asr. as',lt ne
Mr. shearman's testimony shows thal nc 81 ~ SER
order appointing Fisk and Courier Receivers 70 pr ot
ling at i0:lO D. M. and he returned with s5hu az ~ "a
later than i6:SJ sheaman cannot deny I'm tn' yass %
he denies the quotation which appears IN me H"'"'
which does not state it precisely as did o,r,rs
Mr. shearman says that he did not dry ye III tle
with FISK 10 the Albany station. II i OF no nat
whether he did or did not make me Of
Mr. Shearman was in the carriage Tor tle pH t6c Oh
showing his completely with and knowledge ol u.
tainng fhs order Il not being disputed that ne San
business. But MS own