New-York tribune., 1871-03-24
MOREFACTS FOR MIR. FIELD.
pr,o,NnrR FROM GEN. BARLOW.

NOT appeared all this week. VIII walt no longer nu'
akc this reply II Is longer than should wish, hut his
ootoss denals render this unavoidable. Having replied
20 ALI the answer which Mr. Field has seen fit TO make In
the newspapers, shall not trouble you further.
Nr Field has chosen TO answer THE TRIBUNE instead of
The summary in your issue Of March occupied
only half a column and necessarily general anu
contained only portion Of the charges against him
NV letters full with distinct statements ana speone
charges With characteristic avoidance OF as many ol
the issues possible he prefers to answer the ploo
statement. BY so doing he escapes answering Ut en-
planning many Of the matters which are most damaging
TO his reputation.
First as to the matters which he does touch upon in
his communications
His letter Is mainly reeration OF arguments already
urged and denals made before Judge Smith, the result
OF which was that the Judge decided against him on
every point He going the same old story now
THE FULLER RECEVERsH1P.
NV account Of the appointment of Fuller as Receiver OF
the Groesbcck stock, he says, "s wide of the fact
as TO seem like bmlesque" 1t certainly does seem Ike
buresQue, not in the that Mr.. Field means
1t ia burlesque upon judicial proceedings He assigns
three reasons for this assertion being too frivolous
10 merit any attention The only one worth noticing Is
his statement that the order appointing Fuller Receiver
contained order to show against IT, ana lha o
cause was ever shown. 1 did not state this, because II
was matter OF consequence. II neither ma'e '"o
conduct of those who got and used the KeceNer nUio
respectable nor does tend show that Groespeck au
tted the order to be just Cause against 1t was 10 oe
shown before Judge Barnard who granted H. anu 1fOe
beck's counsel too familiar with the lho Pe.
formances Of Fisk Gould Field shcarman and Barnard
to waste their time in arguing against the oruer p'
fore the Jnde who granted it, They did not propose TO
20 through any such farce They waited until the mat
ter could DC heard before an impartial Judge
Smith. and the reoeivership was then pronounced
TO be Illegal. Their omission to show cause against
il before Judge Barnard merely showed their enre as
Ia Ind nd
tons existing between the Judge, parties, ana counsel
In regard 10 this matter OF the Groesbeck stock and
Fuller receivershp Mr. Field therefore admits that the
Receiver was appointed upon the imperfecty verified
complaint mentioned in my former letter, and with
out any allegations which justified taking the stock
ont of The owners hands He admits that Fuller pro-
cured possession of GrOesbecks certificates by falsely
telling him he had writ Of assistance, and pretending
that the Office Of such writ forciby to take stock
out OF a mans pocket And he admits that Fuller went
TO Albany and voted the stock under his eyes, and
with his knowledge, and that his partner, shearman,
gave him the ballot and asked him to vote Though he
says he did not take part in Fuer's appointment he
clearly adopts aud approves oft and usties his voting
the stock.
All these things being admitted look at the explana
ton Mr. Field actually has the assurance to pretend
that tbe Ramsey party procured order compelling
Fuller the Fisk Reeeirer, 10 rote on the stock against me
Ramsey interest That these men who had been deprived
of 5000 shares of stock which would have been thrown
for their ticket actually went TO the Court to compel
Fuller TO vote on it for the opposition ticket!
That Nj. Field has in this perverted the truth
might safely be left to rest the intrinsic absurdty of
the pretense. Every capable Of reasoning at all
that he must have misstaed the facts when he
thus explains Fuer's voting But as this excuse OF Mr.
Fields fair example of the truthfulness of his state
ments and the ngenuOusDess Of his arguments, will
explain il little in detail
The 500 shares though called the GrOesbeck stock"
for convenience, belonged partly to him and partly TO
several other persons Seeing that had been taken
Of their hands by the Fuller recevership and that
the intention TO deprive them Of the right to vote
IT. GrOesbeck and some Of the holders of this stock mot
alb hegan suit behalf Of themselves and all others
similarly stuatedhat is, all the holders OF this stock
setting forth the circumstances under which the Re-
cever had been appointed and showing the egalty of
the proceeding and obtained injunction forbdding
the inspectors receive any votes unless the plaintiffs
the other holders Of the shares first per
mitted Mr. Field calls this an extraordinary
Injunction" II is modelled upon injunction which
Messrs. Brown Brothers OF New-York, through
Mr. Charles O'COnOr and others as their
counsel. obtained from the United States Circuit
Court in 1867. The case is Brown agt.
the Pacific Mail Steamship Company and is re-
ported in Blatchford 525.
Mr.. Field pretends that the words "the other
holders used in the injunction, the Receiver
Fuller. and compelled him TO vOte-when the very
foundation Of the proceeding that Fuller had
the plaintiffs stock, and that not he, but the owners,
ought TO vote on IT, He says that Fuller voted that
the injunction the majority Of the stock might be
removed" That is he pretends that in order TO comply
with the Injunction it necessary 10 do the very
thing that the Injunction designed TO prevent The
Injunction reads The plaintiffs the other holders
Of the stock" That is GrOesbeck Chamberlain Vincent
&c-the plantifs-were specifically designated as en-
titled to vote their stock Mr. Field, in quoting the
Injunction. deliberately changes land" 20 "Or." and
then makes Fullers voting not only satisfy the
g..4h. ~o1af
that the order that GrOeSbeck Chdm6eldn and others
vote" was satisfied by FUIlers voting. Judge Smith,
after hearing Mr.. Field urge the same explanation
which he does here, thus disposed Of the fimsy
pretense that Fuller voted in obedience TO the
injunction in order that the election might pro-
Ceed. He says: "Ths Injunction was served on
Mr. Harris Zone Of the Fisk nspectors), and eas
imnodiotely disregarded and dsobeyed in letter and
sirii By reeeieing the rOe Of W. a Fuller" What can
YOU do with man who not only resorts TO such
excuses this, but actually misquoes the records to
assist him In his prctensesl
Besides falsfying the record by changing land" 20
cor" Mr.. Field makes another misstaement. He says
that this was done because Fulers voting on the
5000 shares necessary to the of the Fisk
ticket" hieh elected Jg cOs Independent Of mat
cast by the Receiger." Now the evidence shows, and
Judge smith says. at appears that at the (Fisk
poll there 134OO votes, and at the Snow Ram
sev1 po 1912 Transfer the 5000 shares improperly
voted upon by Fuller from the Harris to the poll
and would give majority to the latter" The Judge
should have said as apparenO that simply deducting
IL from the Fisk poll without voting 1t for the Ramsey
party would produce this result And this was the
suit after deprving the Ramsey party OF the 5000 shares
of Groesbeck stock and $500 other shares on which they
were enoined fromlvOting. and which Judge Smith holds
20 be valid stock and which should have been voted for
Ramsey while considerable portion Of the l3l0O shares
voted at the Fisk poll is held TO have been voted upon
wrongfuy when il should have been excluded.
~ Mr. d--tb