New-York tribune., 1872-10-12
OUR CONSUL At LIVERPOOL.
A CARD FROM MR.. DUDLEY IN REPLY TO THE
TRIBUNE.

A CARD FROM MIR. DUDLEY IN REPLY TO TIE
TRIBUNE.
TO the Editor OF The Trtbune.
SIR: Ny attention has just been called to q
communication your paper Of the 9th inst headed,
" Peeulation at Liverpool" purporting TO emanae from
Charles Cumming aud Joseph Lamphir, two clerks
formerly employed in the Consulate at Liverpool but who
have been dismissed from the Office for misconduct These
two persons in their communication make charges against
me in the administration OF the ohice In an editorial
you call the Secretary OF States attention to this COM
municaton ask him to read it, and inform him that 1t
had been sent to him some four months before and no
answer received, &C. and then go on to say that II
these charges are true Mr. Dudley should give way TO
some reformed civil servant whom Mr.. Curtis would
doubtless be glad to designate" Now, in reply have
10 inform you that Mr. Dudley had already before your
article was written and before he was aware that
any such communication the one you have published
had been sent to the Department even in exist
enee, given way" and placed his resignation and the
appontment OF his at the disposal OF the Gov
ernment not on account these any other charges
but from inclination. He has further to inform you that
he sent his resignation TO the Department and came
home with the intention Of remaining at home more
than year ago. II the Department did not at
that time accept the resignation, but prevailed
on him TO return to his post, IL probably
had good reasons for so doing, which 1t can
no doubt give II called upon 1t s possible also that it
knew then and knows now, much about the admins
traton OF the office at Liverpool as these two very
worthy English clerks. But, waving for moment the
propriety 10 say nothing OF the necessity, which you
seem TO imply in your article, the part Of the secre
tary 70 answer or notice charges which
any English clerk sees proper TO make to vent
his spleen against the Consul, who has had to
dismiss him from oflce for misconduct, have
TO inform you that these charges In substance were made
to the Department IN the spring OF ISL & oy M ME- & ene @
misconduct. The Department then saw proper 10 order
an Investigations and the charges were thoroughly ana
uly investigated the COnsulGenera at London, who
made his report upon the same to tho Department
exoneratng the Consul from the charges After this
did not think that he was called upon, VI
that 1t was necessary 10 put the Gov
under the circumstances incumbent upon hlm even 10
answer the communication twice SENT knowing lul We
the from which 1t enanated as Wi a5 tue W w.
which prompted II. However lhls may De, nave 70 & I-
form you that, Notwithstanding nave tenueteu my
resignation, and that do not ever expect again 10
return to Liverpool as Consul am ready 10 meet any
hare tbat these dismissed clerks any shipping
masters sailor boarding ghOuse Keepers or DOd else
may have TO make touching my administrator OF tle
by the Government to do so. am quite ready fOr the
investigation and do not care now thoroush of seaen
Camden, ". j. Oct. 8, 1872 THOMAS H. DUDLEt'
| (The charges against the management of the Liv-
erpoo Consulate were perfectly explicit and definite.
They were made by men who had been long em-
ployed by Mr. Dudley as clerks. The only reply he
| makes to them is that similar cherges were some
time ago made by still another clerk, and that he
gave the State Department satisfactory explana-
ton of them. There seems to be singular unanim-
ity Of observation aud opinion among Mr. Dudley 8
clerks As he chooses not TO explain the matter, we
suppose the truth cannot be ascetaned until there
is change in the State Department.-Edl