New-York tribune., 1875-12-04
MIR. PARK.

Mr. TrenOr W. Park promises to bring
libel suit against The TRIBUNE for what it
has said of him in connection with Gen.
Schenck and the Emma Mime. We are glad
of it. We believe our neighbor. The Nation,
has thus far had q monopoly of libel suits con-
cerning the Emma Mine. We shall take pleas
ure hereafter in dividing with it the duty and
the honor. The ailhrs of the Emma Mine have
been a scandal TO the country so long that 1t IL
quite right they should be cleared up at last In
court. and we shall more than cheerfully do our
part in the work if Mr. Park will only do his.
We have said nothing about him except what
has appeared in various legal proceedings
unless it be in the following paragraph:
. In all this noticeable point Is the with While
Gen schenck formed Intimate business relations with an
adyenturer already OF i'll reputc Dir. Park was ident-
fed with and understood o be one of the projectors
Of the aarpOsa Mining Company, swinde which New
York capitalists have not yet forgotten He was con
cerned in the New-York. Boston and Montreal Company,
railroad throdgh line paper whose pretended hTst
mortgage bonds were pamed of upon tho foreign mar
kcts and are net worth dollar basketiul Large
suits already pending against him on account or
this negotiation. He was besides tangled in various
extraordinary transactions in the Street; and Ia general
was the Of person whom reputable business men
ter should not havo consented even TO meet much less TO
have business transactions with.
IL Mr.. Park proposes to submit those state
ments (and his own character) to the test of
an action for damages. we can promise him
satisfaction and the public abundant ediiica-
ton and entertainment.
Mr. Park has published a letter from his
counsel Mr.. Chlttenden, accusing The TBIB-
IrNR of getting Gen. Schencks deposition from
him under false representations, deceiying him
by q pretense that we had received full copy
of n part of il from the lawyers OF the Emma
Mining Company in London, and so inducing
him TO give us the remainder, with
pledge that we would publish
it either in full or not at all "a pledge which
we violated by publishing only part Mr.
Chittenden is not telling the truth. l. Our
reporters made no representations TO him
whatever as 20 what we had received from
London they shomed him what we had
received, namely, a copy Of The Anglo-
american Times containing the whole of Gen.
Schencks direct examination with only the
questions omitted) and a synopsis of the
cross-examination. 2. After we had published
this. Mr. Chttendon furnished us a complete
examination, with the understanding that
wo should print them both in full,
or not at all. Finding upon peruSal
that we had given as much as
was necessary the day before, we chose the
second alternative and printed neither. 3.
The contract between Schenck and Park.
which we did publish, was not included in
the deposition. and not covered by the pledge
,t L.
However. we are anxious to give nobody
cause to complain that We treat him unfairly,
and if Mr.. Chittenden and Mr. Park are
really anxious for the full publication of the
deposition, question, answer, and all, we may
try to make room for it, though We are under
no sort of pledge to do So If they imagine
that is going to help them in the public esti-
nation, they will soon find their mistake.