New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-07-16

he full "A
pnntcry ircatmrnt dealt out to common oeudsrs, took
irbuSe contained in his letter Of November last win ne
remembered. thus II may appear t'ai ne az NJ hr
himself under the lash of thit III" ho" ahH'""oo -
the Court OF Appeals. ,...o, .,.,o,o-v n, tho
Dad iu.t the day succeedng Tweeds deiiyeiancc from
inc Penentiary the following announcement was made
in city journal whose area Of circulation Is me wo
event. and various sentiments Of classes Is equa
cA'c"'H'' 1wr,ps CHANGE OF RESIDENCE.
release fro Blsckwelfs island to be nmared me sne
Day n o bad iii r sa y ' T%eS @ IT.
liberty but he ha, pm, on the deea mig sps" ~, i susory
ys,S S so' % re TO 40 eat IN food d,cd ont
e in mo harrow Gel allowed he p asss TO
select any nsi IL, pa. r and to empo his lime ac,'rns
=, se,d s ,here y he IN the public Juice
W 0Is ~ s s S' aess" Of the Court Appeals
y gn me oa. ,n Tor NIX ne at H.e DAVE judicial rpuaon
s Twce f2aS Probably s reToiScG il he question q ex
s sshes r T Of Ii. sae declared be Heal Tweed
the e c sS S s pG FREE by as law very
en tang from parao ana inc , ma "a rrnS his heavy
sentence annulsd encourages ~ conldenee IA ,ne hal
Twsed does e nS aH himself, Oft than he was in his
So lar as thai aro.e might he thought TO imply on your
mart ccsnrable motives detected ignorance u uyes
be so understood. Ii merely designed 10 tNhln
prominently in the editorial column the common i si,i
men; and public braging Of the great rccatto Tle,S'
In the news columns OF the and Tie following uy.
the publc inlornet IN thclr chdstc q, 80 b.
W inns find rs consequence of the pcculaor third
triumlh i'm the Court OF Appeals tbd y" rr can eS'L
fhe To- of yOIr estate in damages ony ti"ish wi
fyhe,iancc or mat Of partial jury. You, as wei rs
moved - hostility to iSecis lecniitoH, th oe n.y. r
ni,is,,rr one pniui more important fhan all tncfc
N every tlue mans estimation, Affects you lou l"is
submit 10 inant humiliation. You must 20 down III o
,udir1l history stained with the im.utation 0f iVht
been led into eg oppression by IGNORANCE e., a. g.t
thi> unless you can ne lIhca''d 80 'Hc S"'' u
ft.F-. MS q
Let tncn how inns matter OF me rrcnna'in W
s.l,re. stands between yourself AMI Tie 'Ohf. ol
Ale. Thai high tribunal. by Allen, j., among oth,r
tlnes, ihu, argues IN support o. II d ,oz u
I,nicni SCI claim Win treat paias5p ~ a.a 800 ~
ryas,n ia, the rlle Knitting e 80. oi fr' 20,
.' f S me ne brir Of mr. GCo,or before rcaff TO- aud
a!oa as IiA-c the Tolsoh ida hc very cea.y ",
tersly eXpr :as the plsilio, aii t ;5 ~
IT, winch deem worthy OF con, hera. on i"at ~,
urs atcr refer 10 the analogy b.t"cch c.n aiu1iS i
iArIy cxceit under some statute exrr.ssy auVf@iIs
sch c'IIsr na 10 he 1riel IT TIE same II ~
c,"r ~ indie nct "a ree action kides ie coi siSn aud
eam ssnci.t in wici r.l az cae ric for nam, oic'5
TaIid nSovo me accscd pracicc il tcieai d. IA
s S , an 1 ts l i Is ar ,cy ~ o. me
ciisrn Nothing better S.s THAI bad" tie eV Ihs'i'l
~ iis, t e proven Is equally wril known las. Il r
n LIE ,,-,,r nor or a common inorni'r penal action
roi pa al unpopular r,cn On iral or every elnlr'y
e mi at i .ink under weight unincrit,d oppTo;
nn ir ',gr Of srr ,r ,s r lhe foi
l., a.. sole cIDs. any msIi PIeltiis'on Il"
,t.-, ,ay may cohis ia 4, ,lncnt or lrion.
Ga I'm, i,a .hii iis ali irent rlnsacpns oc.
c.ff1@ Giar Mt nra anu pia.ts h toh~.,in9 ' ,
iaictiI-a penal actor. Fne icy cases mat ar :" D.
lies @i.n a ~ Xxx. WI s TSe leaned counsel .1
- h'n ii n's"f % ntj, is ot ia%t 70 mat M
aliI i:cine &, aim il Oiiion MS arr lne"'s
re- was = ansrn,y in tls citation lawyer not
SUSPECTED ~ Iayorng Pocuator- II sho"h 10 nave COZ"
dcHinci VITA ni ~ ef.e ioct lo l,ci.c "'i,
ag.linst weed whether thc lrdIheu '"r.' "d' h'Pi"
in ts editorial per!1rmanc" may Jc D'-t &c rIh.heI ~
curtrSon of tina rXtrGt win lis own action Ia iud,
ins0 ,ao sane p.ecir pvitave!y short ana Pc'
TIE Eo4ABlI.nLD RULE CDNC@RNING NUMEROUS
rUNIslIMrNIs.
NV ARGUMENT thus citcl against Joug action dciiy
cred before the CJur OF Appeals in the OF Philo
Johnson AIT The Hudson River H',iIoad Company IN
-g,cmhcr ~. The plaintiff mad sued for and r., COW
cred in on action $50 tiles Of so each for as many
different orrscs OF the same kinl Second sscsnry's
Ecports 3li An appeal was taken I" the Court OF Av
meals and t.e entire iId. there reversed Oh t.e
merits wout any reference t. TIC question W"ethefa
pary c.dld M IT, q or nIEci"S dtin ilei' - al Oh e.
ini subjected To- In"iJl, i'unic' III t.c came aciij
Jude ka laii0 wiic at ne bar Na' OF cOuirr Tor tic
Ge,cndIn AID, 0i c0nr5, nr oo no rart Ia u. Aeaf;
oa appeal. mel the Co. III thc upper court. u
meyer mas been and not suggested on ilt hanl
mi y@ n ,,.,, rs this lui,I. ~ in.s several Son -
auI pun s.i;u ats tr AL Jl-meni, tIc!c - any
,@irl ;n.rg J., none; ali the autnnrts paiMiv show
H. anu it is tlat account one tia my argument tii
81 ny the Couis OF Appeals, hac any relevancy L IL
A.h-h it turned ont not TO BE- c,ary 10 asGal
"siUa the Johnson 'ac or, pcrAas ia an o'h"r,
~ pout wa rclr, nat IN thcl pending oI
a9t.l. ouI IS pfes.mabc fn.i ta.s ,c.y asiment waN
aI,ri uivI the c,dr hy oin"r oo''al in ,'csa ouer
cas-. However tn4 nsy BE- the appeal ;ntsc7. Is We
siau se' col.l'sal II ana SD GsfJsei oi II. Ga
u e. .inncr -, 1871. while -, JJhn. oa.r was So,
nader a.. Fisher 40 TIr Nr'gYor, Central AMI
!iuds IL .scr ,rOsd co.npsns ~ Ne"-NOr. l.rpD
CO.. up all Wa dee iei JG4;c G.o'er IL dc'-
Criig t'.e niulon ~ tac Cor t. snJa" - fol- .:
Tom nc i uiho e.rJ 10 d ..rm q " I = cal
J. ia ~ p5r +. ,;i ~ Gee" b., hr fofr ~
> M. ai-rn rs tiI- iIii Vi a. "a wiii me sII o.,
l,. - a.. cIc. ., ~ "a -1' On. -h,hi 3D. ?
n4","- don T." H., 30 "a ,'n - r.
co ri n on ia ton 90 rnt ay go IRE IN 6 = 'lii
q coi. Jnisc Rapa 10 declined to vo AN DE- s.s.e
Ire Nc have tat me- wa' in or sled IA III"
pr,,,t a. rud force, lni point 10 this staten ~,
II cheT va Lcc.oi Il Shows 10" dsin,iy tic pa''.
/ TIC Curr Chef judge Chur,h and iHders Alien aad
- = "'' VI 'Hr 100" ~ go - w -
ani inferior courts ne rue pini:tng i"e iufli,
o.. tlal and Jdd7n NJ was IL tiafcd 20 he Pc
fe,lE csilhiisl.d-so completely indeed. ihat
IT," Tie Nolume 81 Sac rrPrs annpuHcu,
tnat the objection had thus received is Glc;ds VA,
elapsed after at d,te when. on Iwreds tri,l, you NJ
rliti tne "rIlo lhus prescribed TO you. Hal any o"e
tue read 10 you my D-i Ia Johnson persuasive
evidence q law IL must b. f' 3liaed thai wOu!d
bye bl1,} r, " , 10 rS ei@r non vi 7a
he Oyerrulcd The deliberate op.iuon OF tne lsiest
Of ' me ihe rc " LIZ down T af i ear H
me. and must obey it," H,d You not followed rue
80 nty proclaimed you eht has, D,o pronounced
incycusaby ignorant OF it, Jutiy consurcd for n5ub
ordination.
NEW LIGHT OF THE COURT or APPRJs
Whether doctrine recently AM cmphatlclly r0-
pdlai should have been at approved md adopted
it Ell ct to tie prison doors ana exempt
pocuator from nI.e., the appeal judges mag an
they st Ii i. not the question prorounltd
TIE dates show that my argument. however ir-
refragabe before the Com and regulated by
il When shcrs ease WAS decided OF course did not
believe when Tweed tried that You could have
ufrFo N-an XnsI