New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-03-18
THE LAWRENCE-DANA CONIRO-
VERSf.

A LETTER FROM GEN. Is. +. BUTLER
ne OPPOSES THE CONFIRMATION OF MR. DANA BE-
CAUSE THE CANDIDATE Is CONVICTED LIT
YRARY PIRATE p-MR. DANA RAN so FAR BE-
HIND HIM FOR CONGRESS THAT IT WAS NO RACE
70 the Editor OF The Tribune.
SIR: In your paper of March - l find an article
trom which make extracts as follows:
The senate Committee opposes the confirmation OF Mr..
Dana as Minister England for the rcasons-aS lar as
for Congress and that no had dispute WITH Gov VIM
Beach Lawrence about the notes 10 Nheatohs mr.
natonaI Iax II tue Senate wants 80 teach the
diseusted coun ~ that merely Gransm but also Re
publlcanism has TO he repudlaed " could nOt Ihs Dr.
Ter course than to reject Mr. Dana bccausehe tried to lie
Feat Gen. Butler.
The rule of my life has been never TO contradict
OF explain newspaper statements unless statement
has tendency TO injure Others besides mysef so far
as am concerned propose to live them down ana
not write them down; but the statements nave
quoted are so unjust TO Mr.. Lawrence, and so UNJUST
10 the Committee Of the Senate, that they 0nght
not to pass upchallenged by one who knows the ex-
act facts.
In the first place, had the honor to appear before
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate,
and present some considerations why a convicted
literary pirate should not be sent as Minister to
England And in that presentation the fac. was
never mentioned or referred to that Mr. Dana ran
against me for Congress, indeed he never did.
He tried to once but failed so utterly that never
called il race l certainly bore him no i'll will for
increasing the majority received at the prior cleo
ton BY his race some thousands.
II is certainly unjust 10 Mr.. Lawrence, who en-
tered his protest before the Committee because it
represents the controversy between Mr.. Dana and
Mr. Lawrence TO be "a dispute about the notes OF
Wheaton's international Law The fact Is that
Mr. Lawrence had made very yOuminous, exhaust
i've, aboriOus. and learned snDotatons OF Mr. Whea-
tons book. Mr. Dana was employed to publish
rival edition. Learning the fact Mr.. Lawrence
cautioned Mr. Dana against Any use Of bis material
and Mr.. Dana promised him that they should DO as
safe IA if in manuscript locked in his drawers" and
IN the preface 10 his work lie says, page /: This
edition contains nothing but the text of Mr..
Wheaton according to his last revision, his notes,
and the original matter contributed by the editor;
aud on page II he says 1.-The notes of Mr.. Law
renee do not form any part Of this edition"
When his book was published Mr. Lawrence sued
Mr.. Dana before the United States Circuit Court at
Boston, for pirating his book and using his notes.
In answer TO that suit Nj. Dana swOre positively
that all his notes were original manuscript notes,
written by his own hend OF by his dictation, and
that his citations of authorities and quotations
were made from the original sources and
without tho use of Mr.. Lawrences notes
at all. using the following language in speaking Of
conjunction with his brother II will add that
during the entire time from tho beginning 10 the
end Of the examination of my notes we did not have
before u.s. or in the house nor did look at, either
edition of Mr.. Lawrence's Wheaton. To the best Of
my beliof INV brother did not either Of Mr..
Lawrence's editions until after the commencement
of this suit"
To prove that untrue. Mr. Lawrence produced the
testimony Of Mr.. Potter now one OF the Supreme
Judges Of Rhode Island who made comparison OF
Mr. Dana's and Mr.. Lawrences books, and filed a
schedule OF 81 octave pages showing quotations and
citations Of authorities by both Mr. Lawrence and
Dir. Dana 10 be identical even TO mistakes and typo
graphical errors Of copy, and also the use OF the
same words in Mr.. Lawrences and Mr.. Danas notes
This schedule shows 50 exactly that Mr. Dana copied
Mr.. Lawrence that where Mr.. Lawrence omitted a
comma, Dir. Dana omitted a comma and where Dir.
Lawrence put in a comma that ought not to be
there, Dir. Dana put in a that ought not to be
there; and where Mr.. Lawrence omitted a line, Mr.
Dana omitted the same line.
Upon this evidence both Judge Clifford and judge
Lowell oOncurIing the Court found Nr. Dana guilty
Off piracy from Mr. Lawrence's book and referred il
to master to be eXpurgated. Therefore the grdrG-
men Of Mr. Dsnas ofiense not 50 much that OF
pirating the book, but that lie swore he didn't and
the Court could not have convicted Mr.. Dana with
out finding his oath TO be fase~
Prof. Abby, who holds the professorshp of Inter
national Law in Cambridge University. England
writes of this performance OF Mr.. Dana as follows
have read the report OF the pleadngs and arguments
10 your suit against Dir. Dana, and have also looked
MS edition OF Wheaton, and must that OF all tn,
cool proceeding. IN the shape Of literary piracy have
read or heard or that is the coolest do cordially
nope that THE 10 hand you will have received
SUBSTANTIAL justice for the injury inflicted upon you
also introduced several extracts from the opinion
OF Chancellor Wslworth upon tins same subject
which submit justification in the mind OF any
honorable man Of the action of the Committee
Throughout this edition IL will aso be found that man,
Of Mr. LAwrcncos notes have been used IN substance 10y
the editor though ne has attempted IN mott Of tllos
esses 20 the piracy by carefully changing tue ian
gusge Of Mr.. LAWRENCE notes In several casts how
ever. he has seryaly copied tho very language OF tn
note. but he has copied Of Mr. DawrcncSs refer
eDoes In letters documents which letters and docu
nents had been published been referred 20 eX
eept In Mr. IAwreHees copyrighted notes
Is such conduct as this justly 10 DO characterized
as" dispute about tho notes OF Wheatons Inter
satienal LsHT l produced before the COMMITTEES