New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-03-21
THE EX-PARTT HEARING EXPOSED.
GEN. BUTLERs LETTER EXAMSED-rHE RECORD OF
THE LAwRENCE-DASA SUIT DISTORTED BEFORE
THE SENATE COMMITTEE.


THE LAwREYcE-DASA SUIT DISTORTED BEFORE
THE SENATE COMMITTEE.
From The Boston Advertiser, March 20
By the letter of Gen. Butler, published In
TIM NEW YORK TRBUSE OF the l7th Instant, th. Iehs
OF Mr. Dana have 1T last something more authentic than
mere runor from which TO udgt or TIE FAIRNESS WIN
which his opponents presented tnelr case against IN
before me Senate Committee Foreign Relations, anl
OF the danger and injustice OF aclug upon an eIP"x
hearing even where ne iacs appear 10 n we mon
Mr. Dana to he distinct assertion mat MI Dana III ms
in that cause Lawrence agt Ddai' dne idiss
oath upon definite dsihct lssue Vi iaoi, up"h ~,
point Gen. Butler and Mr. Lawrence undertook 10 in
nsh the Committee with PROOF IRON te pfinsGu
: II l. apparent that the made Of this extract
from the record before the Committee was 10 sustain the
charge that Mr Dana claimed to have made no use VIVA
ever Os Mr. Lawrences ties III the preparation vi us
own and that pretended that e mad not even maze
use OF Lawrcnces edition Of wheaton aud II Il on TIC
strength Of this charge that Gen Bu'ler says
fore the gravameu OF Sill Danas defense was moi so mch
that OF pratug the book but that ne swoie ne ,uh
What can be sald OF llS use "hTh W., -, a ,, "a
context of the very answer from which tis extract vs.
made shows not only that Mr. Dana IN TINS passage dld
refer 10 the Work Oi preparing MS hos' mn W."
doue in study AZ Cambridge Dut only 10 me exahi-
nation, discussion, and revision OF lhelh MhTn . toon
place time To time with MS iatnef ana MS uIOhcr
lie late Edmund T. Dana, who was confined nv luLess
at his fathers house IN Boston anu that WHINE 10 u,
preceding the extract Mr. Dana expressly states hau
Two kinds OF munuscrpt notes the shortr notes ~ets
written On leaves which had Pu1 mo c Ii h"h IN
his answer and his deposition was repeatedly sttcd 10
he awruces edition of 1865 But IN regard 10 e use
made by Mr.. Dana OF uie euloh vi il. La" ~
and OF the Lawrence notes, Doth Inc answer anu tnt
a ON
m I any one VINO had ever glanced over the
record .iould have mistaken OF have overlooked them
In his answer MI Ddua says MS course was 10 eAahc
all the works IN which nc had access bearing upon VIC
topic, and among Others put not more OF uineentY
tIsu others, the contributions ol Tue complainant,
Again. lie had but one copy VI the cOihplauShVs eur
Of 1868 and he sent that to the pinaet ~ iHegs
always about 100 pages in advance ana he mas u no"
IN printers hands entire Ana again az 10 Iciei,
euccs he says lite could not at the time el stu less
tell, from what booA lie t9oh any one reic
cncc. In tins respect lie used the complainant notes s
me d the works other authors. but not more or other
wise" And again, a. To mIhins extracts from puoie
documents or reference 10 them, he says: Ana lie
does not doubt that he may nave done 50 III some cases
in respect to the cOmpandnt notes. Out not more 80 Oh
otherwise than with other authors. ,
But not only WAS II known TO MI Lawrence ani TO
GEN Butler II he mad read the answer of whch he
.ueak. IN his letter, that II contained these repeated
references the made by MI Dana OF TIE notes OF
Mn Lawrence they must also nave been aware thai
in the same deposition 10 which they referred Tor lhei
extract and ia the answer to the tnrd foOwlnS inter
roatory nut by his counsel, Mr. Dana gave full
ad minute description OF tie manner III winch he useu
the Lawrru edition OF Wheaton III the preparation OF
ms notes and produced on his own motion the wnoc
manuscript from which his edition was irinted as
m no being made up OF about $50 closely
written foolscLp pages Of manuscript notes, aL4
utO iour parcels. which the printer had ST up the
text OF Wheaton, and on the ny-eav,s of WHEN the
shorter manuscript notes were written The whoie pro-
cess of the composition OF hls work was thus placed III
the broadest lght. To this copy" MI Dana hii, as
win be seen by To onebi the extracts iro hs
answer above given, called the attention OF MS oppo-
uunts at the earliest stage oil the case 10 pretend III
up
or his deposition undertook any concealment Of
M nee OF Lawrruces Wheaton would require create
degree OF assurance than even MI l"EeAce anu MS az
ris Atract from Prof Abdy's letter to Mr.. Lawrence
su,ahng OF Mr. Dunas WORK the coolest piece Ol III
cary piracy he had ever seeul was altaeheu 70 a eA
hib y Mr. Lawrence III an irregular way, anu put aS Il
note To- his second argument Ii bears date Dec. %,
.G which was befoe any document OF answer OF PROOF
whatever ma been hled by Mr. Dana. Mr. Dana wrote
MIN letc. which with Prof AS peImssl9hl M; Dana
printed with his argument p 80 IL Ii udled DC .
s6s In prc hastily. AISs m U', out '" OF Friendship
10 MIR Lawrence than upon CAREFUL review OF
the two works and before had seen nb ,ne P p
me s"report Of the pieadinss ana arhuIlents, 70
which he referred in ms nrst et1ef' W
bill and ahdayts not subjected 10 ctosse ~
lie censurcs MI Lawrence for having prhteu pi, !,
Had been asked, before was pnted oi lau ,i lao
an opportunity saying whether was "ils To allow
that 10 be DONE should have SAID no lie SPEAKS "a
Mr. DANA TWO years aIter ms INST letter, as @
upon whose private character nave neaiu s,ie my
est encomiums." In short his letter OF Dec 80 1900
was only "A reply To Mr.. Lawrences statement OF ms
own WOW his was strictly private anu nos
intended us Judgment, Tor ne ntu hdu 10 means VI
tnrnlng one aud Mr. Lawrence had used IL III way 10
deceive the reader and III violation OF commence H.,
But this Is the worst MI Lawrence kew Oh irol.
Ahdys Letter TO Mr. Dana Of Dec ., loos, Tor II was
prpI ed ln.Mr Danas argument In secret session Oh
.e m ntTodnees or permits to be introduced
letter OF PROT. Abby the Judgment OF .eirheu man
not so and suppressed o course he must have done 500
the second tier. which would have shown the Commit
tee that the nisl Was anu '.s w "u ~
violation confidence, for wrong purpose III fraud
uIent way What can be SAID OF this conduct
OF Mr. Lawrence without answering that qucs-
ton we can add that II is further illustra-
zion of the danger OF deciding question Oi
character upon statements secretly made by an antag
onst without so much attempting To learn what eA-
plauatious dsproOf there may be- The record is
nearly hundred and the committee could not
nave studied they had Il before nem aud were NJ
The Mr.. Daua's antagonists We do not mean
that tes. the only misrepresentation maze at lt
secret ,r Darte hearing No one ever know We
take p these as the only statements that have trans
AnIkr taLA tn.In
ihen from the record but expose the fraudulent at
tempt made 10 deceive the committee Dy hostile men
who had the held to themselves.