The New Orleans daily Democrat., 1878-09-25


sented to by the entire bench. 1t will be seen
from this account OF the inner working Of the
court, derived from high authority, how erro-
neous are the statements Of the Republican.
But, In addition to all that, we have, in our
possession, copies of the lawyers briefs re-
ferred by the Republican, and the immaterial
words known to have been stricken out by Mr.
Justice Strong from his opinion while yetin his
power, are not to be found In those briefs
We, therefore, call upon the Republican to
produce evidence Of the truth of its state
ments or stand convicted Of Willful false
hood.
We have stated. us o matter OF fact, of
which we challenge the contradiction. that no
material Or important erasures or alterations
were made In the opinion after Il had been
read In open court, and we now add, nor at
any previous time after 1t had been drawn up.
And to prove the absolute verify Of the facts
we have given we shall close our comments
upon the untruthful statements Of the Reput-
ticn1a as to the courts recall and oblfteration
Of what 1t Is pleased to term the offensive
language employed, at the instance of plain
tiffs counsel, by Mr.. Justice Strong Ia thing
which was not done by the court, by quoting
from the opinion In this case as printed In
the twenty-tirst volume Of Wallaee's Reports,
by which our readers will see that the opin-
ion, as finally given to the reporter Of the
court and placed on file In the records of the
court, to-day appears In all the severity Of
the language originally uttered from the
bench, with the single exception that the
words Judicial outrage" and Judicial rob-
s,lr~
to oblige O mutual friend Of his own and of
Mr.. J. T. Ludeling. Before making these
quotations we desire to add that the Repub-
| ticar is not less untruthful when it says that
by the erasure Of the offensive language IAN
implied censure was passed upon Mr.. Lude-
ling's traducers;" for what remained and re-
mains to this present day dnearly four years
already unobliterated and unerased contains
O far heavier censure on Mr. Ludeling than
the four words we have admitted were strick-
en- out The aopinion," as it originally stood,
was not weakened by the erasure of these
words, but WAS probably made more severe
by their elimination. The reputation of no
man, however talented and however infiu-
entail, could possibly survive such a
crushing Judgment upon bis conduct
Of Wallace as having been pronounced by the
Supreme Court of the United States, upon the
name of John T. Ludeling, the nine judges
being unanimous. From that volume we
make the following extracts, which show
precisely what the court thought and decided
as to Mr. Ludeling's conduct and never took
back. The court, speaking OF certain
written agreement between Mr.. Ludeling and
his associates in the transaction, says:
1t Is Impossible to characterize this agree
nent as anything else than a gross fraud. Its
obvious purpose was to remove competition
at the SALE It was a. fragrant breach Of
eresst o., TIE port Of Horne, cndat soes a tre.'sd
Horne had undertaken, to persuade him to
violate his instructions and sGcrifce the inter-
ests of has constituents, himself becoming a.
party to the giolation.
Again, the court speaking Of the cembina-
tions which had been made by Mr.. ,Ludeling
says
SUCK were tie combinations organized, and
such was the object of the com binations when
the dag arrivea on which the sale had been
advertised to be made. This large property
was about to besold for @ claim Of $72O, at q
village remote faom the residence of the great
body of those most interested In it. It must
have been known that notice of the sale had,
ia all probability mot reached those parties.
been tanpered with and . overcome,
We have already zsoticed the appraisement.
OF Its character, we propose to say little
more. Manifestly it had been prepared be-
fore the appraisers Ueeye elected 1t was con-
venentIy low TO enable the associates to pur-
chase for suna almost nominal, and one of
the appraisers at least was appointed by q
person who had combimed with others to be-
1Lrra
lv, disqualified from selecting an appraiser,
or certainly unfit to make such a selection.
Thus directors of the company (the v, s.
and T. r. r. Coz, owing duties to its stock
holders and creditors, not only combined to
at sacrifice through the formality Of iu-
dicial sale, but were active participants in
successful efforts 10 defeat a sale for $3.50 1000,
In order that they might become the pur-
ehasers for $50, 900.
1t is snpessible tosMstGiae such transaction
Throughout it was grossly inequitable. That
the property was sacrificed by means of an I'M
Lawful and widespread combination is abund-
antly proved, and that the directors who were
parties to it, and who became the purchasers
were guilty of an inexcusable violation Of con-
fidenee reposed in them admits OF no doubt.
Ludelng, It Is true, was nol director, but ne
was a leading member of the combination and
its chief agent to carry out its plans. He kaew
its purposes. He kneD its iNe0ahty.
He had negotiated the surrender OF Horne,
with full knowledge of Horne's breach OF
trust. He assumed the control Of Gordons
executory process, and, as we have noticed,
when told that Gordon had consented to stay
the sale, he declared that Gordon had no
power to do it. Indeed, Laldeltng appears to
haze had full possession of the sheriff. He
drew up the sheriff s return, carefully stating
in it that all the requirements of the law had
been complied with in the second Offering, as
they had been in the first; and he was, as the