New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-05-25
DISTORTION or THE TRUTH.

The Neic- York EUening Post on Saturday
printed three editorial articles in reference to
the Lothrop matter which contain even more
than The Posts usual proportion of msreprc-
sentation. it asserts that THE TRIBUNE in.
gcniousy distorted" what it calls the charges
against Mr.. Lothrop so rs to make it appear
" that the censure of the Court, which was d-
"rected against the defendants in the case long
"after Mr.. Lothrup's connection with it a.
counsel had ceased, was really aimed at him.
This is simply,a deliberate lie. The TRIBUNE
printed extracts from the decision of the New
York Court Of Appeals without any change or
distortion whatever. The condemnation in
that decision is directly and specifically applied
to George V. n. LJthrop by name, as the fol-
lowing extracts show:
This statement OF Mr. Lothrop Is thon his.
tOrlcal considerable length to prove tho faith OF
the state pledged to pay the demand At the ond OF
who history Mr.. Lothrop claims to have established
six propositions the sixth and last Of which, only "a
statement OF tact, Is important. and Is follows:
10Th. Thatsaid faim rio'atcdaHd me Phanir Bank
has nerer 6een rcpatd doliar 10 his Gay ." Atthc
close lie adds: now beiiere that have given mir
pre- en;aon OF this claim. have hesitation in say.
ing tie rnOsi SOLEMN that lawyer | have
doubt thatany court OF justice. could IL DO brouyt
before them, would at once render Judgment for the
claimants"
That the allegations in the said written communion
tons by Mr. Lothrop to said Board OF State Auditor,
that the debt the Phoenix Bank never Ina. In fact hes,
paid and that he would fairly and fully state To said
Board every defence he had ever heard limited at and
the statement which he did therein mako In regard to
the alleged supposed dcfenccs aud his omission and
the omission OF said Phoenix Bank to notify said Board
Of the said notice given by the Phmnx Bank totbe River
phi I'm n4ftL IN 4atN aafI DOR g.. o. M.
settlement made by said stewart with said bank or Of
the said settlement made by him with the Mcbi,,n
State Bank OF the collection by said Stewart OF some
OF the said securities aforesaid received by him
from said River Rasin Bank, and OF his substitution
OF the residue thereof for other property with
the assent OF said PhGniX Bank; or of the said
deed OF conveyance from Stewart TO the old pbnnlt
Bank OF the date Of August g. 1852; or OF the sod decd
OF settlement and release between bank and stewart
Of the date OF August }, 1882. designed and iud
ed 10 nisiead ne sud BOard Of Siate A,dors M IN me
actual fets and merits NJ the reianJo suit claim
and that such allegations mute and such omissions
praetiscd IN he tH beiief that te actai fact, NJ
ne case or such notice hereofas ,eoud ietd 10 inor
shOdd come 10 the knooiedgs Of sud Board The said
claim W,ud be rejected and dsaoped Us utouded ~,
justice eqRity.
The Post asserts that Mr.. Lothrop's letter
"exposed the falseness of the charge conn
petey." 1t did nothing Of the sort. 1t asserted
that when Mr.. Lothrop made the repeated and
eFphatic protestatiOns to the State Board of
Audit that the Phoenix Bank had never received
adOlar in settlement of its claim, he was rely
ing on the statement to him of Mr. Tileston, the
president of the bank. 1t is passing strange
that Mr. LOthrop, counsel in the case, never
took the trouble to examine the papers, and
staked his own personal honor in varied and
most emphatic protestation on the mere verbal