The New York Herald Newspaper, August 12, 1859, Page 11

NEW YORK HERALD, FRIDAY, AUGUST 12, 1859.—TRIPLE SHEET. TEE INDIA BUBBEB CONTROVERSY. tof Hisrace H. Day and his Counse!, Somemonts attacks by William Judson and FE. N. Dickerson upon my titles, my business, and myself, which heve appeared in the papers since the final decision in my favor of the United States Circuit Court at Baltimore, have surprised no one acquaint- ed with Judson or Dickerson, or with their hostile yelations toward me for many years past. Never- | theless, the magnitude of the interests involved makes it incumbent upon me to expose so much of. their attacks as bear immediately upon the impor- tant rights now finally decided in my favor, in re- gard not only to all my titles derived from Good- year, bat especially that portion of them which ‘covers elastic fabrics, and in which so large a por- tion of the whole community have a direct interest. The Congress Rubber Company and myself eontended for many years during the original term of the patent in many different cir- ouits and against many different firms, and recovered over fifiy injunctions. After the tent was extended, I obtained about fifty junctions more. I commenced some thirteen suits in Baltimore against as many respectable firms there. They combined together, and employed able counsel, who was instructed to insist, and did insist, that Judson was the owner of the rights I elaimed. The Court decided in my favor, and agsint Judson’s alleged title. It seems to me that ler such pe peaionaes contest, aud a victory so fairly obtained, no high minded or honorable man should be guilty of further trying to sustain Jud- son's pretensions, or to impose them upon honora- ble merchants or fair business men, to their injury and my loss. The insinuations against the decision of the Court will be understood by the public as being the not unusual grumblings of a defeated party who has the bad taste to express them in public prints. After the admission of Judson that he was applied to and forwarded papers to the counsel in Baltimore; and ef Mr. Dickerson, that he had a conference with that counsel, who is styled as “a very promising oung lawyer,” those who choose may he- fieve that it was not known to both Judson and Dickerson that the case was set down for final hearing, ond that the defence was not based upon Judson’s pretended title. The upshot of this joint and several card seems to be that, because Judson was not physically in court at Baltimore, and because Dickerson did not argue the case orally to the court, “the result was aa might have been expected—Mr. Day beat Mr. Stell. man.” And the public are asked to infer that, wnhout doubt, if Mr. Judson had been then pre- sent, and Mr. Dickerson had actually addressed the court upon the same pleadings and peeks, an op- ‘ite result would have been arrived at, and that, ‘with these helps, Mr. Stellman would have beaten Mr. Day. There are some who will read this who have had some acquaintance with Mr. Dickerson’s style of argument, and who perhaps have admired both his logic and his rhetoric (which it must be admitted are somewhat peculiar), and if any such believe that an honorable, learned and just judge would have been turned from his convictions by any such SIPTay Shey will continue to entertain that belief. But such faith, I think, is contined to the gentlemen themselves. The subjoined letters from those of my distin- geisned counsel who were immediately cngaged in e argument of this particular cause will satisfy all who know the high personal character which is deservedly theirs, and will consign to still more Jasting shame those who would rob me of my just sights by any means or ee which avarice, malice or desperation could invent. Horace H. Day. New York, August 9, 1859, New York, August 4, 1859. Joun H. B. Laruonz, Esq., Baltimore, Md.—Dear Sir:—I inclose to you an article that appeared in the Tribune of the 3d August. Will you do me favor to state to me the facts, so far as you are aware of them, upon the points referred to by Mr. Judson, on the occasion of preparing and arguing the case of Day and others ys. Stellman and Hein- ricks, in the Circuit Court United States for the Maryland district. I shy Sk the necessity of trou- bling you in this regard, but not having been pre- sent in Baltimore myself, and your colleagues, Mr. Jenckes and Mr. C. A. Seward, having attended the 1 no longer than was required to make the open- ing argument in my behalf, it seems that I have no alternative. Very respectfully, Horace H. Day. LETTER FROM MR. J. H. B. LATROBE. Horacr H. Day, Esq., New York—Dear Sir:— I have received your letter of the 4th instant, and reply at once. At your instance, I filed some three or four months ago four bills on the equity side of the Cir- cuit Court, United States, Maryland District, pray- ing injunction to restrain the defendants, Stellman and Heinricks being among them, from selling articles alleged to fall within the meaning of the term “shirred or Ga tad goods,” as used in the exclusive grant from Charles Goodyear to your- self, dated October 29, 1846, and which, containin; vulcanized India rubber, were covered by Good- year’s extended patent of June 15, 1844, of which, 80 far as such goods were concerned, you were the absolute owner. The articles sold by the persons sued were woven suspenders, elastic Sd in boots, garters and ether goods, which I do not now recollect suffi- ¢iently to characterise or name appropriately. No answers being filed, injunctions were granted in due course. In the case of Stellman and Hein- rick’s, however, it was insisted that the litigation then pending in New York would obviate the ne- eessity of litigation in Baltimore, and further time for putting in an answer was granted by the Court, notwithstanding the opposition of your counsel. No answer having been filed, when the enlarged time expired an injunction was granted. Mr. Charles Marshall was the counsel for Stellman and Heinricks, and he Bo ee ate himself as then in correspondence with the counsel in New York. Judge Ingersoll’s opinion having been soon after published, 4 commenced, at your instance, nine other suits of the same character as the above, making thirteen in all. The defendants now came, it seems, to an understanding among themselves; and Stellman and Heinricks, the principal impor- ters in Baltimore of the goods in question, taking the lead, Mr. Marshall acting for all the parties Bued, it was agreed, with a view of obtaining at the earliest day, and with the least expense, the de- cision of the by ne Court (United States), to set the case down for final hearing [ee bill, answer, and the testimony that had been before Judge In- ersoll on the motion for preliminary injunction. Wine this view, certified copies of all the New York affidavits were peer additional testimony on both sides was let in,and with the whole mass of documentary evidence, the case was argued before Judge Giles. There was a postponement from the day first appointed, but on this day, or the day be- fore, I met Mr. Judson and Mr. Dickerson, accident- ally, in Baltimore, spoke to them about the case, referred to the BBs onement, heard from them that they had seen Mr. Marshall, and was left in doubt, when it was asked, if Mr. Dickerson would take part in the argument, whether he would or would not. Certainly, on this occasion, there was no ap- pearance of ignorance about the case, or any dis- Claimer of interest in the result, on the part of either gentleman. Indeed, it was naturally inferred from the coincidence of their appearance in Balti- more at the day appointed for the hearing, that they were both to be present at it, and that one of them was to take part in the argument. When the ar; ent did take place it is very true that neither Mr. Dickerson nor Mr. Judson were present at it; but Mr. Marshall, whom I always re- garded as representing Mr. Judson, as well as his more immediate clients, had by this time Judge In- ersoll’s opinion before him, and the full benefit of e re-argument in print, after the close of Judge Curtis’ argument for the complainant, of Mr. Jud- 80n’s counsel in New York, as well as of consulta- tion, as I understood from him, with both Mr. Jud- fon and Mr. Dickerson. That he was engaged in paration for the trial long before it commenced, Pie reason to know. Employed as J was to expe- dite a hearing in view of an appeal, if necessary, I ‘was more than ay, desirous to learn how far the defendants’ counsel was authorized by the par- ties mainly interested to carry out an agreement to this effect; and without going into the details of a frank intercourse on the subject, it is sufficient to say that there was notiing to create a doubt as to Mr. Marshall's being in full correspondence and acting upon a perfect understanding with Mr. Jud- son to this end. That Mr. Marshall regarded him- felf in this light there can be little question. Un- doubtedly no one has been more impressed than I have been, at finding either the quality or the ef- fect of the Baltimore decision characterized as it has been. Of this decision it is unnecessary to speak; but this much I feel it proper to say, in justice to a pro- fessional brother, who would be wholly averse to thinking or saying it of himself—that, in a long pro- fessional life, I have rarely listened to an argument more thorough or lawyer-like, or more closely sus- tained Te eS than was the ment of Mr. Marshall on this occasions and this I am very sure none would be more willing to admit, had they been present and heard it, than the distinguished gentle- men whom it has been Mr. Judson’s good fortune to have for his representatives in New York. On this Point no testimony could have been stronger than that given by the Bench, both at and some time since the trial. a Whether the decision in Baltimore would have been different had Mr. Judson’s New York counsel taken part on the argument, I cannot of course pre- tend to say; but, that the decision was pronounced after a most earnest contest, in which every point in defence that had yet been hited and new and strong points, made for the first time, were strenuously and ably argued, cannot be ques- tioned. Very respectfully yours, Jno. H. B. Larrong. Ocean Hovee, Newronr, RJ. August 5, 1859. “fewal those who LETTER OF MR. 0. A SEWARD. Horace H. Day, Esq.—My Dagar Sin:—Your let- | ter of the 3d instant was duly received, but circum- stances beyond my control prevented an earlier answer. You ask me to give a stateraent in answer to the cards enclosed in your letter, and I do so with plea- sure, finding, in the obligation of duty to yourself, a sufficient occasion for departing from the rule, long | since adopted for ara , not to engage in newspa- er controversies. Itis but just to you that a caa- id and accurate statement of your title aud the litigation concerning it, so far as ‘these cards relate to either, should be inade, so that hereafter, when you come to enforce the rights now judicially deter- mined to be yours, it may not be alleged against you that you permitted erroneous statements to pass unanswered. % ‘The statements made in so much of the card as is signed ‘William Judson,” I will answer in detail. — the first allegation is “that the editor of the Z'ri- bune was deceived,” but the manner of the decep- tion, or in what it consisted, is not stated. If it be intended to intimate that in editorially attributing to Judge Giles’ decision the effect of confirming in you an exclusive right to manufacture, import and sell elastic vulcanized India rubber goods, the edi- tor of the Tribune was deceived, it may be a con- solation for that omnipresent person to know that his deception is participated in by you, by your counsel, by Judge Giles, and by nineteen-twentieths of the reading public, to whom the Zribune, Times, Heracp, and a host of other parent have made the decision a “household word.” The dividing line between such universality of deception aod public opinion is shadowy and indistinct. The assumption, on the part of the author of the cards, of an exclusive possession of sufliciect saga- city to discover the trne effect of Judge Giles’ de- cision, recalls the anecdote of the escaped lunatic, who assumed the exclusive possession of the onl sound mind in the world, gravely alleging that ‘al the rest of mankind were insane.” He, poor fel- low, did not perceive the joke. Perhaps Mr. Jud- son will not, but the public, however, perceive it in both instances, and may, perhaps, be willing to adopt Mr. Judson’s adjectives, “groundless, ridicu- lous and crazy,” as happily characterizing the as- sumption in both cases. The second allegation is, “that Mr. Day is the licensee of Mr. Goodyear for the manufacture of shirred or corrugated [ndia rubber gouds; the Nash- awannuck Company and I are licensees for woven elastic rubber goods. Day’s title accrued in 1846; ours accrued to those who granted it to us, in 1844. From 1845 till the present time the owners of our title have been making and selling large quantities of goods under it, and Day never pretended till 1857 or 68 that the two rights conflicted, or that our title subordinate to his.” Itis true that you are the exclusive licensee of Mr. Goodyear for the manufacture of shirred or corrugated India rubber goods, and that your license was granted In 1846. It is also true that by a con- firmatory grant made to you by Goodyear in May, 1858, you acquired the exclusive right to make a variety of India rubber goods which are not either shirred or corrugated, and that by virtue of these two grants Mr. Goodyear succeeded in conveying to you, as he states in his licenses and accounts, a monopoly of the right to make and vend shirred or corrugated goods of every kind and descrip- tion, however made, whether woven, cemented, sewed or otherwise. Jt is also true that you “never pretended till 2857 or 1858,” nor, indeed, till any other period, that the title alleged by the author of the card to be in the person who signs it, was subordinate to your own. I am not aware that by pretence or otherwise you ever dignified the claim which has lately been resuscitated and set up by Mr. Judson by designating it as ‘‘a title” of any Kind. Nor aim Y'aware that either the author of the card, the person who signs it, or the Nasha- wannuck Company, are the licensees of Goodyear for woven elastic rubber goods. Ihave never yet seen a license, prior to 1846, which conveyed to that company, or either of those persons, any such right; nor does Mr. Goodyear in his verified account of licenses granted, and of tariffs received, mention any such license. tis also true thatin 1857 and 1858 you caused suits to be brought against various parties who were selling woven elastic goods without Mcense from you. It is not true that no objections were made to the granting of injunctions in those suits. Those suits were brought in the name of the Congress Rubber Com- pany, when it was the possessor of a portion of the title now owned by you against various parties residing in Rhode Island, Maseachusetts, Pennsyl- vania, Ohio and New York, and injunctions were granted after opposition made by the defendants and arguments by their counsel. Immediately after the title revested in you, you commenced various suits against different parties, some of which were amicably adjusted by the de- fendants, and others of which are now pending. In three suits brought in New York, motions were made for preliminary injunctions. Those mo- tions were argued on both sides, and, after advise- ment, were denied. By the request of two of the counsel, whose names do not appear in the cards you enclose, time was given to prepare and file an- swers in those three causes. While that time was running, and before its expiration, motions for relininary injunctions were brought on beiore fis Honor, Mr. Justice Grier, in Philadelphia, who did not “refuse to review the decision in New York,” but who did decline to entertain the mo- tions, saying that it was the practice of his Court, on contested motions for injunctions, to deny the injunctions, and to remit both pores to,a final hearing. Such final hearing will be had in the Philadelphia causes, assoon as they can be prepar- ed. While the time for the defendants in the New York causes to file their answers was still running, ‘ou did, as Mr. Judson states, “renew the attempt in Baltimore” to eens injunctions. Of this re- ave ae the cards had notice, and not only they, but the counsel for Mr. Judson, who have not signed either of the statements. Mr. Judson was personally advised that the motions would be mate in Baltimore. He was further per- sonally advised that the causes were to be brought on for final hearing upon the evidence which had been used before Judge Ingersoll, in the New York cases, and such other evidence as the parties might see fit to introduce. His counsel also spoke of the case, and of the probabilities that they would be there to take pare in the argument. There was no “agreement” between yourself “and” any of ‘“de- fendants in Baltimore,” by which you agreed with them “to make up a case for finat hearing before Judge Giles.” There was an agreement made between Mr. Mar- shall, the counsel for the Baltimore defendants, and Mr. Latrobe, the counsel for you, to the effect I have before stated. I cannot exclude the convic- tion that Mr. Judson was aware of this agreement. This conviction arises not only from my own know- ledge, but also from the following facts:— 1. The New York answers were filed and copies served upon me. Within a few days thereafter the same answer was filed in Baltimore; the type was the same, the paper was the same, and, if 1am not mistaken, the filling up of the blanks in the print, with the exception of the names, was in the same handwriting—that of a gentleman well known as the associate of Mr. Judson’s counsel. 2. Mr. Brady's argument before Judge Ingersoll was printed. Judge Ingersoll’s sion ‘was printed. Portions of the affidavits of defendants in New York, and the various parties whom SE USE to act as_affiants, were also printed. Mr. Marshall appeared in Court with printed copies of Mr. Brady’s argument, of Judge Ingersoll’s decision, and of the defendants affidavits. 3. Judge Curtis’ argument and reply to the de- fendant’s re-argument were printed by ‘ou. Copies were furnished in New York to Mr. jon’s coun- sel. They were not furnished to Mr. Marshall in Baltimore, and yet Mr. Marshall appeared in Court with copies of Judge Curtis’ argument and reply. 4. There are to my knowledge but two copies ex- tant of a certain pleading in a suit in New Jersey. One ofthose copies isin your possession, and the other is in that of Mr. Judson’s counsel. We pro- duced your copy at Baltimore, and by some means Mr. Marshal was able to produce another copy. 5. From all these papers Mr. Marshall undertook to convince the Court,in the language of Mr. Jud- son’s card, that “the Nashawannuck Company and I,” i. e., Mr. Judson, were “the licensees for woven elastic goods.” These facts are to me evidence sufficiently strong to warrant the conviction that Mr. Judson was cognizant of all that Mr. Marshall did; of all the resources that he had; and that Mr. Judson assumed to control, and did control, the le- al ee to be taken by the defendants in the altimore suits, which so oe coincides with the position taken by him in his card. Were it not for a rule of professional courtesy I should allude to what was said tome by Mr. Mav- shall upon this point; but I cannot, without consul- tation with him, repeat what he said; but I am at liberty to state that Mr. Judson’s assertion, that he had no connection with the Baltimore cases, would be much strengthened if he would produce from Mr. Marshall a statement to that effect. Ld Mr. Marshall, in his argument, took not only the peas Witg@d were taken by Mr. Judson’s counsel in the cases in ‘New York, but he took new points, and cited in support thereof acts between the par- ties outside of these particular cases. This argues either that Mr. Marshall was intimate with the vari- ous ramifications of the India rabber controversies, or that he had been made acquainted with them for the purposes of the Baltimore suits. Mr. Judson states:—Mr. Marshal knew nothing by experience of the complications of this controversy.” If he did not, then he was made familiar with them by instruction from some one. It would be gratifying to be assured by Mr. Marshall that this instruction was not given by either Mr. Judson or his counsel. It is further alleged— 1, “That this,” i, e. the Baltimore hearing, “was ney a egies 4 . ‘“‘Day’s is not the older title, but mine is; and itisa title which had been adjudicated by the courts wr for the last fourteen years, and is as well known in the Supreme Court as it is to me.” 3. “This is no settlement of the question, nor any spprossh to one.” . “Ihave a suit pending ‘inst Day in this Dis- trict to enjoin him from any ther troubling tho country with this crazy claim, and that suit will set- tle our rights.” To these four positions it may be answered:— First—That this was a final hearing, not by con- sent, but upon the pleadings and proofs. Second—That the decision of Judge Giles decides that your title is the older title, and that it has not been adiuiicaten by the courts for the last fourteen years. If the various Judges of the Supreme Court are acquainted with Mr. Judson’s alleged title, their acquaintance must have been derived from state- ments made to them when off the bench, because there is no report to be found of any decision by that tribunal in relation to shirred or corrugated goods of any description. ¥ ‘Third—That the final decree entered at Baltin ure is pot only ‘‘an approach to a settlement,” but is a final and conclusive settlement, an? one h the comity of other courts, if exercised in th particu- lar instance as it usually is exercised in « ery other adopt, reaffir’) and follow. ~That it is that Mr..) ‘son hag sued you in reference to wuat he polite _ denominates “the crazy ¢ -’ Mr. Judson omits to state, how- ever, what | .ally true (and it was undoubtedly a casual omissiun), that before he instituted the suit to which he refers, you had commenced a suit against him under the impression that his was “the crazy claim,” and that your suit would resultin en- joining ‘him from any ‘further troubling the coun- try.” It “may be well” for those who sympathize with you “to remember that for fifteen years” you have been soanged in endeavoring to protect your legal rights; and although you are alleged to have “always been defeated,’ the opinion and decision of bis Honor Judge Giles would seem to indicate that the willful misstatement in this particular may warrant the belief that the other statements in the card are, to say the least, questionable. True it is that you “attempted to repudiate Sule vaty aiitaae goods license,” and it is also true that such attempt was made at the invitation of Mr. Goodyear, in a suit ia which, as complainant, he himself set the example of repudiation, and that your attempt was sustained by the finding of the jury in your favor, when Mr. Goodyear attempted to enforce the collection of his tarifls. It is also true “ that you attempted to break down Goodyear’s patent.” “Such little experience as I have requires me to believe that such attempt is always made in a patent suit, and it is so usual as not to excite in my mind any particular degree of surprise. You did not succeed in defeating Good- year’s patent, but, to quote a remark of one of the Judges, it required ‘(nine big volumes of testimony and thirteen counsel,led by Daniel Webster,” to convince the Court that you ought not to have de- feated it; and the victory then and there gained by Mr. Goodyear was of such a character that even Mr. Goodyear himself has not always succeeded in procuring from the same Court a second deci- ssion of the same kind. It is true that you claim- ed “to be the owner of the Chaffee patent,” but I do not find in the card any statement that, in the only suit that ever went toa jury founded upon that claim, the jury sustained it. The last charge made against you individually is: “A fitting finale to his career is this attempt to stretch his shirred goods right, which he has by oath upon oath declared fraudulent and void, over a subject never included in it; and a certain end of his attempt will be a repetition of his former de- feats.” I am not aware of any oath ever taken by you as to the proper legal interpretation to be affixed to the instruments which constitute your title; and I know no one of your counsel would permit you to go into court and attempt by your oath to narrow or enlarge the scope of those instruments. In the cases in New York such an attempt was made by the client of Mr. Judson, and the affidavit was be- fore Judge Giles at Baltimore. That attempt stands solitary and alone. It was ineffectual for any purpose, and is useful only as a monument to warn clients not to permit themselves to be induced by the mistaken zeal of their counsel, to endeavor by their oaths to determine the legal effect of written instruments. The broad interpretation put by you upon your title is neither novel nor unwarranted. In i846, immediately after you acquired the title, you com- menced, under it, the manufacture of woven shirred goods, as well as of cemented shirred goods, and ou continued the manufacture and sale of both kinds, until you conveyed all your interest in the title to those who immediately formed the Congress Rubber Company. If the “ certain end” is to be “a repetition of for- mer defeats,” I can only say, “sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” “You have now a final deci- sion in your favor, and I doubt not that its contem- plation will afford you more satisfaction than you could possibly derive from speculations as to the probable fulfilment of doubtful prophecy. The last allegation is: “The object of See lierats of a decision in all the papers is obvioys. It is to enable Day to frighten merchants into paying him something before he is enjoined by me in the suit pending against him.” This statement is partly erroneous, and if I un- derstand your intention, is also peel, correct It is your intention to do all that you may find i necessary to do in your business before Mr. Judson procures an injunction against you in the suit to which he refers, and this for the simple reason, that an injunction in that particular suit can never be an actual fact. That suit was attempted to be used like the sword of Damocles, and has hung suspended about a year, having obtained among your counsel the sobriquet of “the Paulo Post Juturum suit.” Your counsel have often requested that the future might be merged in the present tense, and that the suit might actually be com- menced, but Mr. Judson found it inconvenient to accede to their request till he himself had been made a defendant by you. The object of furnishing the decision to the press of the country is, as is correctly alleged, “obvious.” It was to inform the public that our claim had received from one of the ablest jurists who adorns the federal courts, an autho- ritative and final decision; that the merchants, importers, and other persons interested in the manufacture, importation and sale of elastic val- canized India rubber goods, ht know that, so far as the law could do it, it had given you an ex- clusive maon poy of the right to manufacture, im- port and vend such goods; and finally, that if a tribute was to be paid for the right to participate in the en oyment of that monopoly, you were the person to whom the law said the tribute was due. The card of Mr. Judson appears to me to be an un- candid and an unfair attempt to deprive you, by improper means, of the benefits and beneficial re- sults of a victory which was only won after severe contestation. Iuse the phrase “improper means” advisedly. Certainly that phrase properly denomi- nates and designates misstatements and epithets, and insinuations upon the integrity not only of counsel but of the Court. To these insinuations and epithets I have not deemed it proper to advert. They are the invariable accompaniments of charges and statements which ought not to have been made, and derive all their importance and point, not from the person who uses them, but from those to whom they are directed and applied. There isone statement in that portion of the card which is signed by Mr. Dickerson to which I deem it proper to allude. He says:—‘I do not now know what papers were laid before the Judge, nor (except from the opinion) upon what he decided; but, as very important papers are not mentioned by the Court, I conclude he did not see them.” It would seem to be the intention of this state- ment to convey two impressions: first, that Mr. Dickerson did at one time know what papers were used before Judge Giles; and second, that certain papers affecting the supposed interest of Mr. Dick- erson’s client had been used in New York, but were suppressed, intentionally or otherwise, in Bal- timore. If such is its intention, I have to say in regard to the latter portion of it, that every paper which to my knowledge was used by the defend- ants before Judge Ingersoll when Mr. Judson says he stood in the position of the defendant, was used by the defendants in the Baltimore suits; and amon; ose papers was & copy of the ident cal bill of complaint which Mr. Judson says he ha now filed for the purpose of putting an end to you “crazy claim.” In addition to those papers the defendants produced other papers relating to other portions of the India rubber controversy, and sought to prove from them that ‘the Nashawannuck Com- pany and I—i. e. Mr, Judson—“were the licensees or woven elastic rubber goods.” Altkough all of these papers are not adverted to by the Judge, his silence is not to be construed as evidence of the fact that the papers were not be- fore him, but rather as evidence of the fact that he regarded the papersand the title which it was atterpted to be made out from them as alike worthless and unworthy of remark. And now, my dear sir, permit me again to con- gratulate you upon this final result in your favor, which is afl the more to be appreciated because by adverse circumstances so Tong delayed. It is neither unexpected nor singular. Similar results have been arrived at in other suits; but contested as those other suits were, they had not attracted that degree of public attention whigh has been be- stowed upon the suits in Baltimore. That you succeeded there is but another in the se- ries of proofs which various decisions of the courts have furnished you, that the rest as ation peer by you upon your titlk—which was adopted yy the Congress Rubber Company and sustained by the courts, when that contpan: sought to en- force it, which was publicly st ted on various oc- casiona by Mr. Goodyear himself to be the proper interpretation, and which was and is supported by the opinion and belics of all your conpscl, is, ip | coed trom the Vuiou Jadia Ryh! | fact, | very respectfully and truly yours, the true and correct interpretation. I am, CLARENCE A. SEWARD, 29 Nassau sr., New York, August 8, 1859. LETTER OF MR. T. A, JENCKES. ProvipencE, Au Horace H. Day, Esq.:—Dear Sir— ed your letter calling my attention some of the New York papers signed by William Judson and Edward N. Dickerson, making certain statements concerning the conduct of the suit re- cently decided in your favor by the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland. If these statements are made for the purpose of impeaching the correctness of the io, it seems to me that those who are interested in the matter will find a full refutation of them in the opinion of the Court. If they are designed to convey the idea that the cause on their side was impertectly presented in argument, they do injns- tice to the learned counsel who represented the de- fendants. I did not have the pleasure of listening 6, 1859, we receiy- to the argument of Mr. Marshall, but its merit was fully acknowledged by my learned associate who closed the cause, and by the Judge in giving his decision; and I have examined a pamphlet of some pty printed octavo pages, prepared by Mr. Mar- shall and handed to the Court, in which every point heretofore taken by the counsel for Mr. Judson, and some other positions in favor of Mr. Judson’s alleg- ed title, were stated with a clearness and force and with a knowledge of the subjects of controversy which would have been highly creditable to any of the counsel who have been engaged in this India rubber litigation. If the statements in these cards are intended to create the belief that all the papers which have been deemed by Mr. Judson and his counsel “important” in sustaining the title he sets up, Were not before the Court and considered by counsel, the record will prove the contrary; for I know, from having taken part in all the trials which have taken place since the controversy arose, that there was no document which has been relied upon by adverse parties at previous hear- ings, which was absent from the case at Baltimore, and some new ones, which I was informed had been forwarded by Mr. Dickerson, were admitted as evidence ON consent of your counsel after the argument ofthe case had commenced. I am not aware of having omitted to call the attention of the Court to each and all of these documents and to state the bearing which, in the opinion of your counsel, they had upon the questions at wssue. One of these papers was a copy of an affidavit of Wm. Judson, annexed to what purported to have been a printed copy of a proposed bill in equity against you, with exhibits attached, containing upward of one hundred and fifty closely printed octavo pages, in which Mr. Judson’s pretended title, and the history of it were stated at length. Upon an ex- amination of Mr. Judson’s card I do not find a suggestion that the record of the case at Baltimore does not contain every document that affects the claim set up by him. I was not aware till after the papers in the case had been read, that Mr. Dickerson would not take part in the argument. He was expected to have been present, and I did not learn that there was any objection on the part of the defendants, or their counsel, to his arguing in their behalf. If Mr. Judson and Mr. Dickerson were not present and active in the conduct of the cause, it was clearly because they chose to be absent, and I doubt if any one who has read the: opinion of the Court, and their several cards, can perceive where they have vee or lost anything by such elected absence. Their case was ay made up and pre- sented to the Court. I think it will be difficult to perceive how their personal presence would have affected the result. Their absence was regretted by none more than by your counsel who argued the cause. This controversy has been settled, where every one will agree that it should be determided,in a court which has full jurisdiction of the whole subject- matter, and which has pronounced its decision and entered its decree upon final hearing and full argument. In the usual course of litigation in the courts of the United States, that decision will stand as the law of this controversy, unless reversed by the Supreme Court. If the cause reaches that tribunal your counsel will be happy to argue it; but in the meantime I cannot advise you to accept the appeal which Mr. Judson and his counsel seem desirous of taking to the pub- lic press, and to re-argue questions of litigated titles in that form. Such questions belong to the courts, and law-abiding citizens conform to their decisions. The present state of this controversy is not such as will gatisfy those who are desirous of trespassing upon your rights and of pirating your inventions. But the right and eee of your claim is made so apparent by the clear statement and logic of the guage who has decided in your favor, that all honorable merchants and dealers in the articles which the Court has declared to be included in your titles, will not hesitate to eae bredge them, Your opponents, in their published cards, have referred the public to two decisions of the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of New Jersey, in other branches of this India rubber litigation. One of those deci- sions was upon a motion fora new trial by your adversaries, after a verdict in your favor, aftirm- ing your rights under the contracts of 1846, be- tween yourself and Goodyear, after an attempt to violate them on the pee of Goodyear and some parties claiming under . The other was a de- cision against you upon a suit brought by Good- year, and in which you alleged the invalidity of his patent as one of your grounds of defence, as is usual in all patent causes. The contracts of 1846 and the rights and liabilities of the parties to them were re-aflirmed in this decision. Both decisions were final in that Court, and have been generall; acquiesced in by all other courts of the Uni States of co-ordinate jurisdiction. There was much newspaper controversy over each decision; but the public and those engaged in the trade, whose inte- rests were immediately affected, regarded the judgment of the Court rather than the criticisms upon the opinions of the Judges. In the present osition of this India rubber litigation, the Circuit ‘ourt of the United States for the District of Mary- land has affirmed your right under the same contracts of 1846 to “all kinds of shirred or corrugated goods, whether cemented, woven or sewed,’ containing vulcanized India rub- ber. This Court has the same jurisdic- ticn as the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of New Jersey, and its decisions upon final hearing should have the same respect, and should be regarded as of the same bindin; effect as the decisions of the latter Court for iio, your opponents have always claimed implicit obe- dence. Nor is this decision of his Honor Judge Giles without precedent. While the titles under the con- tracts of 1846 were owned by the Congress Rubber Company, at least four of the District Judges of the United States, and two of the Judges of the Su- reme Court, holding Circuit Courts of the United States in different districts, took the same view of these contracts, and awarded injunctions against alers in woven shirred goods. I am not aware that any different construction has been given to those contracts by any judge except Judge Inger- soll, when denying a motion for a ee) in- junction. It is true that these decisions upom pre- liminary motions are not regarded as of binding authority, as the Court is only called upon to deter- mine whether the party seeking relief shows a title which the Court will protect during the progress of the cause to final hearing. But this question of construction was raised and argued in those cases, and the great majority of the opinions expressed upon such partial hearings were in concurrence with that arrived at by his Honor Judge Giles upon full and final hearing. xe You ask me to prepare a correct history of your titles and of the litigation which has resulted in this late decision. Permit me to say that I think tifose who deal in the articles covered by your contracts with Goodyear are more interested in what the Court has declared to be the eftect of those titles, as that immediately concerns their business, than in the history of them, or of the litigation which has arisen upon them. Besides, a full and accurate statement of these titles and a history of this litiga- tion would filla volume. Mr. Judson has found an octavo volume of & hundred and fifty pages hardly sufficient to set forth in the most succinct legal phraseology a statement of his pretended title to one branch of your business. The example set by your adversaries in this respect seems to me to be yather better avoided than followed, as statement and counter-statement, argument and re-argument, to the public through the public press, would lead not only to no useful or good result, but to no re- ult whatever. ei ‘There is one fact, however, which, if not directly stated, is implied in the card of Mr. Judson. He speaks of a contest of fifteen years’ duration, be- tween yourself, Goodyear, and his licensees, and would have it inferred that the present litigation arises from these old controversies. I am not aware of any suit now pending between yourself and any of the licensees of Goodyear, except Wil- Nam Judson, or of any liigation which has not been directly promoted by and is not now carried on for the interest of William Judson. It is more than a year since all the old litigations were withdrawn or agreed to be withdrawn from the courts. A year ago Iwas not aware of any Seat to your tiles, or of any desire to contest them. It was not until after the 28th of September, 1858, when Good- year was induced to make a pretended conveyance to the Union India Rubber Company of certain rights, which he had previously conveyed to you, that there was any immediate prospect of itigation, When we learned that that subsequent conveyance was instigated by William Judson, and that it was made for his benefit, and that the rights attempted to be conveyed either had been or would be transferred to him, your counsel knew that you would not be permitted to carry on your business in peace. The present. litigation is ‘the result of that interference on his part, and the oldest title which he has hitherto presented inst yours is a Company to ‘articles in | direction. himeelf, hearing date April 18, 1859. So far as the “Nashawannucl heard of it, or of its having an; which he obtained were prepared titles, it would have been prosecuted while those titles were held by the Congress Rubber Company. ‘here is no title created by Goodyear in 1844 which has as yet been exhibit- ed to thee ourts, or which can be found on the re- cords of the Patent Office, under which any claim can be made adversely to your titles which is not reviewed and disposed of in the opinion delivered at Baltimore. As all these pretended titles have been attempted to be created since the execution of the deeds from Goodyear to yourself, you cannot be justly accused of ‘any desire to re-open, or of having renewed, this litigation. The recent result has shown that the ancient enmity which sought to revive those controversies to your injury has been of no avail. _ Permit me to congratulate you upon this most just determination, and to express the hope that all future discussion upon your part concerning your rights, and the effect of decisions upon taem, will take place in thee ourts, and that you will not feel called upon to notice auy future misrepresenta- tions which may be advertised by your opponents. Respectfully yours, t A. JENCKES. Who Discovered the Shir Root!—Who Un- tied the Shirred India Rabber Kuot ? TO THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD. ‘Who's it? May be important tothe parties litigant, if indeed the litigations are not mutually designed for ad- vertisements by concert with all parties in the intermina- ble india rubber controversy. Bat who untied the com- plicated knot of Pandora jewels? and how, and with what appliances of art, of literature, and of ancient and modern ore? are questions of some interest tothe gencral reader, who for a dozen years past, at each consecutive term of court, ig treated with rogated”” were terms rnbber con. tracte; and while all conced the terms were well known and long used in tbe arts— conceded that shirred hate, ‘ebirred skirts, ahir- red waietbands et al., wero’ known to young ladies in olden time; yet the bar and the beach, and an array of expert, with ancicnt and modern dictionaries, ‘failed to eetablieh the origin or the authorized meauing of “shir,” The patente, the contrasts, aezignments, et al, were twist- ed and tang’ed and knotted with shirs; not new and origi- fr shire, but avowed, and claimed ag ‘improvement’ in ra. Likea true botanist, the presiding Judge seeks not in classic Greece or Rome for the caoutchou> root, not in tropical climes for the origin of hardy shrubs; but in the highlands of Scotland he finds the true sbir roct. in a dictionary of the Scotch language he finds that ‘to snirp”” means ‘‘io ehrrvel,”” “to ebrink up.’ None can row doubt tbat shirp is the origin of shir, and, as the Jadge remark. ed, the p was probably dropped when crossing the Tweed to & more southern chime. It is passing strange tbat the familiar ancient and mo- dern lexicographers, and our own Webster in particular, should have entirely overlooked a word that is #0 full of expression and 20 well known in the useful arts. All honor to Judge Giles. If he has not caused a b'ade of grass to grow where grass never grow before, he has at least taught us something that we did not before know. With a like patient research Judge Giles untangles the intricate web of doubt thrown over a sentence which means that either a particuiar ebir, or else, all kaown conceivable ehirs, were included in the contract. Judge conetrues the contracts for himself from collateral and contingent papers in the case. In the application for extension the patentee says that he has gold monopoly of shirred goods to Day. The patentee declares ita new “upprovement’’—'‘improyement in manufacturing shirred goods;” old ebirs ina new way, and therefore, the pa- teptee did not intend to limit his grant im the contracts to the improvement only; but to grant, as be expressed it, “a monopoly of shirred goods.” he three collateral papers, (former licenses to be cancelled and after- wards merged in the monopoly contract,) clearly expressed “shirred is of every deesription.”” Again, “all abirred goods by or wnder any in- venticn, improvement, or patent named.” And again, “each of the ‘collaterals ‘“ehirred or corrugated goods of every description.” Tae three being re ageigned, and afterwards merged in the contract, show clearly ‘and distinctly that the complex India rubber knot is composed and compounded of twisted, woven, braided, knitted, cemented, smooth, shrivelled, shruck and wrinkled shirs. A knotty mage, clearly aud concisely defiued. But will Nagoleon If] gtve Mincio and Aqua to the Sar- fost and won in this decision go the thousand and one ar- inet? No; the millions to enrich one vast monopoly i ticles of daily use. TH RAND TRIBNNIaL P Fire Department on Monday, Oct ber 17, 1! ‘Regulations adopted by the Board of Engineers: — Cn motion decided that no invita lon o! SECOND. Dispaypep Comrantes Wise Cases ane Pexpinc BEFORE ee parade uch companies dabanded by the Fire Com missioners ae have unless 1mm Covnts.—The Board of Engineers rec’ previogs to the porate the courte declare: thea tall vious fe the co le Banded, in whlch case they cannot parade” '°™ (essliy dis IRD. Music,—The Board will accept of twent from thoge ecmpanies who will surrender i! where most needed in the Ii Grand Marabal. oe music, 3 place | line, under the direction ‘of the rourtn. Exrraxce Frr.—Rvery company thst des not furnish mu- se will be required to pay to the Gran1 Marebal or hie clerk, at the Chief's office. thirty-five cents per man, as classed by the eity ordinance, viz:— Jet clans engine company, 70 men. 8a of Hook and ladcer ** Hose = FIFTH InvitaT10ns.—Deelded to invite ex-Chief Engineers, ex 4s. sistent kpgiveers, Kiempt Firemen’s Association, Board of Fire Commiscionera and ex-Fire Ucmambsaioners, KE: en~ aire Company. Soard of Trustees of Fire Depsriment, Boar’ ot Fire Wardenz, President, Vice Prerident end Secretary of Fire Deyartment, and all other officers and ex-oflicers of th Fire Department. suxrn. Crry AcTHORITIES.—The Mayor, Common Council and Heade of Lepartments are invited to review the parade as it the front of the City Hall. Leia sevextn, Ustrorm.—Fira cap, black pants and dremen’s red sbirt ‘Chief Engineer HUWARD, Chairman, G@. Joszrn Rvcn, Atsistant kugineer, Zecretary. THE MILITARY, ENIOR VETERAN CORPS OF 1812.-a SPEC(AL meeting will be held on this (friday) eveving, Auguet 12, at ‘7 O'clock, at the Mercer House, to distribute tiakete for the excursion to take place on the 22d inat., for the benefit of the ‘weedy, infirm and blind members. Let ver Veteran be pre- H. RAYMOND, Colonel, sent. Bi Ue OFFICERS, NON COMMISSIONED OFF & jy order. Isaac M Puvre, Adjutant. (CERS ‘and privates ot the Frat Division N. Y. 8, M. are invited foe prevent at the new Arsenal, corner of Seventh avenue the tenting of the strength ot the krussea forthe wow arnt e of the trusses for the new roof. = JOHN W. ‘RATCH. Architect, Oe a oh nae Bipuslnees slowly but eurely moving up town._ Ta order to accom! the public, the Homestead Fire Insurance fe Lie tid Sep aed office in a central position, and HOMESTEAD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY. ‘Capital, $150,000 ‘All securely Invested. Ofice, Whitlock Building, Corner of Nassau and Beekman streets, ‘New York. Branch office, 11 Merchanta’ Exchange. Continue to insure ali kinds of properiy against damage by fie, a he reduced rates.”" r band F Moweatayon”’ © Rdwari linia? Fret aPigtbe Mores La ri Paal tpottord, Wm. A. Wheeler, Robert B. Currier, P.O, Van Schalck, 0 Mel B, Fowler, V. Barts 2.0. Platt, John B, Corlies, James B. Wilson,” John T. Wilson, George W. Reed, ED Sprague, ‘M. Whi John 8. 8n00K, B . Lillie, Wm. Hol W. 3. Bulkley. Jobn G. Holbrooke, J. @ yy Gi , Fabia, Meee Paka a, ler. ‘WM. CHAUNORY, President WM. HOLDREDGS, Vice-President, Joun K. Oak.Ey, Secretary. iB GUARDIAN 'E INSURANCE COMPANY, LS ™ OF NEW YORE, OFFICE 1X CONTINENTAL BANE BUILDING, No.7 Naaeau aL prepared to issue policies at the usual rates, as follows, “*Polleles in favor of and payable to the wife, free rom th claims of Policies payable on attaining a specific age, or payable cage of death before atiaining such age. 7 sy: Policies granted to creditors on the lives of their debtors. Policies granted for any number of Premfums payable ia cash, quarterly, semi-annually or an- ‘Dividends declared every three years, and ; longing Wo the policy olders returned oben -° SUPtus be JAMES W. HALSTED, President. Hanne V. Gamacan, Secrecy, Jobn J. Crane, award A. Lambert, Charles Abernethy, Le William Alen, D, 8p Company” are concerned, I never title under Good- oe until after the extension of Goodyear’s patent. | joodyear ignored its existence in the accounts on | his extension, and which | by Mr. Judson, or under his If it Had been known that such a Company existed, and were infringing on your Throw- ing the experts with p, overboard into the Tweed, the repeats the terms F THe NSW YORE 889. itations be extended to ont of town companies for that day; but should any viai:iog compa- nies spear place will be provided tor them in tke iret divi- ine. H EXCURSIONS. AWSR EUNTRESS, CAPE AIN to the ere on Fri- » August 12, leaviog Jack son htrest at 64 A. M., Peck slig Atl, pier No 4 N . - ments can be provared on tsa le er igaae WALTER D. 0. BOGGS, OLERA BANKS —sE, —' ARGE AEA steamer HUNTaRGS Capt “France, a aaa fearing foot of Yaokanr canst ck ips fe plant Reacts Learing foot street at 634; Peck alip, 7; pier 4 North eer ——eecenttr seer eemepasensenmerrmern oeceed ISHING BANKS.—THE SEA STEAMER ELLY Fr Capt. N. Anderson, Jr., will maken suserden ae Fiebiog Banks ev s exsept Baintdage leaving Jersey Olty, Morne oe te Ee eke iene ee gee and bails. Lines on board, MUSICAL. LL ORGANISTS IN THE UNITED STATES A pring end el agree taper mi seo, . oitlce, New York, for a new musical gazetteer, > amine the ‘ouch war- anicd for three years, a the lowest eal petste for Cock es matreZ paver, manufactory, 165 Weat Broadway, — PRIVY ATE FAMILY WILLSELL THEIR A ‘1 $150 leas than it cost four monthe ance, Wes means order and guaranteed by an ih] splendid rosewood their ‘amine, os it will be made a bergain fi cash. Mactcugal street, between Llescher aaa House No OF SPLENDID ASSORTMENT OF BARWOR: brated gold dal premi anos, valied by the beat Jad fully worse great bar be rect By! \HIOKERBING & 50: MARUT ACTURERA oF. GRAND, 6QUA4E AND UPRIGHT PIANOS, ma Wo. 624 Bresdwag. ©. & Bons bave been awarded 95 prize Mority of their manutsctare for be past 85 years. FOR 82.3, MASON & HAMLIN'S SUPERIOR MBLOD! Tor Paper b AND HASMONIUMRB, use be EPOT OF YH ALEXANDRE ORGAN ALEXANDRE ORGANS (ostoneee in the United States May 3, 1850) for drawing rooms, cnurchee, ‘and schools. Sole medal of honor at the Universal Kxhibition of 1866, citi msgniticent instrument, which the brillant pertorman: VILLANOVA, TOALBERG, have rendered as popular ta America ta 1a Europe, be bem ued by ibe greaten arate of both continent ical TECRALE, aes orig tee MEYERGESR, &c., 2c. con. pot $00. $60, Wes, $235. $260, $500, $320, $575, $100. Pen tye spent! nore to BERNADD & "An SEGURTTES, Jr, 308 Broadway, Im sccordeous, violins, violin strings, Ae LEGANT PIANUFORTE FOR SALE-. Hifonics i caled tor ths tor, athe ah fertn eat near Third avenue; has rosewnod ‘case, beautifully carvi Jege, solid pear! keye, and ee canuot de si a. between 10 and 1 o'clock. ‘be packed and shipped if meceesary. [prance FOB SCHOOLS AND SEMINARIES. CHTE EBLN BONS’ ‘New ecale seven cetave PI. Price $500. baer et n.Y. IANOS AT A GAOBIFICR.—82) PIANO, MAGN! cently finshed, 7 oo.ve, eplendid rose: piaing dene ft fron ferme Bod ate provement }; One tor $130; one pia 5 i earl $400 piano for $236; one Os, cotwre ior $0) ead one ke ind one fu 3 ove 6 octave, In good order. for $35, and one for sar Br splendid mejodeon tor $15 Pianos cued. fecond hand taken in exchanje. Manufactory, 241 Ninth avenue, near pi Fredy Lng or of ee mahogany cuse, ve 0! , for sale ata removed im- Dedisiely. ran GON Pres, MELODEONS AND ORGANS.—THE HORACE WATERS pianos and melodi tc ioue and durablity, are unsurpassed’ Seoon hod pianos melodcoas from $25 | \d melodeons: 0 $160 Planoe ani rr) rent HORACE WATERS, Agent roadway. Tertimonisis—“‘the Horace Waters Sans aie pare ss amor g the very beat—Rvangelist. "We cxn of their merle from personal knowledge.”—Chriatian Intelligencer. 1 25 WEL EUBCHASE AN ACCORDEON, $1 A ‘banjo, $2 £0 a cultar, 750. Hinte. “se. a te * Eatrucds took, thes pond visita ¢ An inslruction book, string, 63c a pair of gold sleeve buttons, S0c. 8 set of gold studs '$2 a set of cameo pin and earrings, ‘and every oer ar- Lele of watches, jewelry and mw ical instrumen'eet equally lom prices. “accordeona tuned aud repaired, at the orginal athe weet, BOW located Broad’ three doors from Dusne street zis vied PRINCIPAL TE LORE, OF TEN YEAAS EXPERT. A EGioneot kel Jublic rchools tn this tate, wants io eng Aenlery 1 gh Coo, we pester in crease, & obtam a w: mighed ech: schoc] prefered) for a term ot j eure | Addrers Docoo, box 185 Triduve ative. CADENIES OF WRITING. metic, Algebra ko. 6! Bowe Proeklyn. “COL. ¥ 8. PAINE teucher of penmanahip bas coc tained in this place —Datly New LADY OF EXPtRIEN Btls, wishes a situation, the piazo, where her services sould lent for boerd, snd which she coud forvish ax inetrument. addre: FRESOH G snd referecce, areas ic, English iclerably. 10 which he 9 the entre: oe ia be sble to give a general Frenc’ jaetrae: ditions very moderate. address P AM, wits oroeest oaile? wa A Nom ic, bax 1 bi Post OF GOOD BpUCAio acifhand © re: - YOUNG Lany Mica aa Caily f aanell children i b bee in Pew York Sr or Hodske: Re if . Adérees scr one woes !reractip, Berall og 9 Maree Eeit twe avenue, ¥cnor: ARSE’B COT AIIRG PRACIICs# aa BOOKREAPING AWD BUSINESS + M48 broadway, aps Ciroulars cn applicstion Mereb’a Works on Evct keep!og: new cod 6 for sie. ONS OL. DE GHAND-VaL's Comm ereiel Bosrding ®cb30 N. J.—Avnual session begin ceived at any ime previous, wit) cluilyg French and German $2) 3 Prreerous for preseriee Aatoniehed at tbe prosree: of @ remarkably guccers'u! street, New York. Piano p EACHER WANTPD.—4 YOUNG MAN WI OS - ‘imgsare unemp'oved would like io ad © geonomey éliher young or old who would, for a moderate comperestion teach him the ordinary Bnglis) brancaes of education abont four evenings ® week. Flease address Gus. Wheeler, Herald office. ee i ee ae ie | (PEE EXERCISES OF MRO. HOWLAND AND DavGH. ters’ French and Epcitsh boardin, be reauimed on the 10th Bepiember vere “+ “AY School wil I T MACDOUFF’S, No 473 BROADWAY-TI commission house tn tale chy, where mouey in sdvemed on dismonda, watches jomely ‘and ajl kinds of merchandise. ‘This office having been eatablished for the last ten years, the Public can rely upon ita responsibility. Business contidential. JAOKEONB—MONEY TO ADVANCE ON WA! All taends jewsty, 700s, merch piate, 5 andisa of every descrip! or bought and sold, Secure wuctioneer ‘and ‘ares tnreet, tnree doors weet of Broadway. ety A. JACKSON, T 11 CHAMBERS STREBT—MONEY TO ADVAN any amount on da, watches, owalry. bot by toe well known and old established I84A08, auctioneer and Ker, 11 Chambers street. N.B.—No business 83! ee ee T 66 NASSAU STREET.—A, HONIGMAN, AT SUA mame. §, nor ouay, Pawo etre nS eee leas ea room No. 2, Business hours 8037. Mee ecnaris T GAGE'S %8 BROADWAY, CORNS Ppaelitert, 00m, Ko. 9: advances riade on dlatosnda, waicbon Hon, arbor ht for cash. Watches iathewery for male very 1 T 170 BROADWAY—LARGE OR SMALL SUM3 ON A diamonds, plate, watches.}iewelry, pianos, palniogs, dry foods, mocks, bonds, ke or will buy the ‘Faiuttt ge~'A line lot for aale ches. to pay sdvances J. H. BARRINGER, 170 lway, room 25. CLOTHING, 4&0. RARE CHANCE.—FROM $5 TO $20 PAID FOR SILK ‘dremes; rem ito, $4 tee Gea gate, atrioal vewslry, ‘a’ note by post by a. ibe Reventhjarenne, between. et and Twentith strects. i> ‘Ladies attended 10 by Mrs i SPREET.—WANTED, $10,000 WO! AT df CENTRE ST RT clouing. tr the, Western warkon Gentlemen will receive, pane eaten pes their supposed ng eT HOs, U. CONROY, 44 Centre street. hogy CORPORATION NOTICES. TICE.—THE COWMITTERQON FINANCE OF THE ‘Beard of Councilmen will meet in room No. 5 Cit 5 Oity Hall, vat SP, sry tainly 2 ae Sera 8 foommtiee on Finance. iene fuel nee ua sine Sten A. CRAFT, Department. We JOINT SPECIAL COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO a tise he elf recat wl mgt ga Fray he 1h B USS Sees Epons Wo. § ony. ah pardes: LD. AG Board of it tUOMEY, a idermen. JOHN LYNEs, JOHN VAN TINE, RGAN J Cgmmniiiee Wat 3. BOLE ‘Board 5 wd