"MY DEAR SIR,--I was compelled by what seemed for the time to be
the most urgent of my many duties, to remain in Albany a little
after the diligent chairman of the judiciary committee had resumed
the investigations held in this city. In that interval, Mr. George
Ticknor Curtis thought it pertinent to the defence of Judge Barnard
to introduce certain statements concerning me from Mr. Jay Gould. It
happened, also, that the examination on this topic was conducted with
so little art--or with so much art--that it totally failed to elicit
the complete or substantial truth, and did produce, in practical
effect, a mere falsehood. It happened further that, although the
investigation is not public, the testimony on this point appears in
this morning's journals, with an exceptional fulness.
"If I had been present, I presume Mr. Gould's testimony could have been
developed so as to render any further statement to establish the exact
truth unnecessary. But as it was not, the series of accidents--such
I will assume them to be--that have falsified the transaction, will
excuse me in asking you to state the truth which is peculiarly within
your personal knowledge.
"The _Herald_ report is as follows:
"'_Q._ Did you employ any other counsel beside Messrs. Field and
Shearman, in behalf of the Erie Railroad?'
"'_A._ I employed several others.'
"'_Q._ Who were they?'
"'_A._ I had John Ganson, of Buffalo; Judge Diven, of Elmira; and
Samuel J. Tilden, of New York.'
"'_Q._ When did you retain Samuel J. Tilden?'
"'_A._ In the year 1869.'
"'_Q._ Did you retain him before this order was granted?'
"'_A._ Yes, sir.'
"'_Q._ How much did you pay Mr. Tilden?'
"'_A._ Ten thousand dollars.'
"'_Q._ Did Mr. Tilden ever do anything for that ten thousand dollars?'
"'_A._ No, sir; on the contrary, I heard nothing about Mr. Tilden until
he turned up as counsel against the Erie Railroad in a case with the
Atlantic and Great Western Railroad.'
"The _Times_ report varies a little:
"'Q. Did he ever act as your counsel?'
"'A. Never to my knowledge, nor did he ever return the retaining fee.'
"Now, it is within your personal knowledge that the fee paid me was
for a year's service as counsel and arbiter in the executive committee
of the Cleveland and Pittsburg Railroad Company. The arrangement
was formed by you without my presence or knowledge; and the only
communication of the terms of it ever made to me was by you.
"In January, 1869, the Cleveland and Pittsburg Railroad was placed
in the possession of a receiver by an Ohio court, on the ground of
fraud and breach of trust, committed or intended, by the then board of
directors. Mr. Gould disavowed the acts complained of, and desired to
have the road restored to the management of a board of directors to be
newly constituted. You stated to me that the only feasible arrangement
for a compromise between the parties was this: The executive committee
was to be composed of myself, Mr. J. N. McCullough, the president,
and Mr. Gould, who represented a majority of the stock then alleged
to be held by the Erie Railway Company. I, who had no interest with
either party, and was indifferent between them, was to hold the
balance of power between the two other members, and be able to decide
every question of law and every question of administration in respect
to which they should differ. When the arrangement was submitted to
me I declined the part allotted to me. I said I had no interest in
the company, and never had any relation to it which imposed a duty
in respect to it upon me. I declined more than once to you and Mr.
McCullough, notwithstanding the arrangement had been made by which the
Erie was to contribute $10,000 and the C. and P. $5000 as compensation.
I thought the trust might be troublesome and vexatious; and, at any
rate, did not want the business. You, nevertheless, appointed me;
and I afterwards acquiesced. I at no time made any conditions about
compensation. I never rendered a bill. The payments, when they were
made, were purely voluntary. I presume you do not doubt that nothing
but your personal persuasions and those of Mr. McCullough induced me
finally to acquiesce.
"You never communicated to me that there was any idea on anybody's
part that I should owe any duty to the Erie Railway Company except to
perform my duties as counsel, director, and arbiter in the executive
committee of the Cleveland and Pittsburg Railroad Company. I never
assumed _any other obligation_.
"That duty I performed during the whole year. Upon every question of
law, of administration, of policy, I acted; and, as far as I know, with
satisfaction to everybody. I had no difficulty with Mr. Gould, who
always behaved with consideration and deference. He got the company out
of its troubles, and largely enhanced the market value of the stock by
the arrangement, and appeared to be satisfied.
"Mr. Gould may well say that (except so far as acting in the Cleveland
and Pittsburg was acting for the Erie) I never did act for the Erie
in anything, so far as he knew. I never undertook to do so. There
never was any ground to pretend that in any of the litigations of that
company it had any claim to aid, or shelter, or countenance from me.
"As to the Atlantic and Great Western, I never acted for the company.
Prior to this time I had acted for Mr. A. C. Flagg and others, trustees
under several of the mortgages, and for certain bondholders; and Mr.
Gould knew it. Certainly, nothing in this engagement in the Cleveland
and Pittsburg interfered with my right to continue to act for those
trustees and creditors, or to act anew for them. In January and
February, 1870, I argued before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and
in the Ohio court, for the trustees and first mortgage bondholders,
various questions as to the proposed lease. Mr. Gould faintly set up a
claim that he was entitled to notice from me; and I at once reminded
him that he knew all the time what my relations to the trustees and
bondholders were, and had been for years, and that I had frequently,
as _their_ representative, had conferences with the counsel of the
Erie. The union of the Atlantic and Great Western Company and the
creditors inferior to the first mortgage with the Erie, prevailed; and
a lease--which I believe all now agree was improvident and unwise--was
made.
"I do not mean to say that it might not happen that a retainer is
sometimes received and yet no further services rendered in the case.
I presume that this often happens without impropriety. I have only to
say that, so far as I recollect, it never has happened to me in any
single instance of my professional life. I have been content to receive
compensation fixed by agreement with my clients after the services were
rendered. I have, in no instance, had any controversy or difference of
opinion with any client as to the amount of compensation. I have never
heard of any discontent after the settlement, unless this may be such a
case.
"Since there is an elaborate attempt to misrepresent an act of my
professional life, I have a right to say this--without the imputation
of egotism; and I have a right to add that, for the last sixteen years,
at least, my only trouble has been not to accept more business than I
could perform according to my standard of duty and justice to those
who entrust their affairs to my management; that I have not accepted
half which has been offered of cases in which the clients were willing
themselves to fix my compensation to my full satisfaction out of what
they would recognize as acknowledged benefits.
"And I have never hesitated to choose what business I would decline. At
the outset of the famous litigation of the Erie, under the presidency
of Mr. Eldridge, it was communicated to me that the Erie desired to
retain me; and afterwards Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis, in its behalf,
twice came to my office to offer me retainers. I declined. In 1869,
Mr. James McHenry, when acting in apparent unison with the Erie,
several times pressed upon me retainers in behalf of his scheme of
reorganization of the A. & G. W.; but, after considering his scheme,
I declined. In the same year Mr. James Fisk, Jr., called upon me with
Mr. Jay Gould. Mr. Fisk said, with many flattering suggestions, that
they desired to retain me in reference to a matter then pending, and in
the course of the interview he stated that they had paid within a year
$125,000 to a member of the bar, whose name he mentioned. I declined.
"I do not mean to imply that there would have been anything wrong in
acting as counsel for the Erie in a proper case; but simply, when
an act of mine is challenged, to state facts which are pertinent to
my vindication. I have ever stood, not only in my personal conduct,
but in my public influence, for the dignity and honor of the bar and
the purity of the bench, and against whatever should tend to weaken
or degrade the administration of justice. I did so, in 1869, when the
evils of corrupt times were growing and powerful. I accepted issue in
the Democratic State convention of that year. On the 1st of February,
1870, at the meeting which resulted in the formation of the Bar
Association, I uttered these unpremeditated thoughts:
"'If the bar is to become merely a method of making money, making it
in the most convenient way possible, _but making it_ AT ALL HAZARDS,
then the bar is _degraded_. If the bar is to be merely an institution
that seeks to win causes, and to win them by _back-door access to the
judiciary_, then it is not only _degraded_, but it is CORRUPT.'
* * * * *
"Sir, I believe that this country is to-night at about the lowest point
in the great cycle which we have occasionally to traverse. I believe
that there will come a sounder and a better public sentiment, in which
speculation and gambling and jobbing and corruption will lose their
power, and in which free government will vindicate its rights to the
confidence of mankind. If I did not believe this, I should think that a
very great part of my own life was lost, and all the traditions I have
derived from my ancestors.
"The better day, to which--in that dark hour--I looked with hope and
faith, is now dawning upon our city, State, and country.
"Very truly, yours, &c.,
"S. J. TILDEN."
"NEW YORK, _March 16th, 1872_."