: • -
IMPORTANT CORRESPONDENCE
BETWEEN
JUDGE ELISHA R. POTTER
—pi" ^
AND
R. G. HAZARD, Esq
CENTRAL FALLS, R. I. :
TAN & CO., BOOK, JOB AND LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTERS.
1 87 6.
66 There is in this discussion matter of serious
concernment to every one rvho values the reputa¬
tion of the State, or who has anything at stake in
it."—Letter No. S.
'aAA' :
&£ v-
-
mm
mm
m: fr.-
■PSSwH
'Afilp 'fsi.
A AURA
WSskft "
«> .S
A
. jy>
'
•A/viA •
5|g£
I .. i"1-"
A-'G
Psi
|p>&
■ -ME- -«.V
A'R A
q***; " >-v
. Wi c>*■' ---a-
'
.
IMPORTANT CORRESPONDENCE.
Notable Correspondence between Judge Elisha It.
Potter and JR. G. Hazard, Esq.
[Published in the Providence Journal, April 24th, 1876.]
* Peace Dale, April 18, 187G.
To the Editor of the Journal:
You have perhaps heard of the recent published letters of
Judge Potter and myself which have attracted some attention in
this and other portions of the State. They grew out of an effort
on the part of the Judge and his friends to induce the stockholders
of the Narragansett Pier Railroad Company to build their road
over Kingston Hill. In this they wholly failed After the Judge
had published three letters, in three successive emissions of our
local weekly, I thought proper to reply, and the correspondence
has been prolonged by one closed and one open letter on each
side, besides one from the Judge marked private. I send you all
but this last. Though they originated in a matter purely local,
and in itself of comparatively little consequence, I believe you
will find them of sufficient public importance to lay before your
readers. Yours, &c., R. G. Hazard.
No. 1.
[Published in Narragansett Times, March 3d, 1876.]
Editor of the limes:
I should be very sorry if the discussion about the location of the
proposed railroad should lead to aii}^ hard feeling between the
people of our different villages. Many imprudent speeches will
H E- ~L V V / Taylor
'^Pfr i.6o JUL 9
LiSHAHt
SURLAU Uf RAILWAY ECONOMIC
washington. d. C,
2
no doubt be made, and many remarks carelessly made will be
misrepresented.
I suppose a great many of the people of Peace Dale have been
made to believe that we are opposed to their having a high school
there. We are indeed opposed to being taxed to support a school
there, but I do not know of a single person here who has the
least opposition to their having the whole of the Robinson fund,
principal and interest, to do as they please with it—throw it into
the mill pond if they wish. There is wealth enough in Peace
Dale to endow a school without anybody there having a teaspoon-
ful less of anything for breakfast, and without taxing the distant
and poorer portions of the town for it. They have a splendid
church, which is a credit to the place and to those who built it; a
high school would cost a great deal less.
We have succeeded after a great deal of effort in raising all the
money which the contractors say will cover the difference of ex¬
pense in the two routes, besides building a depot and giving in
nearly all the land damages. On the other route I do not under¬
stand that any of the damages are given in.
The excuse made now by some is that the road could not be
completed in time. As the additional distance is not over half a
mile, the difference in time could not be great. And for a work,
which, if done, is to be permanent, it seems to me that this con¬
sideration ought not to weigh much. And it seems to me that
with a little management the road might have been laid through
Peace Dale so as to have avoided a great deal of expense and the
ruining of a great many persons' house lots and homes.
E. R. Potter.
Kingston, March 1st.
IVo.
[Published in Narragansett Times, March 10th.]
Kingston, March 4, 1876.
To the Narragansett Pier B. B. Co. :
We have made an offer of $13,500 to meet what we understood
to be the additional expense of building on the Kingston Route,
besides $1500 for a depot, and giving in nearly all the land dam¬
ages on this end.
The last reason we have heard of for not building on this route
is that it cannot be completed by the 1st of July. We have seen
3
your chief contractor and he says he will put on additional force
enough to finish it by July 1st for $4500, in addition to the former
estimate.. The land damages to be given in we think would be
estimated by commissioners or a jury at $4000; but putting them
at $2500, which is very low, we will add $2500 in money, which
will be more than what is asked, and we will furnish any neces¬
sary guaranty that the stock shall be taken and paid for. Mr. J.
P. Robinson informs us by letter that he will be glad to do any¬
thing he can to meet the wishes of the Kingston people for a
change of route. Yours, E. R. Potter.
TSTo. 3.
[Published in Narragansett Times, March 17th.]
To the Narragansett Times:
Kingston, March 14, 1876.
As the railroad directors have probably taken their final action
in relation to the location, I wish to correct one more misunder¬
standing which has arisen in the course of the business.
It is said that the people of this vicinity made no exertion
whatever until others had taken up the matter and ensured its
success.
"When the subject was agitated, a year or two ago, we were led
to believe that the Peace Dale parties regarded this route as im¬
practicable, and that the additional cost would be $40,000. Right
or wrong, we so understood it, and of course it was of no use for
us to try to raise that sum, we couldn't do it. As soon as we ob¬
tained a reliable estimate we did agree to raise the difference.
It is stated in the Providence Journal (and of course must be
true) that Mr. B. F. Robinson says that several persons on the
Kingston route would not consent to have the road made over their
lands, and that the process of taking them by law would cause
delay. We will agree to remedy this difficulty if it will be of any
use, but it is evident it would not.
We are now told that the President of the Stonington road de¬
cidedly objects to changing to the Kingston route, which I shall be¬
lieve when I have good evidence of it.
E. R. Potter.
4
No. 4.
[Published in Narragansett Times, March 24th.]
Hon. E. R. Potter:
Your article in the Narragansett Times of 3d instant, surprised
and pained me, as I believe it did many of your friends. I would
fain have let it pass as a weakness of momentary irritation, but
your subsequent articles do not favor this hypothesis, and the
more I reflect upon it and upon your course for months past, the
more imperative seems the duty of noticing your communications.
You, occupying the position of a Justice of the Supreme Court
of the State, our relations seem to me to preclude a resort to pri¬
vate conferences, or even to mediation, through which, under
other circumstances, I might have deemed it proper to seek an
explanation not only of your published articles, but of your letters
and your action to which these letters give emphatic significance.
Without now going into details, I will only say that recently you
have most persistently urged me to exert the power confided to
me, as a director of the Narragansett Pier Railroad Co., to have
the funds of this Company used to construct the road on a route
not contemplated when these funds were subscribed, which the
subscribers almost unanimously disapproved, and which I was
myself far from being convinced should be adopted, though for
personal reasons I rather preferred it. Of all these circumstances
you had full knowledge. You also knew that as a stockholder I
had, in giving to your brother a power of attorney on my stock
to enable him, or any one he should select, to advocate the
Kingston route at the meeting of stockholders called expressly
to decide upon it, I had gone as far in aiding those interested in
that route as, in view of my obligations to my co-stockholders, I
felt justified in doing. And still you resent as a personal affront
my refusal to do more.
Do you really think that one may use an official position of
trust to further the personal convenience or interest, or to gratify
the private feelings of himself or his friends?
If you do, it seems to me clear that you are holding an opinion
unbefitting your position, but which would go far to explain some
proceedings which have seemed inexplicable to others besides
myself.
5
If you do not hold such opinion, then in urging and expecting
that I would so use my official position you have grossly insulted
me.
You have had ample time and opportunity, and have offered
neither explanation nor apology, but have manifested increasing
bitterness. In your last article (dated 14th inst.,) you seem to-
question the veracity of somebody as to a statement touching the
position of the Stonington R. R. Co. I learn that the statement
on that point was personalty made to you by one who had good
opportunity for knowing the facts, and who has no occasion in
this community to furnish any "evidence" of his veracity. What
you may have heard of it through myself or other directors of the
N. Pier R. R. Co. was based on information obtained by one of
the board wTho gave his special attention to that point in New
York, the correctness of which the directors do not doubt, and I
believe none of them deem it necessary to make any "excuse""
for their action in the premises.
I might not have deemed it necessary to make any merely per¬
sonal grievance public, but in reviewing the premises, the new
convictions which have forced themselves upon me compel me to
believe that there is that in them which is important to a larger
public than you have chosen to address, and that even in your
article of 8d inst., your obvious design, in the latter portion of it,,
to stir up strife which might bring the parties before you for
judgment, with a pretty distinct intimation of what that judg¬
ment would be, is of itself matter of serious concernment to every
one who values the reputation of the State, or who has anything
at stake in it. Yours, R. G, Hazard.
ISTo. *">.
[By Mail.]
March 24th, 1876.
Dear Sir:—When I came home this afternoon and read your
letter in the paper, I was astonished.
I certainly never intended any personal attack on you, and can¬
not now see how I have done anything you can reasonably com¬
plain of. • Yours truly, E. R. Potter.
Hon. R. G. Hazard.
1*
6
No. O.
[Published in Narragansett Times, March 31st, 1876.]
To the Editor of the Times:
Kingston, March 29, 1876.
I was surprised by the sudden out-break on the part of my old
friend, R. G. Hazard, and can only account for it from the state of
excitement in which he has lived for some time^past, and it was
probably lucky for some one else that it burst out on me. I can
stand up against R. G., but the Lord deliver me from Shepherd
Tom. Wrong-headed as many consider him, his contests have
always been in support of those whom he considered injured and
oppressed, and an attack from him would carry with it a weight
with the mass of the community I would not wish to encounter.
If the lawsuits he has on hand are as numerous as reported, (two
or three in this State, Pennsylvania, &c., growing out of Credit
Mobilier, a lead mine lawsuit at the West, and having to defend
himself against the suit brought by the U. S. Government,) they
are enough to account for any degree of excitement, and his sit¬
uation is rather to be pitied than envied.
I have asked several persons and have yet been unable to dis¬
cover what there was in my letters of which any reasonable man
could complain. Whenever I am satisfied of any mistake I will
correct it.
If my letter was susceptible of the construction R. G. puts on
it, I owe an apology to B. F. Robinson. I had no intention of
charging him with saying anything he did not believe to be true
at the time he said it. Lbelieve, upon pretty good authority, that
it was represented to the President of the Stonington road that it
would cost $1500 per annum more to run a route by Kingston,
and that they would get but little business here, and on this un¬
derstanding he said whatever he said. But I have no doubt Mr.
Robinson believed the statement he made to me to be true and as
he made it.
R. G. himself stated to three persons at Kingston that if the
route was changed to Kingston, subscribers to about $50,000
amount of stock would refuse to pay. And I think he mentioned
Jeremiah P. Robinson of the Stonington road as among them. I
am satisfied this was not so, but I give R. G. credit for believing
what he said. His mind has. been so full of thtj law, that in this
railroad business he has had no mind of his own.
7
He complains that I urged him to adopt the Kingston route.
In answer to his professions of good will, I did say that the road
would be made just where he wanted it to be. He observed in
reply, that he was obliged to consult Ms partners. I did not laugh
in his face, but I began to think he was growing old and disposed
to give up the concerns of this world, excepting of course his law¬
suits. I could not help thinking that if eight or ten years ago R.
G. was set upon doing anything and either Rowland or John had
ventured to consult, I should like to have been by and seen the
consultation. It would have made a good picture for Frank Leslie.
I am glad to find that Mr. Hazard entertains such lofty views-
of the morality to be expected from a railroad director. Never
having been one myself, I cannot tell how one feels, except from
seeing its effects on some of my neighbors.
If Mr. Mathews or any competent engineer had pronounced the
Kingston route impracticable, we should have acquiesced at once.
It has never been done, and we have met every objection as fast
as raised.
There are nominally five directors. J. P. Robinson was put in
in order to get a good bargain with the Stonington road. He and
Mr. Browning, I believe, seldom attend.* Three make a quorum,
♦The following letter from Mr. B. F. Robinson, of Wakefield, was published
in Narragansett Times, April 7th.
Mr. Editor,—A portion of our citizens might infer from the articles of the
Hon. E. R. Potter, published in the recent issues of your paper, that the Direc¬
tors of the Narragansett Pier Railroad Co. had located their road by the Tefi't's
hill route, without regard to the views of the stockholders. This is a mistake.
By the representations of some of the Kingston people, Mr. R. G. Hazard was
induced to believe that a large majority of the stockholders were in favor of the
Kingston route, and by his request a stockholders' meeting was called to decide
which route should be built. Mr. H., out of friendship to the Kingston people,
placed his stock to be used in favor of that route. The result was that of the
one thousand shares of stock, nearly seven hundred was represented, and only
thirty besides Mr. Hazard's were cast for the Kingston route. Subsequently
Mr. Hazard was very strongly urged by Rev. J. H. Wells and others to call
another meeting of the stockholders, but being informed by J. P. Robinson,
Esq., one of the directors, by telegraph and also by letter, and by Mr. George-
C. Robinson personally, that the President of the Stonington Railroad Co. was
very decidedly opposed to reopening the question or making any change what¬
ever, and having no evidence that the stockholders had changed their minds
on the subject, the directors did not decide to call it.
If any apology is due from Mr. Potter, it is not to me, but to Mr. Geo. C.
Robinson, who made the statement to him in regard to the President of the
Stonington R. R. Co. I wish to state that Mr. Abijah Browning has attended
every meeting of the Directors since the organization of the company.
It is a new feature in jurisprudence that corporations must be criticized by a
Judge why and for what especial purpose they elect their officers.
Whatever Mr. Potter may know ivhy the road was not built on the Kingston
route, as he insinuates by reference to his letters to Mr. Hazard, the stockhold¬
ers of the N. P. Railroad Co., having no knowledge of their existence, could
not have been influenced by them. B. F. Robinson.
8
and this leaves the two Hazards practically in control. And as
R. G. is immersed in business, the President is really the corpor¬
ation; and to this comparatively young man is given the despotic
power to take the house or land of any one wherever he may
choose. In a few years they will own the road. Others may
find it a convenience in travelling, but with their mills and their
lands at the Pier, the main profit is to accrue to them.
Mr. Hazard has been fighting railroads all his life. He has now
got to be a railroad himself. Circumstances alter cases.
I have always cheerfully borne testimony to Mr. Hazard's
ability. For shrewdness and sharpness, all Yankeedom has not
his superior. He has been good to the poor of his neighborhood
and town; this I know. He has been a munificent patron of the
lawyers, and they will be sincere mourners at his funeral, as I
have no doubt I should have been myself, if I had continued to
be his attorney.
If Mr. Hazard wishes any investigation, 1 hope he will find
somebody willing to accommodate him. I can't myself afford to
fight two or three millions in the law, unless he would pay the
expenses of both sides, which he can well afford, and for the sake
of the poor lawyers ought to be willing to do; and even then I
should not want to undertake it this summer.
The real reason why the propositions of the Kingston people
were not accepted dates back before the organization of the com¬
pany. If Mr. H. will publish two or three letters I wrote him,
about a year or more ago, about a certain matter, the public could
draw their own conclusions. They were intended to be strictly-
private, but with the exception (I think) of one paragraph, he has
full liberty (so far as I can consent) to publish them. •»
E. P. Potter.
No. 7".
[By Mail.]
Prov., March 31, 1876.
Hon. E. R. Potter:
Dear Sir:—Yours of 24tli was duly received. I had, for reasons
alluded to in my open letter of 24th, deliberately concluded that
the circumstances precluded private conferences with you, and
on receipt of your note, looking at the subject in its public rather
than its individual aspect, I did not think of varying from this
position. On reflection, however, I deem it proper to say in
9
reply, tliat if only personal considerations were involved, your
note might he regarded and accepted as satisfactory, hut I would
still suggest that there are public considerations which merit your
attention.
I had written a letter to you on the 28th, in which, in connec¬
tion with the above, I stated these considerations more specifi¬
cally, but from various causes its delivery was delayed, and in the
Times of this morning we have your notice of mine of 24th, in
regard to which I will simply call your attention to the fact that
you have not replied to the important inquiry in my letter touch¬
ing your notions of the use one may make of his official position.
This the public might well desire to know, while I presume it
will care very little about the personal matters you have seen
proper to put before it, and upon which I do not deem it neces¬
sary now to comment. Yours truly, R. G. Hazard.
IVo.
[Published with the two letters marked "by Mail," in the Narragansett Times
of April 14th.
Hon. E. R. Potter:
As you promptly received and have not acted upon the sug¬
gestion in the above letter, (No. 7,) I have, for reasons analogous
to those stated in my open letter of the 24th ult., concluded to
make the above correspondence public.
As in your note of 24th ult. you say of your article of the 3d,
that you " never intended any personal attack on me, and cannot
now see how you have done anything that I can reasonably com¬
plain of," I presume I may properly extend the apology to your
article of March 29tli, (No. 6,) and assume that you intended no
personal attack, and that you see in it nothing personally offen¬
sive. Your personal resentments are very strong, but your power
of prudentially concealing them being very remarkable, I shall
not, if you insist upon it, question that you may have sometimes
succeeded in concealing them even from yourself.
I am admonished to be thus charitable by finding that I have
myself been very obtuse in some matters, which in your last
article you bring into that discussion, as you also therein confirm
some suspicions which I had been so slow and dull as only very
recently to entertain.
But whether your apology covers the personalities in your last
article or not, is immaterial, as I do not propose to notice them,
10
but to confine m}rself to those matters in it which, as bearing upon
your fitness for your official position, are of more than ordinary
interest to the public. In this view, notwithstanding its general
wandering and irrelevant character, there is much in it that merits
attention.
In the first place, though you seem to be replying to my letter
of the 24th ult., you have not answered the question, " Do you
really think that one may use an official position of trust to fur¬
ther the personal convenience or interest, or to gratify the private
feelings of himself or his friends ?" which was the vital point of
that letter.
As you have acknowledged receipt of my letter of 31st ult. (in
reply to yours of 24th), in which I reminded you of this omission,
but have in no way alluded to this question, I presume you do
not intend to favor me or the public with any answer to it. This
is not, perhaps, now important, for you have admitted that you
did urge me to thus use an official position of trust, and that you
did so with reference to my "professions of good will," i. e., a
willingness to gratify my friends. Now, suppose you answer the
question in the affirmative, then you induce the suspicion, or con¬
firm one already existing, that your official action is consistent
with such an avowal. On the other hand, if you answer it in the
negative, still no one would believe that you would be restrained
by any moral principle from doing the wrong which, against your
own convictions, you urged another to do. An answer either
way, equally involves moral obliquity or obtuseness. Under the
first, you would be acquitted of any intentional insult; but this is
merely personal, and has become wholly insignificant in this in¬
quiry. We will then turn to the public considerations involved.
A judge should be discriminating in regard to facts. It is es¬
sential that he should reject what is not, but equally important
that he should accept what is proved. In this case, you and your
Kingston friends were told over and over again, both before and
after the meeting of stockholders at which the Kingston route
was so emphatically rejected, by persons authorized to speak on
that subject, that the directors would not decide as to the route,,
and in fact they never did. They referred this to one meeting of
stockholders, and afterwards considered the question of calling
another, but on inquiry concluded it would be worse than useless
to do so, and yet upon the assumption that they did assume to
11
determine the route, and the further assumption, which proves to
he wholly at variance with the fact, that Mr. Browning " seldom
attends," (see note to No. 6,) you proceed to argue to the con¬
clusion that "the President is really the corporation," and that
" to this comparatively young man is given the despotic power to
take the house or land of any one wherever he may choose." I
will forego any notice of several other mistakes of like character.
A judge should be able to draw reasonable inferences from
facts, and at least avoid those which obviously are not sustained
by the premises. You say that in reply to your assertion " that
the road would be made just where I wanted it to be," I replied
" that I was obliged to consult my partners." By what peculiar
mental process did you infer that by my partners I did not mean
my partners in the management and ownership of the road of
which we were speaking, and that I did mean other persons with
whom I had been in no such relation for more than ten years,
and with whom in no case, would such consulting have been so
'"obviously appropriate or so naturally referred to.
A judge should also be able to discriminate between what is
and what is not relevant to the case in hand, and to eliminate
what is not. On this point no special reference to any particular
portion of your letters is requisite; the whole or any part of them
will suffice.
The same may be said in regard to the dignity of character
which, if not absolutely essential, is very desirable in a judge.
The want of it is lamentably obvious in every line of your com¬
munications.
.But above all, a judge should have a high sense of honor, and
pure and elevated sentiments. But what is the moral standard
of one who thinks that the refusal by a trustee to gratify himself
and his friends by perverting trust funds to purposes not contem¬
plated by the contributors, and against their emphatic protest,
must entertain very lofty views of morality, and who evidently
regards such views as too transcendental to be expected in the
conduct of ordinary mortals? And what must be the moral
condition of a man who unblusliingly admits that he would be
a sincere mourner at the funeral of one, for no other reason than
that he had incurred pecuniary loss by his death.
The kind of ability which elicits your "cheerful testimony,"
points to the same low standard. And your statement that you
12
can stand because of the weakness of your assailant, is not the
natural expression of one confident in his own integrity, or in the
justness of his position.
I am aware that ooe may inflict a serious injury on society by
needlessly exciting suspicion as to the ability or purity of the
courts, and thus impair the public sense of security, and confi¬
dence in the protection of the laws, wdiich are so essential to the
well-being of a people. But I find from independent and diverse
sources—from intelligent and reliable persons, whom I believe to
be wholly impartial, and as disinterested as any one within the
jurisdiction of these courts can be, that there is already enough
distrust of your official action to affect this confidence.
I have no doubt that your action, including the publication of
these articles, gives such reasonable ground for distrust as to
justify calling public attention to it.
When matters have come to this pass, it is no longer any
disservice to the public to speak openly of them, and justice to
the public and to the individual alike demand it. This is the
more obvious when we reflect that the offence is, of all offences,
against society, the most serious in its consequences, and the one
the suspicion of which most nearly brings upon the community
all the evils of the actual committing of it.
In this letter I have intended to confine myself to what concerns
the public, and herein I am only performing a duty which circum¬
stances seem to me to have made peculiarly obligatory upon me.
But perhaps the labor is needless, for in your apparently ram¬
bling and irrelevant articles you seem really to have embodied
and condensed such conclusive proof of your deficiency in the
qualification^ essential to your official position, that nothing which
I can add will make it more convincing.
There are, however, some facts which may not have sufficientty
appeared. For many months past you have asserted that the
1ST. P. R. R. charter was void, and that all the proceedings under
it were illegal, and at same time have unremittedly urged the
company to build the road, under the same charter where you
and your friends would be more materially benefitted by it. You
have urged this in written and published letters, by personal
conferences with members of the company, and by sending divers
persons to press this change of route upon them. The charter
which was impotent for the building of the road on the most
13
natural and feasible route between the termini designated in it,
you seem to have regarded as good enough to build it on the more
circuitous and difficult route which you desired.
In these negotiations you have persistently threatened the cor¬
poration with lawsuits and injunctions in the court of which you
are a member, and with eventual annihilation by its decrees, and
at the same time virtually assured judicial immunity if it would
allow you to profit by the illegal action.
You have alluded to letters you wwote to me about a year ago.
I presume you mean letters upon a subject which, though involv¬
ing no wrong on my part, you know it is painful for me to dwell
upon. Your writing these letters seemed to me at the time very
strange, but I supposed you were more familiar with the common
law than with that code which limits the interference of one
gentleman with the private affairs of another. Your suggestion
that I should now publish them as the alternative of submitting
to your insinuations is an act of which I had never deemed you
capable.
I was much annoyed at the time, but knowing the potent influ¬
ences to which you had been subjected, I did not question your
sincerity or your motives; but believing that I knew more of the
circumstances than you did, though I respected your judgment, I
refused to yield my own in a matter so exclusively touching the
propriety of my own action.
The matter was finally adjusted by agreement between the
proper parties, and though upon terms which you did not approve,
I supposed it had all passed away, without leaving any ill feeling.
On my part indeed, none had been excited, and I did not think
of there being anything so unreasonable on yours. Your last
article, however, indicates that you have all this time been nurtur¬
ing a malevolence of which, till very recently, I had not the
slightest suspicion. You now virtually attribute all the objection
to the location of the railroad to suit you, to the ill feeling engen
dered at the time of the writing of these letters.
This may be significant in another connection, but the impor¬
tant consideration now is, that our present correspondence has
revealed cases of your having sought to induce compliance with
your personal demands by threatening adverse decisions of the
court. How many such cases have arisen? In how many have
the parties quietly submitted? It would be very gratifying to
2
14
know that a large proportion of suitors are ready to incur the
displeasure of the judge, with all its possible consequences, rather
than succumb to such pressure.
I will only speak of one other point. You have evidently
attempted to divert attention from the main issue by a variety of
irrelevant matter, by catering to low tastes, and in harmony with
this you atfect to make light of the whole subject; but when you
speak of "investigation" you betray a perception of the real
gravity of the discussion. I very much regret the position; I
would sincerely rejoice that you should be honorably reinstated
in the confidence of your friends and of the public, and, though
I have not the millions which you so gracefully accuse me of
possessing, still, rather than you should not have every opportu¬
nity to relieve yourself from the suspicions which now rest upon
you, I will accept your suggestion, and pay ail the proper charges
of a full inquiry in the premises, by the General Assembly, which
I suppose is the proper tribunal for such a proceeding, and I see
no reason why it should be delayed till "this summer.' On such
a matter neither you nor the public ought to be kept in suspense
an hour longer than necessary.
I will avail of the occasion further to say that in publishing my
letters to you I have procured those articles of yours to which
they refer to be reprinted in same paper with them, thus giving
yours the advantage of a double insertion. You are circulating
some of yours separately. I do not complain of this, nor claim
any right to do so, but your last article having strengthened my
conviction that there is, in this discussion, matter of serious
concernment to every one who values the reputation of the State,
or who has anything at stake in it, I propose to republish the
whole, and that the distribution may at once be impartial and
more extended, I will place any reasonable number of copies at
your disposal to be dixtributed. I say the whole, but you have
within a few days sent me a letter marked "private," to which I
have not heretofore alluded. After what I said touching that
subject, I doubt if you can properly thus impose any obligation
of privacy. - I will however, unless you otherwise advise, omit
the letter so marked.
Yours,
R. G. Hazard.
15
No. 1).
[Received by Mail.]
Friday Noon, April 14, 1876.
Bear Sir:—It seems you misunderstood me. Wlien I said I did
not want to undertake any investigation this summer, I meant
into your own character. If you have any charge to make against
my judicial conduct, you can go before the Legislature any day,
and I must meet it in the best way I can.
Yours, E. R Potter.
R G. Hazard, Esq.
Judge Potter having published three letters before I replied, I
might fairly claim the right to close. I deem it proper that such
comments as he has seen proper to make on my last letter should
go to the same readers with it, and as he may not have full oppor¬
tunity to reach them with subsequent reply, I refrain from any
comments on his.
April 20, 1876. R G. Hazard.
Editor of the Times:
Peace Dale, May 3, 1876.
I send you the letter of Judge Potter (heretofore omitted) with
the permission which he has now so graciously given me to
publish it.
The Judge is again mistaken. I have not "tried to make some¬
thing out of it," and I do not propose now to try, but leave it to
those of your readers who have a taste for such problems to work
this out for themselves—if they can. R G. Hazard.
Monday Noon, April 24.
Dear Sir:—I marked a letter private, because written in great
haste. As you have tried to make something out of it you can
publish it as soon as you please.
Yours, E. R P.
R G. Hazard, Esq.
JUL 1 61914
16
[Private.]
Kingston, April 5, 1876.
Dear Sir:—1 received a letter from you,* and there is nothing
special to reply that I know of.
Can you stand the strain of all these lawsuits? I suppose I
did not enumerate half—in fact I know of several not mentioned.
I think the effect of wealth on you and your brother Joseph has
been to work a great change.
At a proper time we shall raise some questions about the rail¬
road charter; they will be questions of law, and need not create
any excitement between us.
Yours, E. R. Potter.
Hon. R. G. Hazard, Esq.
* See this letter, No. 7, dated March 31st.