Title: Ebenezer Rockwood Hoar to William M. Evarts, 3 June 1869
Date: June 3, 1869
Source: Transcribed from digital images or a microfilm reproduction of the original item. For a description of the editorial rationale behind our treatment of the correspondence, see our statement of editorial policy.
Location: National Archives and Records Administration
Whitman Archive ID: nar.01894
Contributors to digital file: Elizabeth Lorang, Nima Najafi Kianfar, Kevin McMullen, and John Schwaninger
June 3, 1869.
Hon. Wm. M. Evarts,
52 Wall street,
I find in the office what purports to be a copy of the pleadings and notice to the Attorney General of the United States in each of the five following cases:
1. Henry A. Tilden, vs. Benj. F. Butler, now pending in the Circuit Court of the U. S. for the Southern District of New York. Doolittle & Crittenden, pl'ff. Attorneys.
2. Alfred Kearney, vs. Benj. F. Butler, commenced in the Sup. Court of the state of New York, for the city and county of New York, and either removed or attempted to be removed, to the Circuit Court of the United States, for the Southern Dist. of New York.— Evarts, Southmayd, & Choate, plff. attorneys.
3. Henry N. Siebrecht, vs. Benj. F. Butler, now pending in the Circuit Court of the U. S. for the Southern Dist. of New York.— Stanley, Langdell & Brown, plff attorneys.
4. John H. Lester, vs. Benj. F. Butler, now pending in the Circuit Court of the U. S. for the Southern Dist. of New York. Pinckney & Campbell, plff. attorneys.
5. John H. Lester, vs. Benj. F. Butler, now pending in the Circuit Court of the U. S. for the Southern Dist. of New York.— Pinckney & Campbell, plff. attorneys.
These suits were all, I think, originally brought in the Courts of the State of New York. In all, Develin, Miller & Trull appear as Deft's Attorneys. In all these suits, one of the issues is, whether the acts, (to recover damages for which the suits were brought,) were done by the defendant as a military officer of the government, during the late rebellion, by virtue of or under color of, his military office. In each there is what purports to be a copy of a notice, unsigned, addressed to you as Attorney General to appear & defend the suit pursuant to Sec. 1, Ch. 276, Acts of 1868 —(15 Stat. p. 243.)
I find in the office copies of the correspondence relating to the suit of Kimberly, et al. vs. Butler, and that Messrs. Cushing & Schley were employed as attorneys for the defendant in that case, which you may remember was recently tried at Baltimore, Md. Messrs. Cushing & Schley have already been paid by the United States compensation for their services. I do not find any correspondence in the records of the office relating to the five suits I have named in the first part of this letter. I desire to know whether any arrangements were made by you with either Mr. Butler, or Messrs. Develin, Miller & Trull, for the defence of the suits, and what the condition of the suits is, in reference to any obligation on the part of this office to defend them.
Very Respectfully, &c. &c.
E. R. Hoar,