Review And Telegraph

THE JARVIS DIVORCE CASE.

We had designed to say nothing more about this important case which has just terminated before the Legislature of this State, but the course that has been pursued by the enemies of the Dr., by an unfair and seemingly malicious attempt to forestall public opinion as to the real merits of the case, and the hue and cry that has been started by the press against him, compel us to throw ourselves into the breach opened by these proceedings for no other purpose but to defend the injured party from all unjust assaults; and endeavor, so far as we are able, to correct public opinion. In regard to the lady of that gentleman, we have nothing to say; we respect her talents, her beauty, and her accomplishments, but shall yield up no opinion that has hitherto been expressed by us as to which is most to blame. Our present object is to show the public, that by some unjust measures their minds have been forestalled. In regard to the speech of the Hon. Mr. Perry in the Senate on the subject, which has been published by the New York Commercial Advertiser, (a paper which has had its columns filled with the rancor of the lady's partisans against the Dr. during the whole investigation,) and re-published by a hundred others throughout the country, we have to say:

First: The speech is not as it was delivered by that gentleman, and we will rely on whatever that gentleman will say, for the truth of what we assert. We heard the speech delivered, we took it down or the principal parts of it as delivered, for the benefit of the lady's counsel, and we now declare that it has been perverted, mis-stated, and many things that were said by Mr. Perry, are entirely left out. Then we say that some parts of the published speech were spoken, some parts were not spoken, and some things that were spoken are left out. With this garbled statement then, the people have been led to the most unjust conclusions, and as we said before, it is only because of this that we are prompted to say another word.

Second: An agreement had been entered into between a part of both the petitioner's and respondent's counsel acting for the whole and ourselves, not to publish any speeches made on the subject. The object of this was to send out the testimony as it came from the witnesses, unperverted by the counsel, that the public might have a fair opportunity to judge for themselves, without the bias of the counsel's opinion. To effect this, we had attended the whole of the examination, and were making a full and impartial report of all the testimony of the witnesses, all the depositions, letters, and statements read during the trial, which report, before publication, was to pass through the hands of both counsel, receive their corrections and their sanction.

Third: We cannot conceive what the garbled speech was published for, if not to forestall a fair and impartial report of the whole proceedings and to injure Dr. Jarvis. We would ask, did the lady's counsel fear the result of the publication of our report? and that too, after it had been examined and corrected by them? For our own part, we can see no just motives for publishing that garbled statement, but on the contrary, we deem it an underhanded course persisted in and carried out to give a bias to public opinion. Why were not the speeches of Mr. Curtis, the chairman on the part of the House, Dr. Brownell, another of the committee, of Mr. Dutton and Judge Brooks also published?

Fourth: The petition had been once unanimously rejected by the Senate, after having passed through the House, and at the request of Mrs. Jarvis' counsel Mr. Perry, who felt disposed to give satisfaction to all, consented to offer a resolution to rescind the vote and call up the question once more. He did so, and what was the consequence? A second unanimous rejection of the petition. We shall not ask if any thing was gained by this second rejection, nor indeed should we have alluded to the fact, had we not been compelled to do so by the singular and unfair course that we have seen adopted to forestall public opinion. As we before said, we did intend to let the matter rest in the hands of the public and say nothing more about it; but as a servant of the people we shall be faithful to our trust, and we hope to discharge the obligations imposed upon us by our station, by making our columns the means of correcting public abuse, and rendering full justice to all.