New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1848-09-21
Rlmarks ~ ~ foregoiAg.

Tenants on me t0regOiHg-
Though We cannot spare room for all the COM
ments which the above is calculated to provoke
we must say few words, leaving the residue to
our former article and the good sense Of the reader
l. Its rerv material TO a Just Judgment on the
removal OF Robert II. Morris, &c. in 1904, 20
determine whether there really a conspiracy
of Wings in 1910 10 introduce fraudulent votes
from Philadelphia, or only collision Of Loco
Focos to make a preteace Of such conspiracy, and
thereupon defeat Gen. Harrison. The former is
the version Of Judge Hammond the latter is the
truth The Wing party Of this City have always
desired and besought the passage Of laws which
should render Illegal voting impossible The
Loco Focos, as party, have vehemently resisted
any such legislation. We think we know why,
and we think Judge Hammonds account OF the
Glcutworth affair calculated to make a very wrong
impression.
>. As to the "pledge of Sas Wright in 1893
to support the Electoral Law, we think Judge H.
'darkens counsel quite iruitlessly. We showed
last week that Mr. Wright cas elected as snp
Doyfcr Of the PcoDies Electoral Lar-that he could
not have been elected otherwise. Of course, we
hold that he was bound in good conscience To sup
port that law or resign-that he could not WELD
the power confded to him for a specific purpose to
oppose aud defeat that very purpose without bad
faith and fragrant violation of republican prlnci-
pie. And we say again, that whether MIR. Wright
gave specific pledge to support the Electoral Law
or was elected on account of his avOwals OF opinion
in favor of that law is not of the least practical
importance. Ia either case his conduct was wholly
inde.ensbe Judge HIS suggestions that Mr..
Wright may have supposed that II his constituents
had the same means of Judging that he had, they
would have changed their views, is secuted by no
torous facts in the case. Judge II. has truly told
us that Mr. Wright took the course he did in order
to preserve the ascendency of the Democratic
(BucktaiD party. Could he have imagined that
this would have been conclusive to his Clntonian
supporters If so, why not resign, and appeal to
the people in Il new election But no-he knew
better, and the ensuing Election proved that the
People condemned him.
Whether Mr. Wright " honestly and sincerely
believed" it right to do wrong for the sake OF pre-
serving the sscendancy of his party, we do not
decide nor is it material. If he could believe any
thing of the sort, he was not truly " a great and
good man" 1t is the very doctrine popularity at
tributcd to the Jesuits, and which whether justly
oruniustly) has long exposed them to the odum OF
the entire Protestant world. Judge Hammond
may very well have commended Gov. Jays reiu
sal to do an act OF doubtful propriety to preserve
the ascendancy of the Federal party but how
he could also commend aud exalt Gov. Wright as
emphatically a great and good man. is the puz-
zle Mr. Wright had some OF the elements OF
greatness but bis ideas oiparty Obligation and the
importance of party ascendancy, were not those
of a great and good man Judge II. may well
say that we deem the ascendency of the Wing
party very important, so that we often sacrifice
to it our personal predictions but until he con-
victs us Of deliberately decevng and ialsifyng las
Mr. Wright did in gaining and using his first office
in order to keep the Wings in power, we submit
that he takes nothing by his Illustration. And we
repeat that the principle coniessedy acted upon
bv Mr.. Wright would have required him to &C
ouiesce if not participate in the assassination OF
Gov Clinton, or the usurpationo OF the Government
had such course been deemed essential to the
preservation or recovery of Democratic ascen-
dancy. In short, Mr.. Wright, was too slavish
and unscrupulous devotee of party, through the
greater portion of his public career, to be fairly
deemed a great and good man. We can see
this as well in his WATERFOWL Speech of lsii, as
in his Electoral Law iuggles OF 1924. His devotion
to party would not permit him to be at all times
candid and upright This truth his biography
ought to exhibit but in Judge Hammond's yer
SION il does not and herein is its condemnation.
I'D. I'ub.