The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1848-06-25

bore to either the motives by which my oppo-
nents in the Conversion of IA were actuated,
or the means they resorted TO for the ac
complishment Of their object, and united with Zeal
aud aacrity in support of the dem ,cratic candidate
But whilst thus in good faith dschsrging what re-
garded to be my duty, it did fail to to me
that the circumstances by which surrou nded
presented the occasion | had long desired. when
could retire from public life consistently with what
was due to the country to my friends aud to my
self-respect. ] embraced it with my whole heart
From that day to the present. my mind has not for
moment wavered in regard the determin then
unced At early period la the present canvass
and before the dem crati mi nj could be regarded ~
having taken anything like distinct direction in re-
ference to its candidate reai med my resolution in
this regard In letter to worthy citizen of Pennsyva
MIA which has been extensively published and in
others with which it WAS not dremed necessary to
trouble the public. friendly application from our
delegates to the last nation for authority
to my name a candidate II they could do
der proper made it you appear to be
informed unpleasant duty to refuse my consent to
their doing uuder any circumstances whatever
Having thus assumed and long occupied this posi-
tion trust to your friendship and past indulgence to
be excused for repeating my Interchangeable determine
ton never again to be caud date for public Office
The fact of my having long since retired from public
life with the tact appreciation Of my friends gives
IA right to say If whilst In the political field will
ing to receive honor and ha nds Of
my political friends did not shew myself at all times
ready to obey without regard to personal
their calls to posts Of difficulty failed to make myself
understood by those whom was most anxious to
serve.
The considerations to which have adverted are not
entitled to the controlling influence in regard to
the remaining subject Of your letter Whatever would
be my in such matters ordinary
feel that could not under existing crcums ces,
Justice to my democratic friends in this State shall
therefore, give you my unreserved opinions upon the
questions to which you have called my attention and
in doing shall endeavor to observe that respect
courtesy towards the conflicting views of others which
1t has always been my desire to practice and which
now more than ever appropriate to my position.
nvtu Antn aNfA narna t,. NuttAO o1 raa
venton claim upon tho support of the democracy Of
any State it Is indspensably necessary that the de-
mocracy Of that State should BIZ fairly represe ned in
such Convention, and allowed equal rights and pr-
veges with their political brethren from other States
in regulating its proceedings. Neither Of these al
though perseveringly demanded was conceded by the
recent Convention to the democracy Of New York
and they Of course in degree concluded by it's
decisions But although their rights and their duties
thus clear, it Is notwithstanding material to the
fraternal relations which have hereof existed be-
tween them and those who composed the Convention
the wrong of their exclusion whether ut that Of
own delegation, or Of the Convention. Upon this
point both sets of delegates claiming to represe mt New
York, although differing in almost everything else,
appear to have coneurred in the opinion, that the
action of the Convention had been such to put it
out OF their power to participate In its proceedings
without total disregard of what due well to
their honor to the honor aud just rights Of their
State 1t therefore bat reasonable to expect that
here, at least the opinion against the slightest ob
cation on the part OF the democracy Of New York to
sustain the doings Of the convention. would be uni
versA To find either set of the delegates who cla med
TO represent New ok In that convention, or their
friends who approved Of their conduct. casting re-
proach upon their opponents for not sustaining the
decisions OF body OF whose action In regard to their
tho opinion to which have adverted must it to
me- be regarded very extraordinary occurrence in
politics.
1t plainly the duty of the Committee Creden-
als to examine into the facts and report their opinion
upon the conflicting claims referred to them is an
ndsputabe fact that instead Of dong they III
red unqualified pledge from both sets of delegates
from New York, that they would support the nominee
of the convention whoever he might be- and resolved
that without compliance with this arbitrary action,
they would not even look into the merits Of their
spective claims.
required at any previous National Democratic Con-
venion from any person at one Of them the de-
to announce their determinato In advance not to
support II certain nomination. If it should be- made
without Causing question to be raised IN regard to
their seats in the convention. and that they carried
such refusal into full effect without subecting them
selves their State to the reproaches Of their
in other Statesthat this very convention conta ned,
without dispute rs to their eligibility delegates from
several States who could not into such pledge.
without violating the instructions of their consttu-
ents. and whose intentions not to enter into it,
not concealed the convention itself had previous
y and expressly refused to impose such pledge upon
its members, and that on the very committee which
so mperously demanded it from the New Y ork dele
gates there we're members who openly denounced its
exaction outrage declared their utter unwilling
to take it themselves. and who, also were
theless recognized eligible and fit members of the
conventionwhen these things are considered, Is 1t
possible that any right-minded citizen among
fail to regard this treatment of the New York dele
gates as an indignty to them, and to their State of
the rankest character? II it Is misfor to live
in a community with whom it is necessary resort to
argument to prove this whose minds do not rush TO
that conclusion at the mere presentation of the sub
ject is of very little Importance what Is said
done in democratic convention Others may ttin k
differently, and have neither the right the dis
position to become their accusers but speaking for
myself and for myself only, do not hesitate to say
that the Of the radical democracy of th
state entirely right in their appreciation of the
treatment they received and in the they adopt
ed Were to advise them or those whom they repre-
sented to any steps which would indicate the slight
est insensiby their part to the degrading dstinc
lion that was applied to them, ! should in my best
judgment, be couns-lling them to Of political
dishonor, by which they would justly forfeit the
-pect Of all upright minds tod forbid that should
be induced, by any considerations, TO leave my me
mory exposed to the imputaton ~ having made so
poor return for whole life Of public favors received
ut their hands.
The committee carried out their design to the ex-
tent Of Their power and the question did the
convention itself relieve your delegates yourselves
from the injustice of their commttee Most sincerely
10 wish that could think But Is that possible |!
irieconciable, was apparent to that body
there room for moments doubt that at least of
the delegations would not attempt to represent the
State, unless their right to do exclusively
smincd and decided by the convention md it had
become too late for the convention to do its duty
the matter, when it appeared that the resolution
not to take their seats common to both delegations
There then other way in which the difficulty
could be properly disposed Of than by examining into
and deciding upon the conflicting claims before them
The unavoidable result Of failing do to
the proceedings Of the convention to be regarded
without authority In New York The expedient of
admitting both delegations might do well enough In a
where the difference between them not OF
principle, aud where both parties finally assented to
the arrangement but was wholly inapplicable to the
one under confederation The matter was peverthe-
less disposed Of New York was allowed a double
repre- ontation with the inevitable aud well
consequence that she should not have single effective
vote upon the proceedings of convention whose de-
cisons she Is called upon to sustain. Your dele
gates claimed the exclusive right to represent the de-
mocracy Of this State in the convention and offered
to maintain their title thereto before that body by
documentary proof Their claim was rejected. and on
what ground! Not certainly the ground that they
unable to sustain II, for their credentials and
proofs rrturned to them unopened, aud the
convention itself did not profess to put the rejec-
ton of their demand on any such ground and yet
that was the only round on which, If well founded
their claim could be properly overruled 1t is not to
be disguised that ,be belief that your delegates
fused admission the ground of the opinions enter