New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-02-14

The instances before the ptc5S"s '~7''U-i 1900
elections of Senator under the law OF leVl' aud
the preseut one have failed, in consequence OF
one or both branches Of the Legislature refusing
70 nominate a candidate by majority OF Votes'
as required to effect choice, by joint ballot or
otherwise. are three, namely in 1919, 1925 and
1889.
AT the session Of lsl9 there were three parties
in the Legislature, viz: Clintonians, bucktals'
and Federasts. At the attempt 10 elect u D.
Senator, John c. Spencer, the candidate OF the
Cliptonians. received "A votes in the Assembly
Col. Samuel Young ,BucktaiD Al and huias
King lFederalist) 81; the latter being candidate
for reelection. In the Senate Mr.. Spencer had 10
votes; Col. Young 10 and Mr. King 5. In this
state of parties the election Of Senator wentover
10 the following year, 1920, when Mr. King was
nearly unanimously elected, receiving the votes
of Clintonians Bucktails, and F ederalists
At the session Of 1875, the Peoples party as
they were called, having at the previous election
chosen Dewitt Clinton, Governor, James Tall
madge, Lieut. Governor, and a majority oil the
Members of Assembly; nominated the late Judge
Spencer for Z. s. Senator. The opponents OF
Clinton and Spencer, in consequence OF all the
Senators except eight newly elected holding over,
retained majority in the Senate, and they de-
termined, if possible, to defeat the election OF
Judge Spencer. The plan hit upon, and then first
invented, was to scatter the votes OF Senators SO
IS to prevent a nomination and thus avoid joint
ballot which they knew was sure to elect Spen.
Ger. Accordingly, while the Assembly nominated
Ambrose Spencer, by vote Of = to i5i the SEN
ate only made pretence OF an attempt to nomi'
nate Ten of the Senators voted for Judge Spen-
Ger. and 81 of them scattered their votes on II
different candidates. They then rejected mo-
ton to nominate Spencer, ayes II, noes 20; and
laid or the table resolutions to nominate James
Tallmadge and Col Young also rejected reso-
luton nominating John w. Taylor, on the part
Of the Senate.
Thus the attempt to effect an election failed,
and the Assembly on subsequent days rejected
successfully joint resolutions from the Senate,
appointing Albert H. Tracy and James Tallmadge,
these both of the same political party with the
majority of the Assembly. Thurlow Weed, who
was then member Of the Assembly from Nun
roe County advised bis political friends to accept
Albert H. Tracy from the Senate, as it was not
probable they could do better. Mr.. Weed then
voted for Tracy himself bat his friends refused to
concur with him. The course he recommended
was doubtless a wise one, under the circum
stances, although Tracy acted badly afterward
toward his old friends, and eventually went with
Van Buren,, after supporting John Quincy AID
ans. and then passing through the phases Of the
AntiMasonic party
The Legislature Of 1925 adjourned without
choosing Senator and at the Session of 1926,
the anti Clintonians having majority, Chancellor
Sanford was elected as a colleague Of Mr. Van
Buren,; receiving the votes of both parties in the
Legislature.
The same game of scattering votes, to prevent
nomination, which was so successful, as we
have seen in 1925, was played also by the friends
of Van Buren, again in 1889, the object then being
TO prevent the reelection Of N. p. Tallmadge to
the U. s. Senate The Van Buren, party cordial
ly hated that Senator above all other men, for the
active part he had taken after leaving the Demo-
cratic party, so called, in the election of Seward
and other Wings in 1885, and the Van Buren,
Members OF the Senate resolved to defeat his re-
election.
Accordingly, when Mr.. Tallmadge was nomin
ated in the Assembly by the votes Of all the Wing
members, comprising nearly two thirds of that
body, the Senate refused to make nomination
Is Wing members voting for Mr.. Tallmadge, and
ls Van Buren, men scattering their votes-only
two being given to the same individual. On the
sizth attempt 10 nominate, two Van Buren, men
Lspuening 20 vote for Samuel Beafdsley, all the
Whjgs voted for him, and he came within one
vote # being nominated. The Senate then dis
continued ali further show Of attempting to nomi
nate the majority claiming that the choice ought
10 be made by joint resolution, and they therefore
sent the name Of Samuel Beardsey to the As
sembly That body returned the resolution with
their reasons for refusing to elect Senator con-
trarv 10 the existing law. Mr. A. C. Paige OF the
Senate as the organ of the majority, made la
bored report in justification Of the course Of that
branch Of the Legislature.
The election of Senator therefore went over to
the following year 1910, when the Wings, having
majority in the Legislature, reelected Mr. Tall
madge, his seat having been vacant from the Sd
of March previous, and the State Of New-York
being represented through the early part of the
session of le39-4O by one Senator otly, (Silas
Wright.
We may remark, in conclusion that there is an
impression with some persons that In case the Le-
gisature does not elect Senator at the session
preceding or about the time when the term ex-
pires, the Governor, after their adjournment has
the power 70 fill the vacancy caused by non-elec
ton Such has not been the practice, and we be.
lieye that no attempt has ever been made by any
Executive to make an appointment of Senator
after the Legislature had failed to elect, and the
term had expired.
CITY ITEMS.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TRIBUNE
A NUIsANcE-SH: Coming down Chatham-st.