Weekly national intelligencer., 1851-02-15
THE COALITION IN MASSACHUSETTS.

THE COALITION IN MASSACHUSETTS
The annexed article, which we find in the Bos-
ton Daily Advertiser. places the atrocity Of the late
bargain between two political parties in the Legsla-
ture Of Massachusetts in striking light that we
are induced to copy it into our journal:
FROM TIE BOSTON DAILY ADVERTISER.
No person shall be admitted to hold seat in the
Legislature, any office Of importance under the
Government Of this Commonwealth, who SHALL 10 due course
law have been convicted Of bribery or corruption obtain
ing an election appointment"
lCeastitxtson of Massachusetts,.
candidate for Office should promise an eector the small
Of money to obtain his vote would doubt be
gsded, in any court in the Union, corrupt promise. If
e offer accepted and the bargain carried into effect it
would be of corrupt bribery, and would subject both
parties to the penalty Of the law
IT. instead of offer Of money in the form of SO much
cash. the offer that Of salaried office that is say
both the parties and b. candidates Office and agree
that fA will for b. then will vote for A. and if in
consequence of this agreement and contribute procure
each other valuable saaied Offices there abe doubt ha
may be the legal aspect Of the CASEY that partakes
rally of all the features Of bribery and corruption.
Aud here may be observed that the words Of the cons
tuition are not bribery and corruption" but "bribey or
corruption I; from which infer that wherever there is
self sh motive held out the ground for giving the vote,
there is couptoa although there may be bribery. If
the Offices purely honorary, and promises vote for
B, provided will A. it would be corruption, although
no salary attached either office Much more, however,
when each office entities the incumbent valuable salary.
When the late Mr. ]. Q. Adams chosen President by
the House of Representatives Of the United States, it was
L. a.
Cay had made bargain the substance Of which was that if
Mr. Clay would procure for Mr. Adams the votes Of Ken
tucky and two other States Mr. Adams would appoint
Mr.. Clay Secretary of State.
Both these distinguished persons, and especially Mr. Clay,
contradcted this charge in the solemn II
doubt cruel caumny, wholly destitute Of truth. II is
questionable whether any intelligent in the country be-
Ieved it, Still the fact that Mr.. Clay, who had not
supported Mr. Adams at the primary elections voted for him
in the House of Representatives and made Secretary
State such appearance Of understanding between
them, that contributed than any thing else parayze
Mr. Adams's administration.
HitcosM haue been proued j any such understanding
could haze been established by evidence there not the shG
doo Of doubt at both parties could haze been
and drUen ,vith from the public service toreper
In the Commonwealth of the 30h, given
Of what called the Legislative coalition is signed
H. W. which understood to be the initials of the Pres
dent Of the Senate, of the leaders in the and
Of those chiefly benefited by it. appeas by this
that an agreement deliberately made between the Free
Soil party and portion Of the Democratic party that they
should mutually for each others candidates 1t is not
probable that details of the bargain given although
after what stated there need have been much decacy
in giving any thing else. 1t unquestionaby, in all it's
parts what Mr. Palrey pronounced it beforehand, unpn
cipled transaction.
There is feature, however, distinctly stated by H. w.
which, is true, brings the clearly within the law of
bribery and corruption appears from various passages in
the statement that the individuals be supported both
sides designated that Isl for instance the persons who
to have the coalition vote for Governor President Of
the Senate and Speaker of the House, all named and
agreed to.
Now after asserting that all these facts were matter not
merely Of general understanding, but of distinct agreement
H. W. (himsef of the leading parties to the arrange
men says in bis published statement that these promises
were made IN cariety forms, and Uuh the knowledge
appreciation, and COOPERATION Of the elerated to
poDer."
This statement is either true or false If the latter, is
gross libel which those Immediately concerned will do well
to meet without delay as who can doubt that it
is in all the leading ccumstances then is Of Bar
berry CORRUPTION. Individuals have barganed that
they will vote for each other for valuable Offices and they
have done
There isn fact attempt disguise the matter por
ton ofhe Democratic party in the Legislature having refused
to operate in this corrupt arrangement and having thrown
obstacles in the way of its complete ulmen the whole of
that party is denounced by the organ of the FreeSoers in
precisely the same LANGUAGE in which dishonest trader
would be sigmazed 6 They haze received and the
goods and refuse to pay the prick"
Had the transaction been confined to the individuals who
have divided the high Offices between them, ( the ele
waited power, who in the language Of H. W. gave their
appreciation and cooperation" to the bargain) mpeach
men conviction, and perpetual disqualification would have
been the prompt and righteous remedy Unhappiy for the
honor Of the Commonwealth, majority Of the mpeaching
and trying powers pticps erinins This alters in
no degree the guilt Of the parties, but it screens them from
punishment.
What commentary human weakness that the indivi-
duas active in projecting and concentrating this
rup bargain arogaed to themselves their first organza-
ton, the of Conscience Whigs and devouty thank
ed Heaven that they other are Truly they
have shown themselves not to be but in opposite
for the history Of party politics. among all its sins, records
nothing of equal profigacy. Vine.
In brought before the Supreme Court of Pennsyi
vana from Delaware county, it decided last week. that
in public sale, whore person is employed +" run up
the property, and make the purchaser pay than
but bona bidders bid for it, the sale is fraudulent and
void far that the purchaser is not obliged to take the pro-
pery struck off to him. As the practice Of bidding up pro-
perty not uncommon the decision of the Supreme Court