Washington sentinel., 1853-10-19
gnportaat Correspondence.
Collector Bronson,s Reply.


Sir: The pressure of official business and con-
fnement to sick room have prevented an earlier
answer TO your letter of the 3D. instant
You first state, in substance, that | have been
under pledge, which has not been redeemed, TO
distribute the offices in my gift among different
sections of the democratic party, and then pre-
scribe the course you expect me TO pursue in flu
ture. You do not complain that my appoIntees
not proper persons for the places they occupy,
or that they not sound democrats, sincerely at
tached TO the principles of the party and firm sup
porters of the national administration But you
think have not properly regarded all sections of
the nP party n.,, .,.,..,;u
of this port in April last, was asked by several
friends whether would allow my name 10 be men
toned TO the President for the place, and answered
in the negative. | thought no more of the matter
until two days afterwards, when saw IN the pub
lie prints a telegraphc dispatch announcing my
appointment. had two years before resigned my
place as Chief Judge of the Court OF Appeals, with
the intention of never again accepting public Of
fee and grateful as | was for this new mark OF
confidence, should have declined the appointment
but for the high opinion which entertained OF
the President and his principles, and the assurance
of friends that he earnestly desired my acceptance
Of the trust. -
When accepted the place, had never seen
| nor had any communication with the President,
and of course there were no pledges between us,
save such as may be implied between honorable
had right 10 expect that would diligently and
faithfully discharge the duties of the office, and
maintain in all proper ways, the principles which
restored the democratic party 10 power; and, so
long as performed that implied obligation, had
a right to expect that his confidence III me would
not be withdrawn. | have never complained that
the President has not discharged his part of the
| obligation, and am not conscious Of having omit
ted to discharge my own.
You tell me that the President and his constitu-
al, o1ol lnla kaIrr fIs m
the principles and policy laid down in the Balti.
more platform and the inaugural address, =" and
had reason to believe that all gentlemen who con-
sented to accept Office under the administration
stood pledged 10 the same principles and policy :
| agree to that; and, though il is but an implied
pledge, admit its full force But it proves no.
thing to the present purpose for there is not one
word either in the Baltimore platform or the inau-
gural address about distributing offices among diff
ferent sections of the party. If the President or
his appointees pledged 10 any such distribu-
ton, you must look to some other document to
find evidence OF the obligaton--somc document
which have never seen. II.
II may be inferred from the acts Of the President,
that he regards eligible to office all democrats
who cordially united on the Baltimore platform in
1852, and are sincerely attached to the principles
of the party although at some former period they
may have been out Of the way. That is a proper
rule. 1t is the one on which have acted in making
appointments TO offce-not because was under
rule Just in itself But your letter proceeds upon
the ground that | should go beyond the inquiry,
whether applicants for Office are good democrats
now, and ascertain to what section they formerly
belonged. And then make such distribution OF Of
fees between the different sections that of
them will have just cause for complaint 1t is not
only impossible to administer such a rule as that
with success, but the consequence of adopting it
must be that we shall never have one democratic
party, united upon broad basis of principle, but
Il LrIl
gether by no better bond than the love Of office,
and ready to fall to pieces the moment one section
thinks itself aggrieved in the distribution.
Notwithstanding what has been said, think it
would be found on proper scrutiny, that the sec
ton which has so loudly and bitterly complained
Of injustice has received its full share of the Offices
which have bestowed. Ii is undoubtedly true
that more appointments have been made from one
section of the party than from the other; and
single reason will be sufficient TO show why il was
proper to pursue that course Most OF the Gus
tom-house appointments for this port have always
been made from the counties Of New York and
Kings, in which the three large cities which
form part of the port In lsio the democratic
and freesoil vote in those counties bore the rela
ton Of more than four for the former 10 one for the
latter. From the freesoil vote should be deducted
the whig abolition vote, which went in the same
direction. After making the proper allowance on
that account, think it safe to conclude that not
more than one out of seven Of the democrats IN
In this view of the matter, think ii will be found
that the freeso section is far from having Just
cause for complaint have acted in this liberal
manner--not because was under any pledge, but
because wished to do what | reasonably could
10 promote the harmony and continued asccn-
dancy of the party. @.. ,~.
It is possible that | am mistaken in supposing
that the free soil section has got its full share OF
the places for in distributing the little Offices in
my gift, which have for the most part gone among
the rank and file of the party, have neither had
the time nor the inclination to do much by way of
investigating the antecedents OF men who We're
supposed to be all right now.
In reference to your remark upon the recent
rupture of the party at Syracuse that the divi-
sion could and ought TO have been prevented" it
is enough for me TO say that not only had no
agency in bringing about that division, but tried
to prevent it. My counsel was given in favor OF
the united action Of the convention and sincerely
hoped that harmony would prevail. II any gov
ernment officers are chargeable with what took
place at Syracuse, the burden must rest on those
who were thereof whom three were from this
city--and not upon the collector, who was at home
attending TO the duties OF his office
lido not state these things by way OF apology,
for have none to make: nor by way Of courting
favor, for have none to ask .a.....
You speak of the reunion of the party in lSi9,
which reunion was supposed to have been tho
roughly ccmented i'll the great and triumphant
contest in 1852" Although | ardenty desired a
reunion, II II could be enected upon prlnclpe,
never approved the mode in which the attempt
was made TO bring about that desirable end. |
thought then, and think STILL that those who had
| deserted the democratic standard in 1913, and
| thrown the State and national governments into
the hands of the wings, should, II convinced OF
their error, return again to our camp without ex-
acting conditions, and should then be treated with
the utmost kindness The party would then have
been strong, and we should have heard no more
about sections.
But very different course was pursued; and the
freeso leaders came back far they at all,
under league or treaty between them and few
leading democrats, with no stronger bond OF union
than an agreement to divide the Offices. The ar
rangement was based upon no principle. The free
soil leaders left at liberty TO adopt the
which they pursued and, instead of again hosting
the national banner, they marched into the demo-
cratic camp with their own sectional coors flying,
and thus became an independent element in the
party. Indeed, your letter proceeds upon the
ground that the party has all along been divided
into sections; and consequently that accounts must
be balanced between them in the distribution OF
Offices All experience proves that such coali-
ton as was formed in 1919 can never be thoroughly
cemented. Sooner or later il will fall to pieces.