The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1853-10-26

~ wv 'Nts''i'Nit B'tiih'ih III VI NliN ibthE
urol address about distributing Offices
among different sections Of the party
If the President or bis srpointecs are
pledged to any such distribution. You
must look to some Other document to
find evidence of the blgation--somc
document which ! have never seen.
1t may be inferred from the acts Of
the President. that he REGARDS as cligi.
bc 30 office all Democrats who cordially
united on the Baltimore platform in
1852, aud are sincerely attached to the
principles of the party, although at some
former period they may have been out
of the way. That is Il proper rule. 1t
is the one On which have acted in max
ing appointments TO oiIicc--not because
| was under any pledge to do 50, but
because thought the rule just in itself
But your letter proceeds upon the ground
that ! should 20 beyond the inquiry
whether applicants for Office are good
! Democrats now, and ascertain to what
section they formerly belonged, and then
make such n distribution Of Offices be-
/ tween the different sections that no one
Of them will have just cause for com.
/ plant. 1t is not only impossible to admin
/ lister such a rule az that with success
but the consequence Of adopting it must
/ be, that we shall never have one Demo.
cratic party, united upon a broad basis
/ OF principle, but mere combination of
different sections held together by no
better bond than the love Of Office, and
ready to fall to pieces the moment one
section thinks itself aggrieyed in the
distribution.
Notwithstanding what has been said.
l think it would be found. on proper
scrutiny, that the Aection which has
so loudly and bitterly complained of in
justice has received its full share of the
Offices which | have bestowed. 1t is
undoubtedly true that more appoint
mcnts have been made from one section
OF the party than from the other and
single reason will be sufficient to show
why 1t was proper to porsuc that course.
Most of the Custom House appoint
ments for this port have always been
made from the counties Of New York
and Kings in which are the three large
cities which form part Of the port. In
lO1S the Democratic and Free Soil
votes i'll those counties bore the relation
of more than four for the former to one
for the latter From the Free Soil votes
in those counties bore the relation of
more than four for tue former to one
for the latter. From the Free Soil vote
should be deducted the Wing 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 those counties voted
the Free Soil ticket in 1913. In this
view of the matter, think it will be
found that the Free Soil section is far
from having just cause for complaint
| have acted in this liberal manner. not
because | was under any pledge, but be
cause | wished to do what reasonably
could TO promote the harmony and con.
tinued asccndaIcy of the party.
In reference to your remark upon the
recent rupture of the party at Syracuse,
that 1.-THE division 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
not only given in favor OF the united ac-
ton of the Convention, but | sincerely
hoped that harmony would prevail
any Government officers are chargeable
with what took place at Syracuse, the
lprlan ,,.l
thereof whom three were from this
city and not upon the Collector, who
was at home attending TO the duties of
his Office.
| do not state these things by way of
apology, for | have none to make nor
by way OF counting favor, for Lave none
to ask.
Let me now notice the time manner
and motive of your letter.
As to time 1t was after the rup-
ture and nomination Of two tickets at
Syracuse, and the two ratification meet
ings i'll this city after the Collector
had been denounced by the frecsoil
leaders aud presses, and the President
had been called upon to remove him ;
after hungry olice-seekers and bitter
politicians had visited Washington to
msrepresent ami traduce that officer,
and to whose clamors, as you well know,
lie never made any reply +; after the l.
Mon had taken ground against the tick
ct of tho National Democrats, and in ia
vor of the ticket of their opponents then
it was that you first discovered cause for
complaint OF any kind against the Col
lector. You had approved all his nom
inatious with a single exception, and in
that case the Office was abolished. Down
to the receipt of your letter Of the Sd
inst. you had never intimated to the
Collector in any form, that you disap-
proved of his appointments, or OF the
manner in which they bad been distrib-
uted.
As to the manner You did not pur
sue the usual course, and issue a circular
laying down a uniform rule for the gov
ernment of all Custom House officers
having patronage to bestow but con
fined your instructions to the port of
New York alone. If the doctrine Of
the letter be sound one it is obviously
proper that it should be applied in other
places as we'll as here and it should
regulate the conduct of all cllsses of gov
eminent officers having patronage to
bcstow - Marshals, Postmasters Dis
trict Attorneys and others should act
uponit in the selection of their deputies,
clerks. and other agents.
q