New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-12-01
VINO ELECTED CLARK :

T. n rf.,- y IT, Y rrfSsg> -. -. :.
Srk In our paper ct the 2ist inst IN the coir's u
On +cle headed Temperance at Albany occurs
this pafssge: Iii n.
we nsy without Gg'isa sass-, 9 tiO
n r. re- AZ Alhary 'hs ~iDtrt that whfe "
me thai fnseh Of hstiy chef en;9aner req pa -
rSeu CITED Il, eered snd paid for ~ ne tr
il,,rest their nnfs.iug support came Tor TIC "'' F
ths.e eevoted the Liquor Prueio'tioa A..
Nov air I sfn convinced ihat this 10 an error AS
far - nv knowledge extends and as far as am so''
20 Judge hom the complexion OF the returns tue
Maine Law Wing votes were very generally css' TOT
Ullmann. 1t was certainly so at this pou-t oe'aS
verv rare that Maine Law Wing voted for Ciark'
Such of the Irish as were Maine Law men ether re-
fused 70 VOTE or voted for SEYMOUR while the haine
Law Wbgs with one or two exceptionsl voted the
Know. Nothing ticket throughout, with the res
byterian clere their head The votes obtained
for Clark were mostly obtained By force OF parry us
cipIine and by the strength OF the Ant'-Ne,rasNs
sentiment. La this district, where the ieTPersuo'
vote il large the vote stood: Clark, 46i seymour,
"a. Bronson %; Ullmann, ll3. While In tue oeconu
District of this town. Wilma where the temperance
vote /, small and the Rummeis predominant tue y91e
stood: CLARK, 1872; Seymour 1922 Bronson q o"-
mann. -. =, t... ,,o.
please. Generally in those places, Ullmann yote IS
large and Seymour Is IN consequence aneao .. NLaN
While IN the back towns, where not muchtenPsranco
Il prcfCesed, Clark is aneed o. Se usOut, on1 ~
rota in these hack towns that has saved Clark. L
think II nav be asserted with confidence, tnst tne
Maine Lsw Wigs would have pracucaiy eiecte9
SEYMOUR by fOoling away their votes on ounsn' u.i
rot party discipline in the back towns kePs me Fo'e
steafily uc for Clark. Look at Lewis County,
county largely Democratic, 700 majority tor flercs'
nearly all back towns-few Bronson votes lev ull-
mann votes, and yet only "a majority Tor seymour
No Sir; the Temperance vote was not an as y
ing" support for CLARK, although he was TIE lem
p,rarce nominee They voted mostly for ulnann,
and left Clark to be elected by those Wings who
were hostile TO tho Main Law, or indifferent on the
subject And IL Gov. Clark ehou'd act TO please
majority Of his supporters, my own opinion most ue-
ciocdly is that he would not favor the Main Law IN
spy other way than to sign it, il should pass; and
If he had influence to prevent It's passage ne soad
grstify majority of his supporters by exernng MS
influence for that purpose.
For nv part. although profess to be Temper.
are man, and am constant reader of your paper
have doubts about the policy OF passing the Malice
Law Still, | was willing II should pass, ana thh
Myron H. Clark should be nominated TO please
hose dero,Sd % Liquor Prohibition" But it is no
torious that those men have shsmefuly abandoned
him and now that he is elected In spite OF them
object most decidedly 10 their claiming the credit oil
etcng him. and insisting that therefore he must act
~ dtaytaase, Jeser.oa Co. Nov ., 1854
Remarks.
b. we concede, is right as to his own locality,
but wrong as TO the State generally. The best
vote for Clark was almost uniformly cast in those
Counties where the Temperance sentiment is
stropgest--say Wyoming, Oswego Oneida,
Wayne Washington, Essex Saratoga, Broome,
Orange, Delaware. On the contrary, Otsego,
New. York, Albany, Rensselaer, and nearly every
County in which Liquor is powerful, did badly
for CLARK. There were great many Temperance
votes cast for Ulmsnn, on the strength of private
assurances that he would not veto Prohibitory
act; but the great body of the advocates Of Pro-
hibition stood by Clark and elected him. Ed.