New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-05-30
MIR. GREELEY AND MR.. SEWARD.

| From The Springfield (Msss) Repr5iic1H.
Mr. RAYMOND of The n. Y. Times has brought into
| print question, much sgtated in the canvass at
Chicago as the dsnterestedness of Mr. Greeley OPP
| position to Mr. Stewards nomination Mr. Stewards
| friends were very harsh toward Mr.. Greeley at
Chicago, and said his was merely personal hos ty
| toward Mr. Seward; that he wanted Office, and Mr..
Seward would not or could not help him TO it; and,
therefore, tat The TRIBUNE against him,
and now sought revenge by defeating Mr.. Stewards
nomination for the Presidency. Mr.. Raymond, writing
from Auburn after an interview with Mr.. Seward and
interpreting bis views TO the result at Chicago,
| gives Mr.. Greeley the chief credit of Mr.. Stewards
failure and ascrbes TO him the motives freely
| charged in private at Chicago. He Gays that Mr.
Greeley Mr. Seward six years ago, accusing
him of injustice to himself, and giving him notice that
be should hereafter oppose him. and attributes to the
feeling that prompted this letter Mr. Greeeys
with reference to The Chicago nomination. Mr.. Gree
ley replies that the letter is distorted, demands its pub-
LEGATION entire, and argues that he not moved to
his present opposition TO Mr. Seward by any personal
feelings and that Mr.. Seward defeated at Chicago
not because of his opposition enmity, but because
the Republican leaders of Pennsylvania, Nsw-Jersey
Illinois, and Indiana, over whose judgment he could
exercise no CONTROL believed and represented that his
nomination would be fatal TO Republican success in
their States.
We do not attach any special importance to these de-
velopments and discussions. Certainly il is not true
in any that Mr. Greeley controlled the result at
Chicago; he is right and Mr.. Raymond is wrong
that point. He opposed him warmly and openly, but
fairly and honestly on broad expediency grounds. If
personal feeling entered into his action it didn't show
itself and it gave no strength point to hisargents,
which were potent only they were sustained by
other and weghtier authorities. The delegate: from
the doubtful States, not Mr.. Greeley, defeated Mr..
Seward and they could and would have defeated him
just WELL had he been laboring with equal zeal on
the other SIDE There was chance for Mr. Stewards
nomination except through the probability or posi-
bility of Of these delegates going over to him
rather than 10 unite upon another person.
The doubt and struggle of the week turned wholly
upon this pont as it appeared that Pennsyl-
vania would go bodily for Mr.. Lincoln rather than
give half third of her vote to Mr.. Seward the ques-
ton was se.tled-Mr. Lincoln was nominated and Mr..
Seward was defeated. What influence Mr. Greeley
had in stifening that aud the delegations of the
other doubtful States cannot be measured we think
not much. He certainly did not get a single vote
from any of them for the candidate Mr.. Batesl
for whom he labored with as much zeal as he
employed against Mr.. Seward. We believe in
deed, that the early, and as we always thought njud
cious procurement of The TRIBUNE for Mr.. Bltes
gave more strength to Mr.. Seward by the reactomry
movement and anagonisn il aroused than the opTos-
ton of the paper and its editor ever took away from
him. For the six years that have interviewed since Mr..
Greeley is reported have dissolved partnership With
Mr.. Seward he and his paper, by their able and Om-
handing support Of the principles and purposes of the