Worcester daily spy., 1860-05-28
MONDAY, MAY ss, 1850.

The course of Horace Greeley in regard to
the proposed nomination of Mr.. Seward for
the presidency, has excited much surprise and
many questionings. Republicans generally
70 his explanations unsatisfactory, and
many of them were led to believe him infu-
enc ed by personal considerations We notice
that Mr. Greeley, and Mr.. Raymond of the
New York Times, are discussing this matter
with much earnestness, and it comes out that
the former has been personally hostile to Mr.,
Seward for several years. Mr.. Raymond
makes the following allegation NEARLY
six years ago, in November, 1854, he Mr.
Greeley privately but distinctly repudiated all
further political friendship for and alliance
with Gov. Seward, and menaced him
with his hostility whenever it could be
made most effective" And the allegation
goes on to state that the motives of this dec
laration of hostility were entirely personal.
In his reply, Mr.. Greeley admits substantially
that the main point of the allegation is true,
and states that the hostile declaration to MIR.
Seward was made in writing, in the form of
private letter. He denies that Mr.. Raymond's
account of his motives is correct, expresses a
desire to have the letter for publication, and
says =
Meantime, / only say that, when l had
fully decided that l would no longer be de.
voted to Gov. Stewards personal fortunes, it
seemed due to candor and fair dealing that
should privately, but in all frankness, apprise
him of the fact. 1t was not possible that
could in any way be profied by writing that
letter; well understood that it involved an
abdication of all hopes of political advance
ment; yet seemed due to my own character
that the letter should be written. OF course
never dreamed that it could be published or
used as it already has been; but no matter
let us have the letter i'll prnt-and let the
public judge between its writer and his open
and covert assailants. |, at all events, ask no
favor, and fear no open hostility"
To this Mr.. Raymond responds with still
stronger representation in regard to the mo
tives of this hostility. Mr.. Greeley's admis
sion will afford some light to many persons who
have not been able to understa his policy In
other respects, the discussion is not likely to
be very useful. 1t is well to understand men
and things correctly so as to estimate them
precisely as they are but it is not well to en-
ing, and contribute nothing to elevate the feel
ings or purposes of men. We think, however,
that MIR. Raymond over.rates the influence of
Mr.. Greeley at Chicago. His articles in the
the Tribune, before the convention met, had
considerable influence but, at Chicago, where
he did everything in his power to secure the
nomination of Mr.. Bates, he was not success
full. The result was strongly against him.
His favorite candidate lost ground continually
from the first day OF the convention, and not
only failed to get the nomination, but even fail
ed to get half as many votes as were expected
for him.
The defeat of Mr. Seward was determined
by influences with which Mr.. Greeley had lit
tie if anything to do directly. His articles in
the Tribune had undoubtedly done much to
prepare the way for these influences but he
neither created them nor directed their opera
ton. They came chiefly from what have been
called the doubtful states;" and while they
worked efectually against Mr.. Seward, they
we've still more effective against the candidate
favored by Mr.. Greeley and they final
ly gave US Abraham Lincoln, the man
most unlike Mr.. Bates in position, and
most acceptable to Mr.. Stewards warmest
friends. There is not a good republican in the
land who will not hurrah for Lincoln. If Mr.
Greeley's views had prevailed, the feeling to-
wards the nominee would be very different,
for he himself admits that the nomination of
Mr. Bates would have fallen upon the party
like wet blanket" 1t is plain that he will
be held to answer for whatever sins he may
have committed in this matter Let him not
be made responsible for what he could not do.