New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-06-18

A WORD In REPLY.

The albany Ecening Journal does me the honor,
for the second time, to drag my name into its per-
sistent exhibitions of ill-temper and its speful inn
putaiions of base motives in connection with the
nomination of Abraham Lincoln instead of William
II. Seward at Chicago. quote from The Journal
of Friday last:
ave have questioned and do question TRs-
sa SRRe h s IL r. 81 Sor ovs s b
as they were Influenced by Than public cOndera
svowed in hi. private Letter Mr. Dana cOnnenced an organ
ds IT a h s seSn 's s Gov Seward ne
The only reason assigned In Tar TETSE for opposing
Gov Stewards nomination that he could not be elected
This certainly Known when in 1854 Mr. Greeley Dis
solved or in 1885, when Dir Dana commenced his hostile or
Personally opposed Gov Seward the editors Of THE
TRIBUNE have been for year, in that their warfare should
have been open and svowed."
In the business of making private letters the
basis of public attacks on the character of their
writers, Mr.. Weed will hardly succeed better than
his friends, Messrs. Webb and Raymond, have
done before him.
1t is not true that, after the election of 1856,
commenced an organization whose animus was
hostility to Gov. Seward.
All Republicans will remember that, after that
election, there prevailed, especially among the
young men of the party, an almost universal
desire to adhere to JOHN C. FREMONT as our
Presidential candidate. This desire found ex.
preston in thousand ways, and so strong was
il that plan was conceived (Which was never
carried OUT to organize committee here in
New-York, whose duty it should be to convert
the whole ensuing four years into a prolonged
Presidential campaign, with the standard of FIRE.
MONT and DAYTON still floating on the breeze.
Of course, it had reference to Republican tri-
umph in 1861 but it was hostile to nobody but the
Democratic party. In connection with this idea
wrote one letter TO gentleman in Massachusetts,.
l may have written others, but if did, have for
got Them at any rate, am that Gov. Sew
ards name was not so much rs mentioned in this
correspondence" whether it consisted of one
letter or of more.
Bat while Mr. Weeds reference to my private
correspondence Of 1856 is thus mistaken, his mpu.
tation Of personal motives for my opposition to Gov
Stewards nomination in 1860 is equally uncaed
for and insulting. The most careful scayenger
Of private letters, the most sncaking eavesdrop-
per that ever listened to private conversation,
Lot aege single reason for any personal hostility
on my part against Mr. Seward. / have never
received from him anything but exceeding kindness
and courtesy. He has done me fayors mot of a
political nature) in manner which made them still
more obiging; and should regard the loss of his
friendship a very serious loss. Notwithstanding
this, could not support him for President. like
Mr.. Seward personally, but love the party and its
principles more. Success for these seemed to me
to be duty, for | have never subscribed to the
modern doctrine that defeat with one good man |
is better than victory with another equally trust
worthy.
Against Mr.. Seward nomination there stood the
great, glaring probability that he could not carry
New'Jersey, Pennsy lyania, or indiana; and that |
with him Illinois, Connecticut, and Rhode Island |
would become uncertain Thisis in substance the |
ground have always taken since the question of |
the nomination came up for discussion. 1t is the |
ground THE TRIBUNE has taken. None of it, |
readers has ever been led to suppose that it |
favored Mr.. Stewards nomination. There have |
been no false pretenies and no deception. THE |
TRIBUNE has always, on all fitting occasions
(while taking great care to say nothing that would
render il unable TO give Mr.. Seward its effective
support, in case the Convention should, after all,
deem it wiseto dominate HIM, labored to bring its