New-York tribune., 1901-10-31
HEWITT'S TELLING WORDS.
SAYS MIR. SHEPARD SHOULD HAVE
REPLIED To TAMMANY: us THY
SERVANT A DOG THAT HE
SHALL DO THIS THING?''

SHALL DO THIS THING?"
Abram 5. Hewitt yesterday sent out open
letter entitled "A Retrospect and a Warnings
which will be read with great interest by all
New-Yorkers. Mr.. Hewitt takes Mr.. Shepard
to task for accepting the nomination of Tam
many Hail. and shows how impossible it will be-
for him. if elected, to change Tammany Hail.
He says there is analogy between Shepard's
position now and his own in 1SS6-which Shep-
ard has declared there is-and that. were the
positions the same. Shepard should retire and
vote for Low. The main question. he adds. was
not what Shepard could do with Croker but
| what Croker would do with Shepard. The let
ter follows:
Two three days before the Tammany con-
vention met George Foster Peabody called
upon me to say that Croker was willing to take
Edward NJ. Shepard as the Tammany nominee
! for Mayor and that Shepard was considering
the suggestion. Peabody told me that he and
Mr. Orr had advised Shepard to accept the
nomination because. whether he or President
Low should be elected the city would be sure
10 have an honest administration. He asked me
for my opinion. which 1 supposed was TO be
communicated TO Shepard. 1 replied that Shep-
! ards acceptance was TO my mind simply un-
thinkable. that il would be false to his prOfeS-
siOnS and his practice in the past, and that
any association with Tammany Hall would, in
, my judgment. result in his political ruin
Whether this opinion was communicated 70
Shepard or not do not know, but, fearing that
he might be induced by bad advice. however
well meant. to accept the nomination, I gave an
interview on the same day TO reporter Of The
Evening Post in the hope that its publication
might induce Shepard TO decline the nomination.
did this because 1 was afraid he would over
look in his desire to reform the city govern
ment. the false position in which he would place
himself by abandoning the friends with whom
he had worked in the cause of reform and by
/ going over 10 the enemy, to assume position
| of leadership in the organization which he had
\ denounced for many years in language familiar
! to the public, and which therefore need not be
: recalled here. i did how he could AVOID
| the imputation of being untrue 10 himself and
| OF having been seduced by the temptation OF
J office in which doubtless he hoped 10 make
good record The question in nv mind was
not what Shepard could do with Croker, but
I what Croker would do with Shepard I knew
very well that croker, IN the desperate cOndtlon
+! IN which Tammany Hall was placed would Try
i to save himself from defeat by capturing. if he
! could the strongest ard ablesr man among his
opponents. What he wanted a popular
vindication for Tammany, and he willing
take the risk Of years OF obstruction from
the Mayor provided he could control the county
Offices and particularly the ofice of District
Attorney. which, as the law stands, is position
of far greater Importance 10 Tammany than
that of Mayor. Hence, in the interview. con-
sidering Shepard's record and Crokers object,
said that his hoEs only reply 70 the tender OF
dog that he shall do this thing? This un-
doubtedly was a strong expression. but I
thought, and still think as Shepard's friend.
that this the only course of action open to
him. and I regret that he did not take my ad-
vice Instead of doing So in his great speech at
Tammany Hall he justified his acceptance of
the nomination by my action in 1886, when
for Mayor against Henry George and Theo-
dore Roosevelt. He said: Il hope 70 be par
doned If l follow the Abram s. Hewitt of 1856.
TO whose labors for many years in with Tam
many Hall the Abram s Hewitt Of 1901 may
we'll look back, as do his fellow citizens. with
honorable satisfaction"
NO ANALOGY WITH 1886.
Foreseeing from remark made by Mr. Pea
body that Shepard might regard my acceptance
Of the nomination in 1856 as a precedent for his
acceptance. / pointed out very briefly in The
POST interview that there was no analogy be-
tween the political situation at this time and
teh state Of affairs in 1856. 1 supposed from
his familiarity with political history that
Shepard would himself make the distinction.
but, as a matter OF fact. his reply TO is
practically: You re another. He couples this
with the statement that for many years was
connected with Tammany Hall IN way which
ought 70 give me honorable satisfaction 7
confess was amazed and gTieved by this per
version OF the real facts or 1856. and, above all.
Of the facts of my connection with Tammary
Hall. which for nearly fifty years 1 had uni
formly opposed. except for a brief period OF
form under Tilden hereinafter referred to.
did feel called upon however, 20 pursue
the rnartar further and would not now do so
in view of my relations with Shepard If two
eminent members Of the bar. Mr.. Lewis Della
field and Mr.. Albert Stickney, had not each. IN
communications over their own signatures. re-
peated the erroneous statement of Mr.. Shepard
that the distinction between the two occasions
10 give an opinion without first becoming "a
miliar with the facts, and yet here are three
gentlemen having no SuperiOrS at the bar. con-
curing in a statement absolutely contrary to
the facts of the case and altogether misleading
as 70 my action I still waited in the eXpecta-
ton that one or the other of these gentlemen
would revise the Judgment which they had given
in ignorance of the circumstances Since Mr..
Bourke Cochran made his anti-Tammany speech
in defence Of Mr. Shepard at the meeting last
week in Carnegie Hall. over which Mr- Stickney
presided there has been no excuse for the fall
ure of these gentlemen 10 withdraw the state
ments which did injustice and deceived the
public Cochran made the following statement,
which extract from the report or his speech IN
The Times.
MIR Cochran next went into the history OF
Mr. Hewitts nomination for the mayoralty.
He called attention to the fact that IN 1855
there were three leading organizations in this
cfty-the Republicans. Tammany Hall and the
County Democracy. The two Democratic or
OF strength he said. The County Democracy
mad elected the Mayor in 1854. and controlled
every department. OF the city government In
the spring the Henry George movement took
shape and gathered such momentum that IL was
generaIIy believed that IL each OF the three or
gsutzations nominated separate tickets his cleo
tion would be certain. Many OF us believed
said the speaker, while we had the most pro-
found respect for Mr.. Georges ability and IN
tegrfty that the platform which he adopted
portended grave danger to the security of prop
erty and while IL Vas absolutely certain that
Tamnnany Hall. by indOrsing him. could
cure the election Of it's whole county ticket, vet.
in Difference TO what its leaders then believed
Pueblo only two nights fronl New-York by the