New-York tribune., 1903-10-04
MR.. CUTTINGS LETTER.
Continued from, first page.

price of electng fusion candidates for Controller
and President Of the Board OF Aldermen TO Sc
cure his Mayor, and he can well afford to do so.
You characterize the srti-Tammanv issue as
newer proposition. but il is the proposition OF
1901 which was reaffirmed by the fusion of
1903 At the meeting Of the fusion conference
on September ]. 1%t5, the following resolution
was unanimously passed
Resolved. That We the parties 10 fusion
IN 1903. hereby reassert the pledges of the last
municipal campaign and declare our unalter-
abe discrimination to deliver the city perna-
nently from the ecandalous misgovernment Of
Tammany Hall
The first Of these pledges adopted by the
fusion conference OF 1901. and above referred
to- WAS IN the following words:
-'First-To oppose every candidate who shall
accept q nomination from Tammany Hall"
II is true that this years resolution was
in the evening OF September /, when you
were or the ocean. and IL may have escaped
of course. have been familiar with the pledges
of 1901.
Your attitude upon this position Of the fu-
sion Increment, as described in your letter. is
not sufficiently definite. Indeed you seem TO
imply that the antagonisra 70 Tammany Hall.
which you so forcibly expressed In 1901. has
sensibly diminished The fusionists have pub
licly repeated the declaration and pledges of
two years ago. Under these circumstances,
the gap which now stretches between the Citi-
zens' Union and yourself is too wide 70 be
bri--ged.
Permit me now 20 correct the statement in
your letter relative TO your notification OF
nomination. You say your organization has
renorninate ne because il approved Of my
record; with fun knowledge that ] would ac-
cept any unsought and unconditional In
dorsement il has notified me Vt its action"
This is not the case. Our nominating conven-
ton was held on the evening of September
%. at vhich time no delegate had the slight
est intimation that you would receive the
nomination from Tammany Hall Surely you
cannot imagine for one instant that the Citi-
zens Union convention would ever have noni-
nst ted you had you written your letter of Oc-
tober ] before their convention and had they
known you then they know you now. The
committee that waited upon you at Mayor
Lows house last Monday afternoon had abso-
lutely power to withhold the invitation
which the convention had previously directed
them 10 present 90 you.
In closing. let say that while our con-
Tertion. which has beer called 10 meet next
Wednesday night, is the only body that has
any authority to deal With the present situa-
ton. l have read this letter TO the City Com
posed Of two representatives Of each one of
the sixty Assembly districts Of the city and
Of thirty delegates AT large, and II has been
approved by that BODY:
Charles Y. Forlles
IVY Dear Sir. The city committee Of the Citi-
zens Union has directed me to inform you that
YOUR letter TO me Of the 1st inst. was not, In
Us opinion sufficiently explicit in defining your
attitude toward the existing management Of
Tamnanv Hall and its candidate for the may
oraltv Under the circumstances the committee
is of opinion that your acceptance OF the nom
ination Of Tammanv Hall makes II impossible
for the Union to nreeent YOU to the electorate
as one Of its candidates for Office. The conver-
ton is the only body that has power to act in
this matter and ii has heen called 10 meet on
the evening Of October a.