Mr. Crawford, if he received votes enough to carry him into the house, could not be elected, and that, in all human probability, if Mr. Clay could be one of these candidates, he would be elected. Hence it may be inferred, that the friends of Mr. Adams were really interested in favor of Crawford as against Clay. What surprised me, was, that Mr. Crawford's friends did not, under this aspect of the case, choose Clay electors. In this way, the state of New-York, and in truth, the Crawford party, would in fact have made the next president. It is probable, that before the contest terminated, more of personal feeling had mingled with the political struggle than a bystander would have been led to suppose.

On the 3d of November, Mr. Knower resigned his office as treasurer, and Abraham Keyser of Schoharie, was, before the adjournment of the legislature, appointed his suc

cessor.

Several new banks had, during the winter session, been chartered, among which was the Chemical Bank in NewYork. During the November session, a complaint was made that the passage of the bill for chartering this bank had been procured by corrupt means. An investigation was ordered, and a committee appointed with power to send for persons and papers. The evidence given before the committee afforded a most disgusting picture of the depravity of the members of the legislature, and indeed, I might say, of the degradation of human nature itself. The attempt to corrupt, and in fact, corruption itself, was not confined to any one party. It extended to individuals of all parties, and it is not improbable that the interest of members in these applications for moneyed incorporations had an effect on the political action of some of them. Mr. Caldwell, a witness, testified that he heard a senator say, "I am a Crawford man to-day, but unless the Chemical Bank passes I shall be a people's man to-morrow." In

short, it was evident that the foul and sickening scenes of 1812, had been re-enacted in 1824.

I will close the narrative of the proceedings of this year with a single reflection, which is, that it is very probable, if the friends of Mr. Crawford had, at the commencement of the session of 1824, either,

First. Openly and frankly declared their real views— that, in their judgment, it was essential for the preservation of the republican ascendancy in the nation that Mr. Crawford should be elected president; that to effect their object it was only necessary to retain the law as it then was, and had been ever since the adoption of the federal constitution: to wit, that the electors should be chosen by the legislature, and if an innovation was then attempted, to have frankly and honestly avowed the principles upon which they acted. Or,

Second. If they had come out, as perhaps they ought to have done, considering the circumstances and pledges under which many of them were elected, and declared themselves in favor of an electoral law, and such an electoral law as was in accordance with our usage and practice ever since the organization of the government, that is, that a plurality of votes should decide the election; if they had, in good faith, supported the enactment of such a law; if, after its passage, they had nominated, as they might have done, electors favorable to Mr. Crawford; and if then, in conducting the election, they had denounced every man who should oppose such nomination as a traitor to the republican party, I sincerely believe that the discipline of party, the charm of names, and the high character and real merit of Mr. Crawford, together with the horror which at that time was felt, whenever Clintonianism or federalism was mentioned, would have ensured a triumph to the Crawford party.

If I am right in these conjectures, they furnish additional evidence that, in public as well as in private transactions, ultimate success is most effectually secured by frankness and candor; and that, in politics, as well as in private dealings between man and man, "honesty is the best policy."

CHAPTER XXXI.

FROM JANUARY 1, 1825, TO JANUARY 1, 1826.

Ir would, perhaps, have been more according to my general plan of conducting these sketches, before I closed the last chapter, to have given some account of the passage of three acts which partook of a party character, during the November session of the legislature.

Although there was a majority of that legislature who were opposed to that class of politicians who were called the Albany Regency party, yet a very considerable majority of the members in both houses were opposed to Mr. Clinton and desirous of restricting his power and patronage. This will account for the legislative action which took place at the extra session, at a moment when the regency knew that the control over two branches of the government-the assembly and the executive department—was about to pass out of their hands.

As a sort of excuse for not passing an electoral law, and as if they were uncertain what the details of such a law ought to be, they passed a bill directing that, at the next annual election the inspectors of the several polls should provide three boxes, in one of which each voter might deposite a ballot, on which should be written " By Districts," or "By general ticket, plurality," or " By general ticket, majority;" and that the result of this voting should be certified to the legislature at their first meeting in 1826, by the secretary of state.

They were sensible that there would be soon an absolute necessity of revising the statutes of the state, with a view, among other things, of better adapting them to the new constitution. This subject, it will be remembered,

time to attend to it until Not wishing to leave the

had been repeatedly urged upon the legislature by Gov. Yates, but they could never find after the election in November. appointment of the revisers to their successors, before their adjournment, they passed a law appointing James Kent, Erastus Root and Benjamin F. Butler, revisers of the laws of New-York, for which each of the gentlemen were to be allowed one thousand dollars.

But the most important act which they passed was contained in one short section, and was in the following words: "All civil officers who now are or hereafter shall be duly commissioned, and shall have taken upon themselves the duties of their respective offices, shall continue to execute the duties of their respective offices, notwithstanding the expiration of the time for which they shall have been appointed, until a successor to such offices respectively shall be duly commissioned, and shall take upon themselves the duties of such offices respectively." This was one of the last acts passed on the last day of the session. By this law, if it is constitutional, of which there are some doubts, the senate, in all cases, would have the right of choosing between the person nominated by the governor, and the incumbent. It is hardly necessary to add, that ninety-nine hundredths of those in office were the political friends of the majority of the senate. Although, as I have remarked, the constitutionality of this act has been doubted; and although this statute, which continues to be in force, was evidently passed from party motives, and to meet the exigency which then existed; as there seems to be a necessity for some such provision, and as such an arrangement will naturally be agreeable to the party in power, I doubt whether it will ever be repealed.

Nearly all those members of the legislature of 1825, who belonged to the people's party, were politically hostile to Mr. Clinton, and many of them were personally so.