CHAPTER XXXII.

FROM JANUARY 1, 1826, TO JANUARY 1, 1827

THE legislature met on the third day of January. At the usual caucus of the democratic members of the assembly on the evening preceding, Col. Young was nominated for speaker. From what took place the next morning, it is probable that Stephen Allen, a worthy and highly respectable member from the city of New-York, was supported in caucus in opposition to Mr. Young. My impression is, that the New-York members and some of the more ardent friends of the state road, advocated his nomination. He was, however, out-voted by the friends of Mr. Young. In the morning, when the house assembled, Mr. Allen having probably received an intimation that the Clintonians intended to vote for him as speaker, stated that he had been informed he was considered a candidate for speaker, and that some gentlemen had prepared ballots for him; but he was desirous to have it understood, if such was the fact, that it was without his consent. On being inquired of whether he would serve if elected, he replied that his "inclination was averse to it." The house then proceeded to a ballot, when Samuel Young had sixtyfive votes-Allen fifty-four, and there were three blanks. Edward Livingston was chosen clerk by a vote of sixtysix to fifty-five. The vote on the question of speaker probably shows nearly the relative strength of parties in the house.

This assembly contained considerable talent. Of the Clintonian portion of that body, Francis Granger of Ontario, Theodore Till of Oneida, Aaron Vanderpool, of Columbia, and Samuel S. Lush of Albany, were among

the most prominent. Mr. Granger had commenced his career in public life as a member of the last assembly, and he began now to discover those talents and that peculiar tact and address by which he was subsequently so much. distinguished.

On the other hand, Young, Root, Allen, Beardsley from Otsego, Woodcock from Tompkins, Cowles from Putnam, and Bucklin from Jefferson, were among the most talented and efficient of the democratic members. Mr. Woodcock had been a member of congress, but Beardsley, Cowles and Bucklin had never before been members of a legislative body.

The governor's message was well written, but too long, though not so faulty in that respect as most of his other messages. Among other matters urged upon the legislature, was the necessity of further improvements in our common school system; and he recommended the establishment of seminaries for the especial purpose of instructing and fitting persons to become teachers of common schools. He also repeated his recommendation in favor of the construction, at the public expense, of a state road through the south-western tier of counties. These were the only new measures which he specifically recommended. He concluded with an earnest exhortation of an "union of all heads, all hearts and all hands," in efforts to advance the interest of our common country.

Early in the session a bill providing for the election of a senator of the United States was introduced into the senate. The bill as drawn did not change the mode of proceeding in the choice as then by law established.

Mr. Ogden offered an amendment, which directed that the two houses, instead of openly nominating, should by resolution respectively appoint, such person for senator as they thought proper; that they should then meet and compare resolutions, and if the resolutions agreed, the person

N

named therein should be declared duly elected; if the two houses differed in their resolutions, then they were to elect by joint ballot. This did not, in substance, vary the law as it then was, but even this alteration, slight as it was, was rejected by a vote of sixteen to fourteen. Mr. Wright and others, who had the preceeding winter voted for the appointment of Tallmadge and Tracy by joint resolution, now voting in the negative. Strange, that in 1825 the position was a sound one, that the senate ought to possess equal power with the assembly, in case of a disagreement as to the person who ought to be elected United States senator, and that in 1826 the same position should be wrong. I have mentioned particularly Mr. Wright as being involved in this absurdity, because he has ever since been in the public service, and has occupied, and now occupies, a distinguished and elevated standing as a man of talents and an able statesman. But in justice to him, it ought to be remarked, as I have somewhere before done, that he was then a young man, inexperienced in legislation, and that, although on the occasion to which I have referred, his conduct appears to have been disingenuous, he has, during many years of service as a senator of the United States, given proofs, not only of talent of the highest order, but, to say the least, of consistency and fearlessness as a legislator.

A feeble attempt was made, by the friends of Mr. Albert H. Tracy, in some of the western papers, again to support him as a candidate for the United States senate. But Mr. Tracy must have soon discovered that those gentlemen who manifested a disposition friendly to his election when his name could be used to aid in the defeat of Chief Justice Spencer, had no inclination to sustain him after that object had been accomplished.

Nathan Sanford, who was then chancellor, was nominated by a legislative caucus, and, after receiving that

nomination, resigned his office as chancellor; and he was thereupon immediately elected as the successor of Rufus King, by nearly an unanimous vote of both houses of the legislature.

Mr. Van Buren, and several others, leading men of the old Crawford party at Washington, had, by this time, come to the conclusion to support Gen. Jackson for the next presidency in opposition to Mr. Adams. The strong popular vote which, in despite of the efforts of the Adams, Clay and Crawford parties, the general had received at the last election, probably had much effect in inducing them to come to this conclusion. It furnished, ready formed, a large capital which the Crawford party saw they could add to their own, simply by consenting to receive it. They knew too, that the chivalric bravery of General Jackson, his brilliant success in the late war, and the many popular and fascinating points in his character, would, when supported by such a compact, disciplined association as was the Crawford party in many of the states of the Union, render this extraordinary man irresistble as a candidate before the people. If he was not a learned lawyer and civilian, he was at any rate a man of a clear discriminating mind, and if he was subject to rashness and precipitancy, they thought they could surround him with friends and advisers who would keep him within due bounds. True, the Crawford men in this state had, in 1824 and 1825, manifested the utmost horror at the least prospect of his election, and Mr. Crawford himself was known to have expressed very unfavorable opinions of him, but a better knowledge of the man, and above all, a kind of political necessity, had materially changed their views.

This determination induced Mr. Van Buren and his confidential friends at Albany, to persevere in cultivating a good understanding with Mr. Clinton. Interviews were

had between the friends of Mr. Van Buren and the governor. Suggestions were made, that if the democratic party could be brought to consent to it, no opposition candidate would be supported against Mr. Clinton at the next gubernatorial election. Mr. Benjamin Knower, the late treasurer, of whose character for discernment and sagacity I have before spoken, was the principal agent of the Crawford party in carrying on these negotiations. Nothing decisive, however, could be settled for this obvious reason. Mr. Knower, although he could stipulate for Mr. Van Buren, Comptroller Marcy, &c., could not engage for the majority of his party, among whom very strong prejudices still existed against Mr. Clinton; nor could the governor, however conscious he might be of the continued confidence and esteem of his old political friends, stipulate that they would support Gen. Jackson, at least three-fourths of whom, it was pretty well known, were inclined to sustain Mr. Adams and his administration.

While such was the situation of the prominent partizans of the day, the office of chancellor became vacant. Samuel Jones, an eminent lawyer, son of the old comptroller of the same name, was a relative (a cousin, I believe) to the present Mrs. Clinton. The governor immediately fixed upon him as the successor of Mr. Sanford, and he forthwith nominated him to the senate. Mr. Jones had been an old and uniform federalist during all the phases which political parties had assumed, for a quarter of a century past in the state of New-York. The senate, nevertheless, under the advice of Mr. Van Buren's friends, without a moment's delay, and, as I believe, without the usual formality of a reference to a committee, confirmed the nomination. This prompt acquiescence in the appointment of his friend by the Van Buren party in the senate, produced a very strong impression on the mind of Mr. Clinton.