proving of the administration of Gov. Seward, and expressing the warmest gratitude for his services.

We observe that the veteran politician, Gen. Root, was in attendance as a delegate from the county of Del

aware.

The candidates on both sides were now fairly in the field, and the campaign was opened with great vigor.

ALVAN STEWART, a distinguished opponent to slavery, was the abolition candidate for governor. Heretofore the abolitionists had not acted as a political party, so far as in all cases to hold up candidates of their own. The course they had pursued was to interrogate the candidates nominated by the respective parties, and those of them who voted at all cast their votes for such candidates as answered most satisfactorily to them. But at a general convention lately held, that party resolved to nominate candidates of their own in all the towns, counties, and districts where there were any abolitionists.

It may be proper here to remark, that Mr. John C. Spencer, shortly before the election, visited his friends in this state; that it was understood that he was in favor of the democratic nominees for governor and lieutenantgovernor; and those in this state who claimed to be the friends of Mr. John Tyler generally voted with the democratic party.

The election resulted in the complete triumph of the democratic party in the state. There were 401,426 votes given for governor, of which William C. Bouck received 208,072, and Luther Bradish 186,091; thus leaving for Mr. Bouck a majority of more than twentyone thousand. Mr. Stewart received 7,263 votes. The

democrats succeeded in all the senate districts, except the eighth, and elected ninety-three members of the assembly.

John A. Lott was elected from the first senatorial district, in the place of Gabriel Furman; Abraham A. Deyo, from the second, in the place of Daniel Johnson; John C. Wright, from the third, in the place of Alonzo C. Paige; Thomas B. Mitchell and Sidney Lawrence, from the fourth, in the place of Bethuel Peck, and of John W. Taylor, resigned; Carlos P. Scovil, from the fifth, in the place of Joseph Clark; Calvin T. Chamberlain, from the sixth, in the place of Alvah Hunt; John Porter, from the seventh, in the place of Robert Nicholas; and Harvey Putnam, from the eighth, in the place of Henry Hawkins. Messrs. Hulburt from St. Lawrence, Hathaway from Chemung, McMurray and Jones from New York, and Leland from Steuben, were reelected.

Among the most distinguished new members which were returned, was Willis Hall, late attorney-general, who was elected by the whigs of Albany, and Edward Sanford, son of the late Chancellor Sanford, who was chosen by the democrats of the city of New York.

NOTE. After we had completed this chapter, we received from a gentleman from whom we had solicited information, a communication presenting his views of the proceedings of 1842. It is now too late, without great labor, to weave into this chapter the facts stated in the letter of our friend. But as the letter contains some interesting and important facts and suggestions not heretofore stated, we hope we shall be excused for inserting the whole of it. Its author was an active and efficient, though a young member of the assembly, during the year about which he writes, and is justly distinguished for his talents and private worth. It is proper to say, however, that he was and is a leader in that section of the democratic party we have denominated Hunkers, and therefore, although a gentlenian of great candor and unquestionable veracity, may possibly, in some

instances, view persons and events through a prejudiced medium. It is proper to add, that we have ventured to publish this letter without consulting the author.

"The democratic party regained its ascendency in the legislature of the state in the fall election of 1841. The senate was composed of 17 democrats and 15 whigs; the assembly of 95 democrats and 33 whigs. The assembly contained an unusual number of prominent men and experienced legislators. At that time I knew but little about the politics of the state, or of the relationship in which prominent men stood with respect to each other. Whatever private jealousies might have existed at that time, there was no defined or organized division in the democratic ranks. The party never stood upon stronger ground. The whigs were overthrown because they had lost the public confidence by their injudicious and extravagant policy. The only exhibition of partisan feeling in the democratic caucus was on the part of Mr. Flagg and others, in opposing the appointment of Mr. Beardsley to the office of attorney-general. This occasioned some feeling on the part of Mr. Beardsley's friends, as that gentleman was a member of the state cabinet with Mr. Flagg prior to 1837, and went out of office with him when the whigs obtained the political power of the No opposition was made to Mr. Flagg's reappointment; he was unanimously nominated in the democratic caucus on the first ballot. The following statement of the balloting for the other state officers shows there was no organized division in the democratic ranks, such organizations usually reducing the number of candidates for each office to two:

state.

"Thomas Farrington was elected State Treasurer over three competitors,

and Nathaniel Jones Surveyor-general, over six other candidates.

"The great measure of the session was Mr. Hoffman's bill in relation to the finances. The condition and policy of the state was discussed with great ability, principally by Mr. Hoffman, who was the leader of the house. The debates upon this subject will show the considerations which were involved in this discussion. Whatever obscurity there may be about the positions held by parties with regard to our internal improvements prior to this time, there was noue at this session. The democratic members were in favor of stopping the public works, and of imposing a tax to restore the state credit. The whigs were opposed to both of these propositions. They believed that they would be so unpopular that another political revolution would be produced. When the vote was taken in the committee of the whole, Mr. Hunt, a whig member, moved to amend the bill by inserting a provision for appropriations for the unfinished canals, and also to strike out that portion of the bill which provided for the imposition of a tax. These amendments were supported by all the whigs, and opposed by all the democrats. These amendments were substantially renewed in the senate by a whig member, and were rejected there by a similar party vote. The final vote on the bill in both houses was of the same party character. To the democratic party, therefore, belongs the credit of maintaining at this crisis the faith of the state, and of setting an example worthy of her position to other and defaulting states, by boldly stopping expenditures and imposing a tax upon the people. At the time this was regarded as a hazardous measure, and too much credit cannot be awarded to Mr. Hoffman for the ability and courage manifested by him in its support.

"Messrs. Hoffman, Flagg, Young, and Dix were opposed to the renomination of Mr. Bouck at the state convention which was to assemble in the autumn of that year at Syracuse. This opposition was freely expressed in conversation during the session of the legislature. When the convention assembled at Syracuse, it was found there was a decided majority for Mr. Bouck. In the election of 1840, he had run ahead of his ticket, which circumstance undoubtedly contributed to his strength in the state convention. The published proceedings of that body throw but little light upon the position of parties, as an informal and private meeting of the delegates was held, at which every thing was determined. There were some of the delegates who were in favor of nominating Mr. Wright at that time."