ballot. They therefore ought not to have concurred, even if they could have done so consistently with a law passed by all the departments which constitute the lawmaking power. Every part of this transaction is in our judgment entirely without justification; and it furnishes another instance where the devotion of Mr. Wright to his party, and his rigid adherence to the rule of regulating his own conduct, on questions of a purely party character, by the determination of the majority of his political friends, led him into error. No United States senator was chosen during that session.

Governor Clinton, in his message at the commencement of the session, had recommended the passage of a law authorizing the people of the state to choose, by general ticket, and by a plurality of votes, electors for president and vice-president. In the senate this part of the message was referred by order of the president to Messrs. Ogden, Cramer, and Lake. Mr. Ogden soon after, as chairman of this committee, made a report against the election of electors by general ticket, accompanied with a bill providing that each congressional district should choose one elector, and that the electors when thus chosen should assemble and choose two electors for the state. An ineffectual effort was made by Mr. Crary to amend this bill in such a manner that the electors should be chosen by general ticket. The bill finally passed, every member of the senate then present voting in favor of it, and was sent to the assembly, where it was so amended as to submit to the people at the next annual election, whether the election of electors should be by general ticket, or by districts. At the election, a majority of votes was given for the district system, and in 1828, the election of electors was by districts. It will be

recollected that the death of Mr. Clinton occurred in that year, and that Mr. Van Buren, in Nov. 1828, was elected governor. In his first and only message, Mr. Van Buren recommended the repeal of the law providing for the choice of electors by districts, which we have seen was enacted the by legislature in obedience to the fiat of the people expressed at the polls of the election, and the passage of a law requiring the presidential electors to be chosen by general ticket and by a plurality of votes. His recommendation was promptly adopted by both houses of the legislature, and a law passed in conformity with it. The Van Buren party at that period was surely a bold and adventurous party. When Mr. Crawford was a candidate for the presidency, they successfully opposed giving to the people the right of choosing presidential electors; in 1825, the same party advocated the choice of electors by single congressional districts, and in this they were supported by a large majority of the people, speaking through the ballot-boxes; and at the earliest moment after the death of Mr. Clinton, which explains the whole matter, that same party having a majority in both houses of the legislature, without a reference to the people who had a short time before declared in favor of the district system, abolished that system, and established, by a law of their own making, the general-ticket system, which had been recommended by Mr. Clinton, and which, by their votes, they had condemned. We are free to say, that in our opinion, the law recommended by Mr. Van Buren was right; but if so, the bill reported by Mr. Ogden, and which received a unanimous vote in the senate, was wrong.

We gladly turn from these sinister maneuverings of partisan politicians to a great question of principle, which

engaged the attention of the legislature of 1825, and in which Mr. Wright acted a part highly honorable to his memory.

At the commencement of the session, numerous appli cations were presented, both to the senate and assembly, for bank charters. At that time, it will be recollected that the restraining law was in force in all its rigor, and the chartered banks virtually held the exclusive right of coining money. Hence bank charters were of great value, and eagerly sought after. But under the constitution of 1821, no charter could be granted without the concur rence of two-thirds of the members of the legislature. elected to each house. This required powerful combinations in order to obtain a charter for any moneyed institu tion. Mr. Wright viewed with abhorrence the grant of these exclusive privileges.

On the eighth day of January the comptroller, in obedience to a resolution moved by Mr. J. C. Spencer, reported that there were then forty-two incorporated banking institutions in the state of New York, having the right to employ in their business a capital of $28,900,000. Notwithstanding this great number of banks already chartered, the legislature had not been in session but a few days, before there were applications for chartering between thirty and forty new banks. Mr. Wright had by this time acquired a powerful influence in the senate, a fact which was well known to the public, and especially to the shrewd and sagacious agents for procuring bank charters. Hence the pressure brought upon him must have been very great. Whatever could tempt the ambition, or grat ify the cupidity, or minister to the vanity of man, must have been either directly or indirectly exhibited to him, in the hope of gaining his support. But vain were all

such efforts. He took a firm stand against the extension of exclusive privileges, and maintained it resolutely and sternly, maugre the blandishments of political or personal friends and the threats of opponents. During that session sixteen bank charters passed the assembly, and fourteen were originally introduced into the senate, which passed to a third reading. The greater part of these failed of obtaining a constitutional vote in the senate; and we have no doubt that that failure was in most cases produced by the personal efforts and influence of Mr. Wright. After a careful examination of the senate journal of the session of 1825, we have been unable to find that in a single instance Mr. Wright voted in favor of chartering a bank.*

* To show with what painful anxiety this combination of bank applicants bore on the mind of Mr. Wright, we beg leave to relate an anecdote communicated to the author by a gentleman who lodged in the same room with Mr. Wright, during the winter of 1825. Mr. Wright was occasionally subject to restless nights, or rather his sleep was sometimes unquiet. One night which succeeded a day when some of the bank bills had been discussed in the senate, after Mr. W. had been asleep for some time, he sprang from his bed to the floor, being still asleep, and exclaimed with a loud voice, "My God! the combination is too strong-every bank will pass!" When he awoke it was with great difficulty that his nervous system could be so far quieted as to enable him to obtain any more rest during that night.

5

CHAPTER IV.

Result of the Election in November, 1825-Mr. Wright's Influence in the Senate His Manner of discussing Questions-Case of Jasper WardMr. Wright's Report thereon-He is elected a member of Congress in November, 1826.

THE election in November, 1825, resulted in the return of a majority of members to the assembly who were the regular nominees of the democratic party in the respective counties from which they came, and who were politically opposed to the governor. This result, although unexpected, might have been anticipated by the Clintonians, had they reflected coolly and deliberately on the then existing state of things. The party which was so successful at the preceding election, was composed of such heterogeneous materials, that union of action among them was impossible; while the greater part of the real friends of Gov. Clinton were so sure of their strength, and so confident of success, sustained as they were by the weight of character and popularity of the governor, that they relaxed in their vigilance and in their efforts. Gen. Root was elected to the assembly from Delaware, and Co. Young, who, at the meeting of the legislature, was made speaker, was elected from the county of Saratoga.

Mr. Wright continued his constant attendance in the senate, devoting himself diligently and laboriously to legislative business. His influence there daily increased. He took an active part in all the discussions of that body;