A REVIEW AND EXPOSITION, OF THE FALSEHOODS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS, OF A PAMPHLET ADDRESSED TO THE REPUBLICANS OF THE COUNTY OF SARATOGA,

SIGNED, "A CITIZEN;"

PRINTED BY "ULYSSES F. DOUBLEDAY."

BY AN ELECTOR.

BALLSTON SPA: March 1816.



TO THE REPUBLICANS OF THE COUNTY OF SARATOGA.



Fellow-Citizens.

The pamphlet signed "A Citizen," and entitled "A defence," &c. generally known by the name of "The Book," has at length made its appearance; and as was expected, this last effort of an expiring faction, has excited no other emotions in the mind of an enlightened public, than those of contempt and pity—Contempt for the miserable arts of condign despair, and pity like that excited by an object in the agonies of dissolution, or a maniac dancing in his chains. This production should have been left to the oblivion which inevitably awaits it, nor should my pen have been employed in its detection and exposure, had it not been characterized by the lowest attempts at concealment and treachery, falsehood and detraction.—Like Iago in the play, a wretched abandonment of character, a destitution of principle, and a fiend-like thirst for revenge, accompany the author thro' the whole of his progress, and appear to acquire additional force, as he approaches the period of his downfall. That it is a tissue, however, which it requires no strength to burst, will appear by the examination of a single point on which the whole of the story is made to rest. If the ridiculous charge made against two or three individuals that they had cheated Mr. Young out of his nomination, turns out to be the mere phantom of a disordered imagination, instead of a logical deduction of truth, if the facts which have been urged in support of this charge, are the mere creatures of misrepresentation, prevarication and falsehood; this alone will settle the controversy, and fix the imputation, upon its unprincipled authors. The loop on which this absurd tale is made to hang, is the frail and feeble certificate of Ketcham, Gardner and Cowles. That I should be authorised to apply an epithet more severe than that of frail and feeble, I take it upon me to prove in the first place by the certificate itself, compared with one which the same men issued last spring: And in the next place by a plain statement of facts, given under the solemnity of an oath, leaving it at present for atheists and blasphemers, (for I am sure none others will) to ascribe greater moral certainty to a certificate carrying on the face of it miserable evasion, than to a history sanctioned by an appeal to the Christians God.

That this certificate is both suspicious and evasive, I appeal to the pamphlet page 27. Why do they not tell their fellow-citizens, that they did not collectively or individually during that session charge Young with ill-treatment towards them? Would not this have been perfectly easy if true? Why do they blink the question, and tell a long story about a conversation which they held with Mr. Bunce, which whether it was true or untrue, is totally immaterial? What do they mean in a later stage of their certificate, by the unsuspecting and unguarded conversation, they had held with Mr. Bunce, and which they were afraid he would make mischief of? Do they call the conversation which they detail an unguarded one? Or was it some other conversation and conversations which shall be proved upon them? Instead of saying that they expressed no opinion to Bunce that "Young ought not again to be nominated," why do they not tell us, whether they or either of them expressed any opinion to Bunce, or any other person, against his nomination the then next spring? In Mr. Kasson's letter (p. 33) it appears they told him that "Bunce and another gentleman" called on them, with whom they held a conversation; whereas the one given in their recent certificate is confined exclusively to Bunce. Read also the following certificate of these men, which they gave to the public last spring; in which they admit some other conversation which they call a free and unreserved conversation, and protest against the "treacherous perversion" of it.

"To the Citizens of the county of Saratoga."

"Having heard that a private conversation of ours has been represented to our Fellow Citizens in a light unfavorable to the character of Samuel Young, Esq. and has been used to his prejudice, in the estimation of his constituents.—We discharge a duty grateful to our individual feelings, due to the feelings and character of a highly useful, able, faithful and industrious Member of Assembly, and due to our county, to express our pointed indignation against the treacherous perversion of the spirit of a free and unreserved conversation by stating to our fellow citizens, that we have always lived in the most perfect harmony with Mr. Young, have had with him on all legislative business the most cordial co-operation and concert: that his uniform deportment towards us has been friendly and decorous, and that we never gave an intimation of any wish or opinion against his renomination to the Assembly.—HOWEL GARDNER, RICHARD KETCHUM, BENJAMIN COWLES. Albany, April 17, 1815."[1]

Whatever name these gentlemen, may have given to their conversations, some times calling them unsuspecting and unguarded, and sometimes free and unreserved, in order to determine their nature and place them in a clear light, I shall now go on to shew the public what they did say, and not stop to quarrel about names so long as I am sure that public will be content with the things themselves. I challenge incredulity itself after reading the following affidavits and statements, to doubt one moment on the subject.

"Isaiah Bunce & Thomas Palmer being duly sworn, say, that they were at Albany in the early part of the late session of the Legislature, and put up at the house where the Delegates of the county of Saratoga quartered. That they and three of the Delegates from said county, viz. Messrs. Ketcham, Gardner and Cowles, conversed freely with each other on various political subjects, and in one conversation they had with these said Members, they told these Deponents, that they had not been well treated by their colleague Mr. Young—spoke freely of their unpleasant situation, owing to that treatment, mentioning a number of instances illustrating the same, both in the fall session and the then session of the Legislature.

"And these deponents further say, that they the said Ketcham, Gardner and Cowles, did in that conversation, decidedly express their opinion that the said Young ought not to represent this county again in the next session—at the same time signifying that they had no wish, that the talents of Mr. Young should be lost to the county, but believed it would be for his benefit, should he not be elected the ensuing session—or language to that import.

"And these deponents further say, that this conversation took place while it was generally believed and expected, and so expressed by the said Ketcham, Cowles and Gardner in particular, that Mr. Young would in a day or two, be appointed Secretary of the State of New-York.—ISAIAH BUNCE, THOMAS PALMER. Sworn the 5th day of May, in the Year 1815, before me SAMUEL COOK, Master in Chancery."

"John Dunning being sworn saith, That in March last, He went to Albany and there saw Benjamin Cowles Esq. one of the Delegates from Saratoga, who told this deponent, that Samuel Young Esq. had treated the Members of this county with neglect, that their situation owing to the treatment they had received from him was very disagreeable, or words to that amount—mentioning instances of that neglect &c.

"And this deponent further saith, That on his return from Albany, he overtook Richard Ketchum Esq. then going to visit his family in Stillwater—that he conversed with the said Ketchum, on the subject of Mr. Young's treatment to them, who informed this deponent the same as Mr. Cowles had done, and related several circumstances confirming the same.—JOHN DUNNING. Subscribed and sworn before me, Philo T. Beebe, one of the Justices of the Peace in Malta, County of Saratoga, the 4th day of May 1815_. PHILO T. BEEBE, _Justice of the Peace_.

"Amos Allcott being sworn saith, that Messrs. Ketchum, Gardner and Cowles, three of the Delegates from the county of Saratoga, some time in March last, when at Albany, told this Deponent, that they had been ill-treated, or not well treated by Samuel Young Esq. their colleague—and expressed their opinion and wishes fully, that some other person than he, should the next session represent this county in Assembly. Mr. Ketchum in presence of the other two, said he had made up his mind fully in favor of George Palmer, Esq. or Esek Cowen Esq. being the man, to which the other two appeared to assent.—Mr. Gardner however remarked, that some said Mr. Young might be sufficiently, mortified by not being appointed Secretary of State.—AMOS ALLCOTT. Sworn the 5th day of May, in the Year 1815, before me SAMUEL COOK Master in Chancery."

"Lewis B. Edwards being sworn saith, That a few days after Mr. Bunce and Palmer returned from Albany—Mr. Gardner Member of Assembly, called at the office of the Saratoga Journal, on his way home to see his family, and told Mr. Bunce among other things, that Mr. Young had lost the Office of Secretary of State, and that Mr. Porter was appointed. And further remarked, 'it may be best to suspend the thing we talked of, his loosing that may humble him enough, pride will have a all'—or words to that import.

"And this Deponent further saith, That about a fortnight after this, Mr. Cowles one of the other Members of Assembly, called at the Office on his return from Hadley to the Legislature, and on Mr. Bunce, asking him whether Mr. Young had treated them any better since his disappointment, he replied he had not—and that Mr. Young had never yet even asked them to walk to the House with him or words to that effect. On the said Bunces enquiry whether he had mentioned the subject to any of his friends while at home—he replied that he intended to have done so to Esq. Rockwell, but he had missed of him returning from Albany. Mr. Rockwell, as appeared having gone to Albany while Mr. Cowles was going to Hadley.—LEWIS B. EDWARDS. Sworn the fifth day of May, in the year 1815, before me SAMUEL COOK, Master in Chancery."

It is here proper to remark, that on the 18th of April, the day of the McBain meeting; Judge Child, recommended that no publication he made on either side, and that after election a meeting should take place between the members and Messrs. Bunce and Palmer, and endeavor to come to an amicable explanation. Mr. Stillwell, will well remember, that two days afterwards he called on Mr. Palmer, with a message from Judge Child, requesting him, "by all means not to publish any thing during the election, relative to the conversation with the members," to which Mr. Palmer readily assented. Notwithstanding which, the next day the certificate of the members, were brought to the Federal Printing Office, and several hundred copies struck off, with the knowledge of Mr. Stillwell, who then kept his office within a few rods of the Federal Press. Yet no contrary statements were published during the election, nor until after two or three weeks had expired after the time set by Mr. Cowles, for the members to meet Messrs. Bunce and Palmer. The members were requested by several Republicans to meet; they were finally publicly invited in the Journal, but contrary to the expectations and wishes of a great portion of the Republicans of the County, they did not come forward; and the above affidavits were published. And here the controversy on this point might have ended; but it seems the members, or rather the 'Citizen,' was not satisfied, and he procures another certificate from them, which may be seen in page 27 28 and 29 of that pamphlet. Compare their two statements—examine the above affidavits again—read the following certificates, and judge for yourselves.

"I hereby certify, that I met Benjamin Cowles, Esq. at Jones' Inn in Halfmoon, on his return home from the Legislature, on the 20th of April last, two days after the McBain meeting, and we there conversed together on the subject of the conversation he Messrs. Ketchum and Gardner, had with Messrs. Bunce and Palmer, in Albany, (where it was alleged that they Ketchum, Cowles and Gardner, had complained of vanity, neglect and ill-treatment of Mr. Young.) That I expressed my surplice to Mr. Cowles, that he, (Cowles) Ketchum and Gardner should lend their names to an instrument denying the conversation above alluded to, when he Cowles, Ketchum and Gardner, knew they had not only complained to Bunce and Palmer, but to myself and others. To which he answered, that the certificate given by them was not given meaning to deny any thing that had been said as respected ill-treatment, &c. of Mr. Young, but only to re-but other things which the gentlemen who called for the certificate, (among whom were James Thompson, Esq.) represented to have been said. On which I suggested the propriety of his calling on Bunce and Palmer, at the Springs; and immediately getting his colleagues to meet them, and have the thing explained, and prevent improper use being made of their certificate; to which preposition he, after expressing his regret that it had become public, cordially acceded. I then parted with him on my way to New-York.—AMOS ALLCOTT, Ballston Spa, March 1816."

"I certify, that Mr. Cowles did on that day, (20th April) call on Mr. Bunce as mentioned in the above certificate of Mr. Allcott he had agreed to do, and after some conversation on the subject, in which he admitted that he, Gardner and Ketchum, had complained of Young's ill treatment and haughtiness to them, and their expressing their opinion against his being nominated as a candidate for that election &c. he strongly solicited Mr. Bunce to have nothing published in his paper on the subject, till he could go and see his colleagues, Mr. Gardner and Ketchum, and get them to meet and have the affair explained and reconciled, which he said he would at all events endeavor to do before the next paper should come out, [this being Thursday, and the paper not to appear before the next Wednesday,] that he was then in a great hurry, and must get home that night, but he would make it his business to immediately attend to it; to which proposition Mr. Bunce readily agreed, and promised Mr. Cowles accordingly. This conversation was in the office of the Saratoga Journal, in the room in which I was at work. The next day however, information was brought to Mr. Bunce in the office, that the certificate of the said Cowles, Gardner and Ketchum, denying the conversation relative to Mr. Young, was then striking off at Mr. Comstock's Office in this place, and shortly after a printed copy was brought into the office.— LEWIS B. EDWARDS. Ballston Spa, March 1816."

"I certify, that shortly after the rising of the Legislature, I saw Benjamin Cowles, Esq. in the village of Ballston Spa, on his way home; And in a conversation with him relative to the reports respecting Mr. Young, I asked him whether he had not told Mr. Bunce and Palmer, 'that Mr. Young had treated his colleagues with neglect, and that his treatment towards them was haughty and reserved,' to which Mr. Cowles answered in the affirmative. I further asked him if he did not tell Mr. Palmer and Bunce, 'that he was convinced of Mr. Young's vanity, previous to his being in the Legislature with him,' and state as an example 'that while they were Supervisors, they were appointed a committee to arrange or make out an account, for the board of Supervisors, and that he the said Benjamin Cowles, Esq. made out the account himself and delivered it to Mr. Y. who copied and presented it to the board of Supervisors, and claimed the credit of it himself.' To all of which Mr. Cowles answered in the affirmative, and expressed a wish that Mr. B. and P. would not publish any thing concerning the conversation, as he was anxious to see Messrs. Gardner and Ketchum, and have the affair reconciled. He further stated that he did not think that the certificate given by Mr. Ketchum, Gardner and himself, to Jas. Thompson; Esq. did deny the conversation with Bunce and Palmer.—A.W. ODELL. Ballston Spa, March, 1816."

"I certify that some time in the month of February 1815, Benjamin Cowles, Esq. came home from the Legislature on a visit, that I saw Mr. Cowles at Ensign's Inn, in the town of Hadley, in which town we both reside; and that we then and there entered into a conversation concerning Mr. Young, and that Mr. Cowles intimated to me that Mr. Young's treatment was haughty towards the members, and said that he was disappointed in his expectations in the treatment he received from Mr. Young, and he further told me that he thought it would be as well to send some other man to the Legislature the then ensuing year.

"I further certify, that some time in the fall of 1815, I had another conversation with the said Benjamin Cowles, Esq. on the subject of the affidavits that had been published, relative to the conversation said to have passed between Isaiah Bunce and Thomas Palmer, and the members in Albany; and that during that conversation he did not contradict the statements published, but gave me to understand that the same were true, and intimated that he had inconsiderately signed the certificate published during the election.

"I further certify, that Mr. Cowles was the first person, who informed me of the ill-treatment the members had received from Mr. Young, and that it would be as well to send some other person to the Legislature the ensuing year.—BARRY FENTON. Hadley, March 1816."

"I, Jacob Thorn, of Galway, in the county of Saratoga; do certify, that shortly after the affidavits of Messrs. Bunce, Palmer, Allcott, Dunning and Edwards, were published, relative to the conversation they had with Messrs. Ketcham, Gardner and Cowles in Albany; I had a conversation with Mr. Ketcham in Stillwater, relative to the affidavits published. I told him if the affidavits were not true, he ought to contradict them. He replied, that his friends advised him to say nothing about it. I enquired of him the meaning of those affidavits—-and whether the facts therein stated were true—to which the said Ketcham answered, that they were true—but said he did not expect it would have been made public.—JACOB THORN."

"I certify, that some time in the month of March 1815, I went to Albany on business, and called at the house where the members of this county resided; found Messrs. Gardner, Ketcham and Cowles, and made my business known. Mr. Cowles said he would call and see me at my lodgings. Accordingly he did; told me it was not according to his wish, that what I had to offer in the business could not be complied with. I then asked where Mr. Young quartered? He said he would tell me; on the way, Mr. Cowles said there had been a coldness between the Speaker of the House, and the members from this County, since he became speaker and expected to be Secretary of State, and on that account declined going.—JONATHAN KELLOGG. Northumberland, April 8th 1816."

"I hereby solemnly certify, that some time in the month of February, 1815, (and I believe in the early part of it,) in a conversation Col. John Prior had with me just after his return from Albany, on the subject of candidates for the then approaching election; he the said Prior remarked, that 'Mr. Young was not so popular as he had been.' On my asking him why, he replied, 'for his ill treatment to his colleagues, having grown haughty, &c.' This I understood him to have received directly from the said members, Messrs. Gardner, Cowles and Ketcham. In the spring of the same year, after Messrs. Palmer and Bunce had made known similar complaints, that the said three members had made to them of Young's treatment, I had another conversation with the said Prior on the subject, in which he the said Prior intimated, 'he did not believe the said members had told the said Palmer and Bunce what they had pretended.' I then asked him, if the members were not as likely to tell them of it, as himself, and repeated to the said Prior what he had told me in the winter, of the members having made the same complaint to him, which the said Prior did not pretend to deny as having heard from the members, nor having told me the same.—JOSEPH MITCHEL. Dated, Greenfield, March 15, 1815."

"I hereby certify, that in the early part of the winter past, I had a conversation with Isaac Myers of Stillwater, relative to the conduct of Richard Ketcham, late a member of the Legislature; when he the said Myers told me that he knew the said Ketcham had contradicted himself, relative to what he had said of Mr. Young; that previous to the McBain meeting, Ketcham had denied to him, ever saying any thing against Young, or complaining of his treatment; but that afterwards he had owned to several in his presence, that he had spoken against Young, &c.—ASA B. JEWEL. Saratoga, March 25th 1816."

Other affidavits and statements might be produced to the same effect but twelve or fourteen different conversations, at different times, and, in presence of different men are already proved upon them, all importing explicitly that Mr. Young had ill-treated or neglected them—and shewing a desire on their part that Mr. Young should not be sent to the Legislature the ensuing year. If then Mr. Young had an undoubted right to a seat in the legislature, which would perhaps be questionable upon republican ground, and was deprived of that right by "management and fraud," with whom did this system of corruption commence! and to whose account ought it to be placed? To that of his colleagues, or other men whom their misstatements and falsehoods had seduced? It may however, be very well to enquire whether these declarations were ever made use of to any purpose, and whether Mr. Young must have succeeded in his nomination, had these free and unreserved conversations of his colleagues, been kept entirely out of view; whether Palmer and Bunce, were alone in singling out the candidate who was nominated, or whether some other person or persons had not tho't of him even before Palmer and Bunce went to Albany.

Among the names which ornament the pages of "The Citizen," I observe that of a recent convert to the doctrine of "Falsehood, Fraud & Co" viz: William Stillwell, late a Judge, and now Clerk of this county. This political Proteus, together with a number of his, friends was I believe, among the first to start Mr. Cowen as a candidate, before the county convention, and was from time to time very importunate with him, to consent that his name should be made use of for this purpose. From the early part of February 1815, until he had got the Clerk's office, be appears to have been Mr. Cowen's indefatigable supporter. At the McBain meeting however, he was as active and diligent to get rid of that nomination, as he had before been to effect it. Thomas Palmer, Esq. the secretary of that meeting, together with. Judge Stillwell, were chosen two of the committee to draw up the proceedings, and were unquestionably in all respects the proper organ for that purpose. Sensible of this, Judge Stillwell, the evening after the meeting, invited Mr. Palmer to his house, where they deliberately, and without any disagreement drew up the statement, published p. 24 and 25, of their pamphlet. They jointly reviewed this statement the next morning—agreed in its correctness, and ordered it to be printed. Shortly after, without the knowledge of Mr. Palmer or Mr. Cowen, Stillwell secretly withdraws this statement from the printing office, and adopts and signs another drawn up by Mr. Thompson, differing in many respects from the first. This last statement the secretary refused to sign, and his name was inserted as you will see by the statement itself, p. 16, without his knowledge or authority. Having thus boxed the compass and settled down upon point no point, it is not surprising that when Stillwell lends his name to "The Citizen" and appears in his Book, as the flaming advocate for "fair and open conduct," and the zealous detector of "fraud and duplicity," that he should hypocritically skulk behind the scene, and keep himself as much out of view as possible, in the strange and opposite parts which he had acted. The singular course which this man (Stillwell) had pursued both in and out of "the book," and especially his attempt to shew that "Mr. Cowen's nomination was procured by fraud, &c." drew the following sentiments from Doctor Clark, (who was one of the convention which nominated Mr. Cowen) expressed in a letter to Thomas Palmer, Esq.—

"Moreau, March 12th 1816.

Dear Sir,

Having seen and examined a publication signed "A Citizen," purporting to be an apology and justification of the gentlemen who composed the McBain meeting. In that publication I observe a studied and systematic attempt to fix on you and Mr. Bunce, the blame of having started Esek Cowen Esq. as a candidate for assembly, and of having procured his nomination by fraud and intrigue. In consequence of seeing Wm. Stillwell's name affixed to the proceedings of that meeting, and being well informed that the said Stillwell hath gone great length to justify the conduct of the said meeting, in making void the nomination made by the county convention, I feel myself constrained by a sense of justice to declare, that some time on or about the 11th day of February 1815, being in company with Esek Cowen, at the house of Wm. Stillwell Esq., he the said Stillwell did then and there introduce the subject of the then next election, by saying, that himself and a number of others had conversed on the subject, and agreed that Mr. Cowen ought to be a candidate—That Mr. Cowen made objections, and mentioned to him the names of several other gentlemen as being proper candidates in preference to himself; to which Mr. Stillwell objected, and urged Mr. Cowen with apparent zeal to suffer his name to be made use of as a candidate. Sir, you are at liberty to make such use of the above statement of facts, as in your judgment you shall think proper.

Yours, Respectfully, B.J. Clark.

Hon. T. Palmer Esq."

It will also appear amongst other things, by the following letter written by John R. Mott,[2] who I believe is the second certifier in "the book," that Judge Stillwell entertained sentiments opposed to Mr. Young's nomination, as late as the sixth of April.

"Saratoga, April 6, 1815.

Dear sir,

It was late when I returned from Ballston, which prevented my calling on you I had conversations with several gentlemen on the subject of the nomination, particularly with Judge Stillwell, capt. Odell and Mr. Bunce, by whom I learned the sentiments of Mr. Palmer, and find the whole to be opposed to Mr. Young. I also saw Mr. Lee and Kasson. They were in favor of Mr. Young on the principle of what they called sacrificing Mr. Young, if he was not nominated. The Milton committee are Thomas Palmer, Joel Keeler and Daniel Couch, junior Esquires.

From yours, with esteem,

Esek Cowen, Esq."

JOHN R. MOTT.

Mr. Mott, one of the delegation from Saratoga, informs Mr. Cowen another of the delegation from that town, that Stillwell and others are opposed to Young. This presumption in Judge Stillwell, it seems could not be endured, and he in common with others was marked out as a victim. His name was originally connected with that of Palmer and Bunce, in the letter of Kasson, dated the 12th April, p. 33, as being concerned with them in "this black business" as he calls it, until by making his peace, this crow is suddenly changed into a swan, and his name erased from the letter.

If farther proof is wanting that the loss of Mr. Young's nomination did not depend on any thing which fell from his colleagues, or any individual exertion made against it, you may have it by calling on the following gentlemen, who acted on the county convention, to wit:

Avery Starkweather, John Pettit, Eli Smith, Joel Keeler, Isaac Rice, Nathan Raymond, Jessup Raymond, Richard Dunning, James Clark, Isaac Andrus, Solomon Parks, Nicholas W. Angle, Billy J. Clark, Potter Johnson, Benjamin Burton, Joseph Mitchell, William Taylor, Samuel Cook, Nathan Pardee, Joshua Finch, John Brown, Samuel S. Barker, Isaac Brewster, &c.

You will find among them many of the most respectable names in the county. By them it will also appear how far Mr. Young's failure depended on Palmer and Bunce, and how far it was regulated by public sentiment. But, it is presumed that what Doctor Clark very properly calls a systematic attempt, to fix a course of fraud upon two or three individuals, and ascribe the result of that convention to them, must appear as absurd and ridiculous in the eyes of the public, as it did to Doctor Clark and his associates on the committee.

But why spend a moments time in refuting so base a calumny; by searching for argument and demonstration while it must be rendered useless by conviction. Another year has rolled away; another convention have met—have made a nomination for Congress and Assembly—They were unanimous—Mr. Young is not nominated, nor even named for the year 1816. This too was not till the blood-hounds of imaginary fraud had yelled their notes thro' the county, the quivers of malice had been exhausted of their poisoned arrows, and "the book," that great gun of a falling faction which they had been loading during the whole Summer past, had gone off with a harmless explosion.

It may not be amiss however, to examine the behaviour of these famous pretenders to fair and open conduct, and see how far they practice what they preach. In doing this, permit me to call your attention to the following certificates.

"I notice in the pamphlet signed 'A Citizen' lately published, an assertion that the committee in the town of Milton in the Spring of 1815, 'was procured by management, fraud and falsehood.' I attended the meeting in this town, according to previous notice in the Journal for that purpose, at which I saw Mr. T. Palmer and Mr. Bunce, but saw nothing in them like either fraud or management. I voted in that committee for Mess. Palmer, Keeler and Couch, but not from any solicitations of either Mr. Bunce or Mr. Palmer, but because I believed them the best men; nor had any one of these, or any one else, then told me that the three members had complained of Mr. Young.

"James Thompson, Esq. was a candidate for the same committee, and his partner, Alpheus Goodrich, Esq. wrote votes for the said James Thompson; but I refused to vote for him, not, however, from any thing I had ever heard either the said Palmer or Bunce say against him. There was a large majority for the three above named committee, but I saw no unusual exertions, or any thing that looked like unfair proceedings, in any one at the meeting who appeared to be voting the ticket which I did.—EBENEZER DIBBLE. Milton, March, 1816."

"I also was present at the above mentioned meeting for the purpose of choosing delegates to the county convention. The meeting was notified in the Journal, at Gregory & Hawkins', on the day some of the town officers met there. The meeting proceeded to organize by choosing Joel Keeler, Esq. chairman, and Thomas Palmer secretary, and then without opposition, voted to choose the committee by ballot. The candidates for whom ballots were wrote, were, on one ticket, James Thompson, Archy Kasson and Elias Benedict—On the other, Daniel Couch jun, Joel Keeler and Thomas Palmer. Mr. Bunce was there; and in the room, wrote votes for the latter three gentlemen, for whom I voted, but not from the insinuations or persuasions of any one. And I saw no intrigue, management or improper electioneering in either the said Palmer or Bunce, or any one else for that ticket; but believe every thing was conducted fairly.

"I had on that day, before I came there, heard of reports against Mr. Young, but not from either Mr. Palmer or Mr. Bunce; but to the best of my recollection from Elihu Roe in a conversation between him and Deacon Stillwell. I had before heard no intimation of the same from any one.—EZRA NASH. Milton, March 1816."

"I was present at the republican meeting in Milton, in the Spring of 1815, for the purpose of choosing a committee to meet the general committee to make a nomination. I saw no deception or intrigue on the part of either Mr. Palmer or Mr. Bunce, nor any particular exertion of either of them to procure the committee that were elected. Some time before the said meeting, I had understood that James Thompson, Esq. of said town, had expressed a wish to be one of the committee, and at the above mentioned meeting Alpheus Goodrich, Esq. his partner took a very active part to get him appointed—wrote votes and endeavored to get others to take them and vote for the said Thompson, his name being on the same ticket with Archy Kasson and Elias Benedict; but they received at the meeting, which consisted of about thirty, but very few votes, the other ticket, which I voted, obtaining a large majority. And I hereby further certify, that neither the said Palmer nor Bunce, both being present at the meeting, had ever informed me, or given me an intimation that there was any complaint against Mr. Young, nor did I ever hear of any complaints against Young, from any one until some time afterwards; and from the best of my recollection, Joel Lee was the first who informed me of these complaints against the said Young.—DAVID DERRICK. Milton, March 1816."

It appears that in the town of Milton Mr. Archy Kasson, Elias Benedict and James Thompson Esq. were candidates at the meeting in that town for the choice of delegates in 1815.—That Alpheus Goodrich Esq. Thompson's partner, in particular, acted decidedly in favor of "Master Jimmy" as he calls him, perhaps with a good deal of propriety, and peddled tickets with Mr. Kasson and his master's name on them. Now Mr. Thompson whose situation in point of popularity especially in his own town is not to be questioned, was very naturally surprised at his failure, and could not in his own mind attribute it to any thing short of "fraud and management." He had failed in despite of the combined efforts of his partner and Mr. Kasson. Finding how poor doctor Child had been cheated into a vote for three gentlemen whom Thompson considered mere tools compared to himself, it leaves him no doubt on the subject, and he can no longer avoid bristling with astonishment and rage. Tho' several days before the convention met, a hue and cry was immediately raised, and he repairs to court with almost the whole of the McBain meeting at his heels—The convention till this year (1816) had regularly met on the second day of April court.

The evil of this practice had been long felt and deplored by the advocates for freedom of deliberation in this body, without being able to attain a remedy. The scenes of this day however have for a while suspended, and I trust forever abolished the pernicious and degrading practice of court conventions. Tuesday gave them leisure to organize their forces and reconnoiter the points of attack. On Wednesday these veteran lobby members of a county convention each knew his post, and each was prepared with his story. The members of the convention, living scattered in different directions, some near and some in the more remote towns, arrive in small parties of one, two, and three in succession, which gives full leisure to the court hangers on to see and discourse with them in detail, and the astonished members of the convention the moment they arrive were thus assailed on all hands with a universal cry of Young, Young, Young for the candidate. No scheme was left untried, no pretence neglected, no argument overlooked, no path unexplored to entrap, to drive, to persuade and to lead the convention contrary to their old established practice, to nominate Mr. Young a third time as a candidate. Still despairing of success, Thompson and his associates (I trust in God but few of them) change their ground and become the black and unmanly assassins of individual character. The story of the pretended fraud attempted by Mr. Palmer, Mr. Bunce and others, was administered in profusion, and crammed down with epithets; not more than two or three of the convention having ever heard the account given of Mr Young by his worthy colleagues, and its reaching them thus for the first time thro' his huffing friends, it sounded truly like "a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Their pride was alarmed, and their sympathies excited, by being told that Judge Spencer had first cheated Mr. Young out of the Secretary's office, and that his wrath now burnt after him into the county of Saratoga, and what was passing strange—pitiful and wondrous pitiful was, that the Judge had thrust his hand so far into this dish of woes as to employ in his service the press and Editor of the Saratoga Journal.—Kasson's letter which appears in "the book," tho' now altered by striking out Stillwell's name, arrives by express from Albany, in season to make up for this dish, its last ingredient—But Alas! to no purpose; the people's delegates nominate Mr. Cowen.

I boldly and solemnly appeal to that convention whether they or the most of them were not individually called upon, by Thompson or some of those acting under him, and urged to support Mr. Young upon part or all of the pretences above mentioned. In order to render assurance doubly sure, these strong and noisy opposers of fraud, these high minded and honest politicians discover another circumstance of which they quickly avail themselves. One of the towns had neglected to choose a committee. The ceremony of packing was immediately resorted to, and three men who were ready to go all lengths with these upright gentry, presented and palmed themselves upon the convention, as legitimate members. Thus having been belabored incessantly for two-thirds of an April day, the convention retire to their duty, and as usual ballot for the candidates. After balloting and before the votes were canvassed, they unanimously resolve, that the lawyer having the greatest number of votes shall be considered the candidate, and the other rejected. After canvassing and finding that Mr. Cowen had two votes more than Mr. Young, it was again unanimously resolved that he be considered the candidate.

This arrogance and presumption in the delegates of the people, was not tamely to be endured by the court party; and these high-minded advocates of Republican purity immediately cast about for the means of correcting the evil. And what more easy and certain mode of doing this, than to solicit and procure the friendly interference of federalism, whose doctrine by this time appears to be in perfect co incidence with their own? They could abhor coalition, management and intrigue in the ranks of Republicans;—nay the intrigue which owed its birth and maturity to their heated imaginations alone, was odious and abominable in its fancied perpetrators; while they themselves were basely courting the embraces of Federalism in secret; and building their hopes of success on the vile basis of a political bargain with that party;—like a drunken clergyman who enters the pulpit heated with his bottle, and excites your disgust by a long discourse on the follies of intemperance. The high pretensions of these men to chastity and plain dealing, will be better tested by reading the following certificates;—the reader being first reminded that Mr. Elihu Roe and James Thompson, Esq. are holden forth both in the book, and in these statements, as twin leaders—a sort of Castor and Pollux or du-umvirate in the tribe; and for this reason they are resorted to, as furnishing together with a few subordinate officers, a clue to the immaculate character which they and their friends so loudly claim.

"I certify, that I heard Elihu Roe declare, to Jonathan Minor, at the store of Epenetus White, that James Thompson Esq. had at the last election, made overtures to the federalists to support Samuel Young Esq as a member of Assembly.—BURR WAKEMAN. March 1816."

"Thereby certify, that I had a conversation with Mr. Elihu Roe, in the store of Epenetus White, in the presence of Mr. Burr Wakeman, in which Mr. Roe declared that James Thompson Esq. did propose to the federalists, to support a federal candidate for member of Assembly, if the federalists would support Samuel Young, Esq. as a candidate for member of Assembly at the election of 1815.—JONATHAN MINOR. Ballston, March 28th 1816."

"I, Gideon Goodrich, late of the town of Milton, in the county of Saratoga, do hereby certify to my fellow-citizens; that on the first day of election of 1815 in said town, where I then resided, at St. John's Inn, where the polls of election were that day held, in a conversation on the subject of supporting Samuel Young, contrary to the general nomination; Archy Kasson, a leading friend of Young admitted in presence of a number of persons, that he had said that he had rather have three federalists go to the legislature from this county with Young, than not to have Young elected. On my expressing surprise at such sentiments, from a man professing to be a republican, he added he still felt or thought so. Mr. James Thompson who was present, then replied, that he would say he had rather have seven federalist go with Young, than not to have him elected—or any number that would not give a federal majority,[3] or words to that import.

"Having removed from this county, but now on a visit at my old residence in Milton, and being called upon by those who feel themselves abused in the support of the cause of their country, no one will consider it officiousness in me, to thus repeat what was expressed in so public a manner on that occasion.—GIDEON GOODRICH. Milton, April 19th 1816."

"I hereby certify, that shortly after the last spring's election, but before the official returns of election in the state were received, I was at the office of James Thompson, Esq. in Milton, and remarked to him, that I was afraid the legislature would be federal, to which the said Thompson replied, that he was afraid it would not be federal, or that he began to be afraid there would not be a federal house. I also certify, that during the election then just past, I was by several of Mr. Young's friends in said town, strongly urged to vote for a federalist, if by that I could get a federalist to vote for Mr. Young; which I believe many of them did, as I heard those friends of his repeatedly say they would barter in that way, if they could by it obtain votes for the said Young.—BENJAMIN BENNETT. Milton, March 1816."

"I hereby certify, that previous to the meeting of the committee to make a nomination for members of Assembly, in the spring of 1815—I saw Archy Kasson in the village of Ballston Spa, who commenced a conversation with me on the subject of the then approaching nomination; and he solicited me with much zeal to vote for Mr. Young in the convention—And among other things, he declared, that he would be better satisfied to have Mr. Young on the nomination with three federalists, than to have four republicans without him—And gave me distinctly to understand that if Young was not nominated, he would not support the nomination.—ISAAC RICE. Ballston, March 1816."

"I, Simeon P. Allcott, of the town of Milton and county of Saratoga, do certify; That I attended the election in the spring of 1815, at D. Thomas' inn, in said town, at which place I saw James Merrill of said town, and heard him declare in the presence and hearing of a number of republican and federal electors, 'that some people very fearful that a federalist would be elected from this county, but for his part, he said that there would be no harm in it—it would be a good thing to have federals elected—and that if Mr. Young could be elected, he did not care how many federals were elected.'

"I further certify, that I attended the election the following day at Goodrich's inn, in the said town, and the said James Merrill then and there made similar declarations in the presence and hearing of a number of republicans and federals; and the said James Merrill and others who were advocating the election of Mr. Young, appeared to act in unison with the federalists; and I saw a number of federalists have Mr. Young's name on their ticket, and who told me they voted that ticket.—SIMEON P. ALLCOTT. Milton, April 1816."

"I hereby certify, that a leading federalist, being as I understood, one of the federal convention from the town of Northumberland, who met at the Court-House on the 14th of April last, to make the federal nomination for members of Assembly, &c.—informed me on his return home from that convention, that James Merril, Esq. urged some of that convention to place Samuel Young Esq. on their ticket, and offered one hundred dollars if they would go halves with Young's friends in the ticket they should run at the then next election, for the purpose of defraying the expences of the election; and that the said Merrill took from his pocket the hundred, dollars, and laid it on the table for that purpose, as I understood it.—HENRY STAFFORD. Saratoga Springs, March 1816."

"I, Joseph Ogden, of Malta in the county of Saratoga, do hereby certify; that I was at the inn of James Jones in Halfmoon, a few days after the election of 1815, and Aaron Morehouse of Ballston, and a leading federalist of Halfmoon were there, conversing together on the late election. Mr. Morehouse said he voted for Mr. Hamilton, the federal candidate, to get a federalist in his town to vote for Mr. Young; and the federal replied, that be voted for Mr. Young, and that it was the understanding among some of the federalists and some of the republicans in Halfmoon, that the federals should vote for Mr. Young, and that the republicans should vote for Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Isaac Kellogg, jun. was present at the same time.—JOSEPH OGDEN."

"I, Isaac Kellogg, Jun. of Malta in the county of Saratoga, do certify, that I was present and heard a part of the conversation above stated by Joseph Ogden, and remember hearing Mr. Morehouse state, that he voted for Mr. Hamilton, and the abovementioned federalist say that he voted for Mr. Young. I also heard another federalist of Halfmoon then present, say that he voted for Mr. Young also; and I distinctly understood from them, that there had been an understanding between the federalists and Mr. Young's friends, to support Mr. Young and Mr. Hamilton as members of Assembly.—ISAAC KELLOGG, jun."

It is also a fact, that Young's supporters did in two or three of the towns hide and suppress the tickets printed by direction of the county convention, for Mr. Cowen and the other candidates.

These certificates and these facts serve then to explain how Mr. Young came by a greater number of votes than Mr. Cowen;—and no doubt is left on this subject when on calculating from the returns, you perceive that the votes for Mr. Young and Mr. Cowen in the aggregate exceed by a great number the whole votes for any other candidate on either side, and that one of the federal candidates received a less number of votes than the others. This would of itself shew as far as the subject is susceptible of proof, a bargain between some of Mr. Young's friends and some of the federalists. Shortly after this bargain which Mr. Roe speaks of, the McBain Meeting[4] was called, where every exertion tended to produce a political abortion.

I cordially join with "the book" in censuring the editor of the Journal for resembling this meeting to a political funeral;—for I do not believe that the lifeless embryo which it bro't forth, ever raised the tho't of a funeral in its poor distracted father. And while I could not have the face to vindicate him from falsehood in not making a better distinction, I should feel the less inclined to deny his being a savage, while I behold him wantoning with the wounded feelings of a forlorn, hopeless and unhappy parent. If his personification had embraced the meeting merely, he ought to have known that even the dead are not always unavenged, and that its ghost at least, would have arisen from the tomb to flutter round and haunt the unhappy county of Saratoga on the eve of the next nomination, in the form of a book; that thing which like the poet is justly admired for giving

"To airy nothing, A local habitation and a name."

We could hardly say of that book, however, as Hamlet said of his Father's ghost that

"He would take his word for a thousand pounds"—

Or why do we hear it insisted that the fault of keeping alive discord and division in the county, is imputable to a few individuals named and pointed out by it?—Aside from the base and unprincipled attempts of Roe, Thompson and some of their co-adjutors, to prostrate the only republican press in the county, by a system of slander and detraction; The public cannot have forgotten that Mr Young's famous colleagues were mildly and publicly invited to an amicable explanation, which they refused and rendered the publication of affidavits necessary in justification. The only reply which was received, was a still more general, malignant and furious attack upon the press, not only from the columns of the Schenectady Cabinet, but the foul lingo of Roe, Thompson & co. with bitter complaints whenever that press either ridiculed their folly and impertinence, or defended itself against their insidious and secret attempts to effect its destruction.

Amongst other things in order to create a pretence for their book, it will be recollected that judge Child has authorised the charge of falsehood against the Journal in its maintaining that he had threatened to get a new press into the county &c.—Indeed the judge appears to be remarkably well pleased with that production, not only by his long certificates, but by a letter which he afterwards wrote to the printer of the Courier, recognizing its merits and trying to divide with federalists the honor of carrying clothes to the army;[5] which it seems was given him by the book in order to render his standing as a certifier more conspicuous, by uniting on his broad brow, both the military and civic wreath. How far the denial of this mock Cincinnatus that he threatened as early as May to get a new press, "with all his blushing honors thick upon him," will satisfy the public, may in some measure he determined by the following certificate.

"I hereby solemnly certify, that on the last of May or first of June last, when at the house of Judge Child, in a conversation relating to the Saratoga Journal, and the conduct of its Editor Mr. Isaiah Bunce, the said Judge then and there made use of the following expression to me, viz. 'You must remember that the friends of Mr. Young, are not men of the least property, nor least influence in the County, and Bunce may have another press set up by his side in less than six months—That he [the said Judge] should withdraw his support from him, and said that it was best for every one to do the same, and then his press would fall of course.' And at the same time said, that he had rather support the federal press at the Springs than the Journal. Shortly after this I informed Mr. Bunce of the above conversation at his office.'—JONATHAN WESTCOTT. Milton, March 14th 1816."

Young and Thompson made similar declarations of their intention to get another press about the same time, with which they have been often charged, and it seems thought best not to hazard a denial in the book—therefore no other certificate but the one relating to Child's has been procured—And the judge's conduct would have been more christian-like, had he written a letter exculpating the editor of the Journal from an undeserved odium cast upon him by his authority, than thus to have given it confirmation and support, at the same time knowing it to be untrue.

Of a piece with this however, appears to have been his previous conduct about the time of his presiding over the abortion at McBains. I allude to his sending the history of that meeting with orders by Thompson and Stillwell, to the editor of the Journal to print without reading it.

"I Lyman B. Langworthy, of the village of Ballston Spa, do certify to my fellow-citizens the following facts;—That on the night of the 20th April 1815, two days after the McBain meeting—being in the office of the Saratoga Journal late in the evening, James Thompson, James Merrill and Wm. Stillwell, Esqs. came into the room. Immediately after being seated, Mr. Thompson who acted as chief speaker, pompously displayed a fold of paper which he wished Mr. Bunce to print off in the form of Handbills by morning, it being then quite late. Mr. Bunce wished to see it and its contents.

"Here Mr. Thompson to my astonishment flatly refused, unless Mr. B. would first promise on his word and honor that he would positively and unconditionally agree to print it let it contain what it would. This bro't on a long parley; Mr. Bunce wished to see it if for nothing more than to shew his workman its length, to learn from him whether it was possible to execute it in the time allowed. Mr. Thompson refused, and entered pretty lengthy into the subject, in his precise roundabout manner: asserting that it was none of his business what it contained—that it was impertinent in a 'mechanic' to ask his employers the use or destination of any work he should employ him to do; and frequently by way of a salve interlarding his conversation with 'we do not wish you to do it for nothing Mr. Bunce, we have money enough.' After much chaffering between the parties, judge Stillwell in a very candid manner, desired that the paper might be read, asking him if it contained any thing they were ashamed of. Mr. Thompson then looked to Mr. Merrill as for his opinion. Mr. Merrill said with some warmth, 'he shan't see it.' This brot' on considerable bickerings—crimination and re-crimination between Mess. Bunce, and Thompson, which judge Stillwell tho't rather indecorous, and quite earnestly rebuked the two gentlemen for their wrath, and at the same time said he thot' it high time to deliver judge Child's message. Here Mr. Thompson apparently supposing himself only entrusted with the charge, seemed not to understand.—After a great deal of argument, the paper at last had a 'first reading,' & was the proceedings of the McBain meeting, signed by Child, Thompson and Stillwell; and was delivered to Mr. Bunce, to shew his compositor, who was in bed. Mr. Bunce insisted that some of the gentlemen should deliver the message which judge Stillwell seemed to be so anxious about. Here the three gentlemen were thrown into great confusion—eyed each other as though each supposed the other ignorant of what he himself knew. Judge Stillwell's countenance seemed to labor with something which he was bound to reveal; and Mr. Thompson noting this, desired judge Stillwell if he knew it to let it out. Judge Stillwell then putting himself in an attitude corresponding, as he appeared to think, with the magnitude of the subject, began by saying that judge Child had instructed him to say to Mr. Bunce, that he had always been a particular friend of his—had always given him all of his business—and should be sorry to withdraw it after the friendly intercourse which had subsisted between them—that it was the earnest desire of judge Child that Mr. Bunce should have the refusal of printing it; 'but as a last resort say to him from me, that if he refuses to print it as desired by Mr. Thompson, that I forever withdraw my patronage from his press.'"

Here Mr. Bunce indignantly threw back the paper to Mr. Thompson, and declared that under those circumstances he should not print it—saying that after buffeting the storm of federalism, and the dark days of the wars of our country, he little expected such treatment from one whose duty it was to protect the press &c. &c.—and it was after much persuasion, and partly through my own importunities, that he was induced to print it.

"Mr. Bunce's conduct through the whole transaction, which must have lasted two hours or more, was consistent, firm and independent to my conception, as was the others haughty, supercilious and overbearing.—Lyman B. Langworthy. March, 1816."

Here fellow citizens is the iron club of power held over the head of an editor of a free press, during an election—to coerce him and his press into obedience to their dictates. What are we coming to when men high in office use their offices, influence and patronage to control the freedom of the press, which all the champions of freedom esteem the organ and safeguard of our liberties—and attempt to compell it to bend to their purposes—to sell itself and rush blind fold on any measure their interest or ambition may dictate?

The independent conduct of Mr. Bunce on this occasion was probably one reason among others why the judge aided in the introduction of another printer of the more pliant sort; who would more readily bend to his purposes and serve as a pipe with which his friends Roe, Thompson, Stillwell &c. could spit their venom thro' the county in the more permanent form of a pamphlet.

In this, with three insolvent advertisements staring him in the face from the Independent American, the judge denies, or sanctions a denial, that he ever ordered an advertisement to be printed in that paper at all. Unblushing impudence indeed!—Thus to ask the public to pervert the eternal principles of truth and justice by giving credit to such assertions as these.

The examination of a few more topics under this head shall suffice.—Indeed amongst the disgusting details of falsehood and meanness with which that production abounds; you find many remarks imputed to the Journal which it never made, while those which it has made, on examination will be found strictly true.

The writer of that pamphlet is guilty of falsehood in asserting that the editorial remarks of the Journal are not copied into other papers. Not to mention others, they have been copied the year past in several instances, by the National Intelligencer at Washington, and by Niles' Weekly Register at Baltimore, two of the ablest papers in the Union. The remarks which the book falsely calls a scurrilous attack upon the Governor, instead of being an attack on him, it so happens that they were merely calculated to let the public know what every republican had a right to expect, and which they in fact realized from our worthy chief magistrate in the season of peril which dictated them.—They were such as he would himself approve, while he would frown contemptuously on the little fry who attempt so base a slander in his name. Would to God the conduct of some of the governor's fawning and pretended admirers could endure investigation like that of this great and good man—the pride and ornament of his country!

As to the charge against the Journal for asserting that the first judge and others had combined to domineer and rule the people of this county, you already have a taste of the judge's fondness for domineering over some of the people, and over their press; and that other persons named have acted in concert with him is equally true and notorious;—And it is hardly necessary to enquire whether they combined for the purpose, or instinctively assembled like birds of the same feather, from a common spirit of domination. It is false, however, that the Journal ever made such a charge. This and a number of these remarks are only suffering them to wear a coat which they themselves have cut out of whole cloth, and which seems to fit them so exactly. That paper never charged Mr. Young with any management or compromise with the federalists, further than what justly resulted from his being chosen supervisor in Ballston by federalists, contrary to the regular town nomination, and his afterwards being complimented by the federal paper as a modern political Luther, on account of his having quit his own party in that town and submitted to federal policy, not denied by the book—from his having aided in the election of the federal candidate for Congress in the fall of 1812; and from his "at least" conniving at federal aid, in the spring of 1815—all of which are facts of too general notoriety to be denied.

But the Journal did charge some of Mr. Young's friends with a political understanding between them and the federalists, which is not only passed over in silence by the book, but proved by the foregoing estimates and certificates.

On seeing Mr. Young supporting, and supported in his turn by a Senator or Senators of this state for office, the Journal did ask the question, whether it was pursuant to an arrangement on the subject between them? This question was put in the Journal directly to Mr. Young—taking it for granted that Mr. Young has adopted the language in the book on this question as his own, this might be received as an answer, had not a mere question been first perverted into a charge.

The Journal did also ask him the question, whether he intended to make one Joel Lee, clerk of this county? To which the book, replies that he never promised any office to any man whatever. It is perhaps necessary, in justice to the Editor of the Journal, to introduce the following certificate, and leave this part of the subject without farther comment.

"I hereby certify, that shortly after the appointment of Wm. Stillwell, as a clerk, of this county, I was in the city of Albany, and conversed with Mr. Young on the subject of that appointment, in which conversation I expressed my surprise at his appointment, to which Mr. Young replied, it was not his fault, that there was a petition for him from some of the most respectable men in the county, and it would not do for him to oppose it, but that his mind was the strongest on Joel Lee for that office.—ELI BEARDSLEE. Milton, March 1816."

Among others to whom Lee admitted he had been promised of offered the Clerk's office by Young, is Mr. Nicholas Smith, but it is thought unnecessary to multiply certificates on this head.

The writer of that pamphlet also displays his characteristic ignorance, or stupid disregard to truth, when he says that the Journal ever charged Young with receiving pay in three capacities, during the extra session of 1815. It never made the charge as it respected that, or any other year;—but it so happens that during the extra, session of 1814, Mr. Young did receive $5 per day, which was the pay for a member of the house, and $2.25 per day, which was the extra allowance on account of his being speaker. See New Revised Laws, Vol. I. p. 528, and the act of April 18th 1815, called the supply bill, Sec. 15, by which two acts, the wages of the Assembly are fixed at $5, and those of the speaker at $7.25, and extended to the extra session of 1814. Altho' the Journal never made the charge imputed to it, yet you see how easily and conclusively that charge might have been supported, had the assertion ever been made.

With regard to Mr. Young's receiving the pay of a Col. he never was charged with having done this during any extra session. That paper did insinuate that he at one time as aid to the governor received that pay. And it is hardly worth stopping to enquire whether he did or not, so long as we have his word that the Governor offered it to him, in consequence of which he agreed to serve. Whether he got the cash and gave a receipt for it;—or it was absorbed in his expences;—or laid it out to buy another press;—or yet remains due, is altogether immaterial, so long as an answer is substantially made out to a question raised by his good friends, and to which the public may expect a reply: The following certificate is therefore given without comment.

"I certify, that a day or two previous to Samuel Young's accompanying his excellency the Governor to New-York, in conversation with Mr. Young at his house, he informed me that while he was at Albany, from where he had but just returned, he called on his excellency, who then informed him of his intended expedition to New-York, and pressed him, Mr. Young to accompany him; that he objected, and said that he should be much pleased with the jaunt, but his business was such, as to render it impossible; that the Governor urged him still stronger, and he replied that he was wholly unprepared for leaving home any length of time, and the Governor calculated to go the next day or day but one—that the Governor told him if he would accompany him, he would make him an aid with the pay of a colonel, and bear his expences, and that he would defer going until the next steam boat; that he wished to take time to consider the Governor's proposals as he informed the Governor—and soon after told him he would accompany him.—SETH C. BALDWIN, Junior. Warren County, March 1816."

The Journal never charged Young with having informed Merrill that he "was not now Secretary, but should be to-morrow." At it again Merrill. Will you certify that you did not give a friendly hint to a gentleman who was going to Albany, that you had a connexion who would make an excellent clerk in the Secretary's office, and request his name to be given to Mr. Young, to whom Young replied, I am not now Secretary but shall be to-morrow? I believe an intimation to this effect was given in the Journal, which you blink with as much ingenuity as though you had been bred in the same school with Mr. Young's colleagues. Amongst the great number to whom Mr. Young did give the information that he was shortly to be Secretary, you, then it seems were omitted!

The facts disclosed in the following certificate, cannot fail to remind one of the fable of the "Country maid, and her milk pail."

"I hereby certify, that while riding in company with Samuel Young from Ballston to Albany, when going to the winter session of 1815, the day before the legislature met, the said Young informed me that he expected to be Secretary of State when the republican council should be chosen; that he could be a member of the legislature and Secretary of State at the same time, and could reside at the Springs or Ballstown in the summer, and do the business of Secretary in Albany by Deputy, and that these two offices would give him a pretty good living, or words to that effect.—JESUP RAYMOND. Ballston, April 1816."

"Green—let me consider; yes, green becomes my complexion best, and green it shall be."

Mr. Kasson, was early spoken of by the Independent American as an applicant for the Sheriff's office, and as it appeals, was afterwards a candidate for the county convention, and pledged to the support of Mr. Young. In consequence of this, the Journal did ask the question to Mr. Young, whether he intended Mr. Kasson as the Sheriff of this county?—and nothing more. I think a farther inquiry was made whether he was not authorised to purchase a "mansion house for the new secretary, in the village of Ballston Spa?" on which he preserves a cautious silence.

It is remarkable in this and other instances, with what industry The Citizen manufactures assertions to suit his own purpose, and then denies them. Having at length exhausted his fancy in fabricating, shaping and denying particular charges, hardly one of which ever existed, he ranges up his whole artillery of vengeance;—the battle becomes general:—And the famous Doctor Slop, the man midwife, did not pour a more copious and continued shower of curses upon Obadiah, who had tied his bag of instruments with hard knots, than is thus suddenly let fly upon the devoted head of the Editor of the Saratoga Journal. "Really" said the Frenchman to an old woman who had been storming and fretting at Napoleon, "the Emperor, my master would feel himself infinitely grieved, if he knew how hard your lady-ship thought of him."

But it seems the Editor of the Journal "has indulged himself in a course of low and vulgar sarcasms," tho' no particular instance is pointed out. Thus the citizen, after sending his friend, Mr. Elias Benedict, into the bar-room, to certify the damns and god damns of Mr. Wilkins, suddenly becomes extremely modest and refined, and falls to moralizing like Michael Cassio, after his own drunken fit is over. Mr. Bunce might really be esteemed far gone, had he reached the climax of vulgarity which distinguishes the citizen and his book.

But says the book in another place, "the manners of Mr. Bunce are coarse and vulgar." I suppose an immediate allusion is here intended to the manner in which he treated Stillwell and Thompson's supercilious proposition to agree to print their famous history of the McBain Meeting, without reading it, under penalty of losing the first Judge's patronage in case of a refusal. Perhaps they mean that he did not on that occasion, turn out his toes exactly as he ought; or make a becoming bow to so much mock consequence as surrounded them. I know not in what language to describe their notions. We have already admitted that Mr. Bunce does not pretend to vie in purity of dialect with the certificate of Mr. Elias Benedict. Suppose we also admit that he cannot hold competition with Roe as a profound linguist—with Mr. Thompson in fairness, high mindedness, openness and candor—nor with Mr. Linnendoll in belleslettres—and that he would not make so good a dancing master as Mr James Merrill[6] and leave the public to judge whether coming short of these qualifications, he can be any way tolerable in his person or polished in his conversation.

But 'tis said again, that he has presented some of our citizens "in the ludicrous attitude of being in chase of one of the wheels of a political hack." This plain farmer-like simile has given great offence, and perhaps justly, to the high and refined notions of certain book gentry; who have been too much in the habit of hunting an office, or chasing a dollar, to believe that the idea of so ordinary an occupation, could ever have been connected with that of such great men as themselves.

It may not be amiss to here remark, that Mr. Bunce was admitted an Attorney of the Supreme Court in 1804; he settled in the village of Salina in the county of Onondaga; shortly afterwards it was made a post town, and he was appointed Post-Master[7] by the general government, and continued in that office until he removed from that place. Soon after his removal to Bridgewater, Oneida County, he was appointed Post-Master at that place, and continued in that office until he resigned on his removal to the county of Saratoga. During his residence in the Western District, he attended with industry and fidelity to the profession in which he was educated.

Soon after the declaration of war he concluded to quit the practice of law, and purchased the establishment of the Republican press of this county, and became the editor of the Journal.

Mr. Bunce has been a faithful, able, zealous and indefatigable supporter and defender of our republican institutions, and of the measures of our general and state government; and I confidently ask, who ever accused him till this faction commenced their operations. During the memorable campaign of 1814, he was not only vigilant and faithful to our rights as an editor; but when danger threatened from all quarters, he hired, equipped, and sent a common soldier into the field for the defence of New-York.

Several who were active in introducing Mr. Bunce to the republicans of this county, after finding him too independent to bend to their "particular" views, and after he had rejected with disdain their proffers to surrender to them his rights as an editor, they formed themselves into a court of Inquisition, and ushered forth their courtly mandates "Bunce must be sacrificed" "the Journal shall go down," even this proscription extended to his family, and to his fireside; and so eager were certain of these factionists, that they formed a plan to break up his establishment by force, and actually threatened to scatter his types. This fact is too susceptible of proof to be denied.

The republicans for a long time were silent spectators, while viewing the persecution of their editor, and attack upon their own rights and privileges; they fondly hoped, that time would cure the evil, and sober reflection convince them of their error; but in this hope they were disappointed, their persecutions encreased; and to them more certainly to effect their object, and encouraged by the smiles of federalists, they secretly brought a new printing press into the county—it was then the designs of these men were more apparent—it was then the republicans proclaimed their rights, and spoke to these "conspirators" in language too loud not to be heard—too emphatic not to be understood. And as long as these "conspirators" continue their press to war against the rights and privileges of the people, Mr. Bunce as a faithful centinel, will remain firm at his post. What though a gang of office-holders should "in the mild spirit of Christian humility" (see page 7 of the book) fulminate their maledictions against him; the people will not be frightened into submission, nor the editor from his duty.

But the Editor of the Journal has abused some of us, say they—Does the truth abuse them? does the exposition of the foulest combination that ever disgraced this or any other county, constitute abuse? Is there such terrible majesty surrounding an office? No matter of what misrepresentations they are the authors of—No matter how basely and shamefully they have belied and slandered their neighbors—No matter of what deception, hypocrisy and intrigue, they are guilty—No matter how long they have conspired against the rights and privileges of the people—No matter how unbecoming, gross and absurd their conduct may have been; if an independent Editor, in vindicating the rights of the people, and those of his own, questions the propriety of their conduct; they immediately skulk behind their offices, and impudently exclaim, "touch us not—we are privileged." 'Pigmies are Pigmies still tho' perch'd on Alps.'

While I would not refrain from censuring the improper conduct of these office leaders, I shall ever be ready to extend the hand of fellowship to such as have been deluded by them—Nay, I would go farther, let them exhibit signs of repentance—let them evince a determination to support our republican rights—-let them cease to war against the people, their editor, and individuals—let them remove their pensioned press—then shall they have my voice and my heart, to intercede for them with an insulted and abused community.

But faint indeed is the hope of a reformation in that man who violates all honor, truth and decency. Who but the author[8] of that book would charge the Milton committee, of being the tools of "fraud and management?" Who but him would affix the charge of "miscreants" to the republicans of Galway, Milton, Greenfield, Saratoga, Malta and Ballston? Who but him would have the unblushing effrontery to publish, "that the general committee in nominating Mr. Cowen, instead of Mr. Young, committed an OUTRAGE on the feelings and wishes of their constituents?" [see page 8. of that pamphlet.] Who but the author of that pamphlet would—but I beg pardon—read the pamphlet itself, and you have abundant evidence of the authors views, his principles, his heart and his designs.

But the vengeful serpents of malice and persecution have not confined their labors to the book, Early last spring, a thrust was made at the Editor of the Journal, on the authority it was said of Mr. Hackley, late a member from Herkimer, who (so Thompson said) had authorised him to tell the people, that Mr. Bunce was unworthy of confidence:—nay, to make use of a number of debasing epithets,—such as would quadrate with the palate of Roe or Thompson, much better than that of a gentleman like Mr. Hackley. But as this gentleman has declined appearing in the book, and certainly never did, and never would authorize Thompson to use his name for the vile purpose in which he employed it, I barely glance at this circumstance as one article, which would otherwise have been pressed into the Pandoras box which has been so industriously served up for the public.

Instead of atoning by a mild, moderate and conciliatory course of conduct, for the injuries attempted, not only against an individual, but the public, in endeavoring to put down and destroy a free press; the project is set on foot of introducing and palming upon the county another press;—a child of their own;—a copartner in all their labors, their joys and sorrows. It is however, one thing to introduce a press, and another to get the people to support it. While a few malicious imps, hungering for revenge, were "grinning horrible a ghastly smile, to hear their famine should be filled;" the people in a number of different towns assembled, and freely expressed their sentiments on the fatal tendency of such measures; and animadverted with freedom and spirit on the motives which prompted them;—for which the book printed by the printer of their paper, stigmatizes them with the epithet of miscreants; and treats the whole of their labors as mere cant and slang; I suppose it must mean compared with its own dignified and masterly pages. The majesty of the people is truly a monstrous Deity in the eye of venal and sell-created consequence. It is merely for repeating some of the sentiments expressed at these meetings, that the editor of the Journal is assailed as the arch-disturber of our political repose.

The Citizen, in one place storms furiously at the allegation, that the Albany committee had advised them to remove their press. That committee was appointed to inquire into the difficulties which agitated the republican family in this county, and devise if possible the means of removing them. Thompson as chief cook of his own party, appeared before them, with the book in his hand and Judge Child at his elbow as usual; and I do believe the citizen from my very soul, when he says they gave him no such advice. The committee were composed of sensible men; and after listening to his incoherent display of folly and nonsense on that occasion, it would be literally casting pearl before swine, to have given them any advice on the subject.

Having established and considered some extraneous facts, for which I am aware certain gentlemen will not thank me especially as it may disorder the thread of their own reasoning a little; I shall now proceed briefly to consider the charge of FRAUD, FALSEHOOD, DUPLICITY and CORRUPTION, as it appears in the book itself, on their own proof, independent of the foregoing memorandums, leaving the memory of Mr. Young's colleagues and others at full leisure to be refreshed by them.

That charge it will be recollected, is the turning point of the controversy;—the vox et preterea nihil, which boils, and foams, and wheels thro' the book, like a torrent thro' the Augean stable, collecting in its course accretions of foulness and impurity. For this purpose, Mr. Bunce and Mr. Palmer are represented as a political Archimedes, controlling at their will the destinies of the county;—dictating the number and sort and deliberations of the county delegates, prostrating the Speaker of the house of assembly; and dealing havoc, spoil and ruin around them. Mr. Cowen is represented as their associate, aiming at his own elevation thro' the lowest arts of cunning and duplicity. But fortunately for the cause of common sense, the touch-stone of these mighty maggots of the brain are the facts on which they are founded. And here let us for a moment take them as they stand among the certificate gentry, and examine their actual bearings;—in doing which I shall still have occasion to mention names, who, if they have finally not much cause for self gratulation, must thank their good friend the Citizen for bringing them before the public.

The Motts[9] say, that on or about the 21st of March, Mr. Cowen told them that Young was becoming unpopular;—that he had behaved haughtily and disrespectfully towards his colleagues; and that a few days before, he had been informed of this fact by several gentlemen to whom they were referred. Now it will be recollected that Mr. Cowen and John R. Mott were two of the delegates from Saratoga, and as such mutually bound to discuss with freedom the allegation for and against Mr Young, or any other person who would be a candidate before the general committee; and Mr. Cowen at this time at least, had no reason to doubt the truth of what Young's colleagues had asserted. He also mentioned it to James Mott, who was spoken of as a substitute in the event of his brother's absence. It seems he also conversed freely with these men on the subject of his having consented to be considered a candidate, and (so James Mott says) examined the probability of his success, by calculating the favorable state of the delegation. But it seems that communications to these leaky gentlemen on the subject of candidates are not to be made under any circumstances with impunity; and Mr. Cowen is to be censured as criminal for giving that information, which it would have been criminal to withhold. The only way to make his act in this respect criminal is by saying, "he ought to have known that Young's colleagues had lied." But it will be recollected that this was impossible, for the public did not know them then as well as it does now; nor had Mr. Cowen yet seen their certificate which is herewith published, by which they acknowledge what the book is so anxious for Mr. Cowen to have assumed. He did afterwards see it, and then (so say the certificates) bore public testimony to his opinion of the merits of Mr. Young, as well as afterwards by letter to judge Child.

Thus does the charge of duplicity, made against Mr. Cowen, resolve itself into a base attempt to fix upon him, what so snugly suits the shoulders of others. It seems he finally bestows that justice upon a political adversary, which the baseness and treachery of his colleagues and pretended friends had withheld. Am I acting the part of an accuser towards those men? No. They have accused themselves. Why are they again before the public? Had they hopes of skulking into obscurity among the motley multitude of certificates which throng the folio of the book? or have they like one of the moral personages in Hudibras, "catch'd the itch on purpose to be scratch'd?" It now requires an eye less keen than that of a ministering spirit to pierce the cob web veil which shields them from detection.

But in the process of this investigation, we are led to the consideration of a subject "too awful for irony." The interested certificates of these men are ushered to a Christian public, and a higher sanction demanded for them, by the author, than he is willing to allow to facts attested under the solemnity of an oath. One could hardly have anticipated this atheistical appeal to the credulity of the public, even tho' human nature were as vile and monstrous in others, as it appears to be in that author. But perhaps there was a necessity for it, in order to preserve the dark uniformity of his production. If, as has been asserted more than one of his prominent certifiers (among whom I would by no means rank these men) are themselves atheists, what could he swear them upon?—Upon the evangelists think you?—He might as well swear them on Payn's age of reason, or his own vile book itself. Where they "believe that their miserable bodies must take eternal refuge in the grave, and the last puff of their nostrils will send their souls to annihilation, they laugh at the solemnity of an oath and tell you that the grave into which they sink as a log, forms an intrenchment against the throne of God, and the vengeance of exasperated justice!" Such is the character which the writer fixes upon himself.—Such is the character which several of his disciples sustain in public.

True, the falsity of an extra-judicial oath, carries with it no temporal punishment; but the moral obligation remains to give it validity. That eternal reward or punishment which the Citizen has taken so much pains to blot out from the mind of his readers, will still continue the delight and terror of the Christian, the eternal fountain of his hopes and fears;—with him a sufficient motive to truth, without the artificial and imperfect aid of national law. The affidavits of four or five credible witnesses were already before the public, that Mr. Young's Colleagues did make a charge against him; but it seems that every moral sanction must be trampled upon or trifled with by the Citizen, to secure a triumph for his false and infidel principles. He skips, like a grasshopper, over facts and premises and propositions, and perches upon his pitiful assertions, which he wishes the public to pervert into conclusions. Why did he not give these affidavits lo the public?—He cannot surely complain that he forgot them, for they appear to haunt his guilty imagination through the whole of his progress; nor can he complain of wanting room. But the answer is easy. He knew it would make his bait so very bad that even his own gulls would not nibble.—

He was afraid of injuring his credit as an author even among his own sort—for these affidavits prove conclusively and indubitably, that not one jot nor tittle more was uttered against Mr. Young, than what emanated from his own colleagues, in the course of the winter of 1814 and 1815.

It is still more remarkable so far forth as the charge of fraud is concerned, with what logical precision the Citizen pursues his inquiry.—One is naturally led to expect from his positive rant, nothing short of point blank demonstration at least, that the fraud, (which if there was any originated with Mr. Young's colleagues) had produced the desired effect. That the attempt to cheat the people out of this mammoth legislator,—this sine qua non to their political salvation, should have at least produced some influence with the men upon whom it was exerted. Is there no lost and wandering sheep ready to return to the fold, and certify the delusions practised upon him by these wolves in sheeps clothing? Even Mr. Thompson, whose attention is apt to be otherwise directed, the moment he falls in conversation with Palmer and Bunce, scents out the fraud with all the instinctive keenness of a blood hound—Mr. Kasson on the same track, hardly the length of a nose behind, and unwilling to be outdone in sagacity, echoes the howlings of his leader. Judge Stillwell, tho' it seems the dullest of the pack, follows hard and completes the choir; or in other words Thompson and Kasson make a certificate that they were not deceived, and Stillwell endorses to give it a proper currency.

Even Mr. Roe lays claim to the same spirit of discernment, tho' his title to that claim might be questionable on another ground. He is readily led into a conclusion that Mr. Wilkins must have visited the Northern towns to procure Mr. Cowen's nomination; when it happens that the committees in those towns had been chosen before his name had been mentioned in them as a candidate, and before he had consented to be considered one. Mr. Roe had much better have satisfied himself by consulting the northern delegation on this subject. He is remarkably alert to detect a fraud where there is none, but is willing to take any thing upon tick which accommodates his good friend the Citizen. He certifies that he could not be deceived by the poor stories of Palmer and Bunce;—But believing the public to be greater numbsculls than himself, imagines that he can trick them into a belief, that the gentlemen who composed the northern delegation (among whom are many of the most respectable names in the county) are the mere creatures of another's will. It is perhaps fortunate that this man is an exception to the general law of nature, that like produces like, or he might have made tools of the whole county convention.

Who then was defrauded?—The Molts are by no means willing to admit that this was the case with them. The Citizen cannot produce even one poor certificate from any one of the county convention, that they were deceived or misled—neither Mr. Deake nor judge Child were of the committee, and if they had been, they are both so good as to tell us they were not gulled in that instance at least. John R. Mott, one of the delegation from the town of Saratoga, according to his own certificate had gone to New-York and sent Mr Olmstead who, with Mr. Cowen's consent (for it must have been by his consent that he acted as a substitute) sat in convention, and voted for Mr. Young. Thus ingeniously does the citizen rummage the chain of cause and effect, to eke out his favorite conclusion.

But stop, I confess I had like to have forgotten the certificate of Dr. Child (Increase W. Child) a son of judge Child, one of the most distinguished among the dramatis personae who figure in the book!—He does go the length of saying, that he voted on the strength of Mr. Bunce's representation. Voted for whom? For Mr. Cowen? O no.—But he voted for a committee, who were to meet a committee, to make out the county nomination!—And shocking to relate, poor Dr. Child was galled into a vote for three of the most respectable men in the town of Milton!!—viz: Daniel Couch jun. Esq. Joel Keeler Esq. late a member of the legislature, and Thomas Palmer Esq!!!—It is derogatory to no man in that town, to say that a more respectable delegation could not have been procured. And what is more shameful still, one of those gentlemen, viz: Daniel Couch jun Esq. whom the Doctor had thus honestly sent to vote for Mr. Cowen, actually deceived his constituent, and voted for Mr. Young!!!!—Doctor Guild's certificate is very happily illustrated by the burlesque syllogism; that Moses was the meekest man:—Solomon was the wisest man;—And therefore St. Paul was ship wrecked. The conclusion of a fraudulent nomination, follows about as direct upon Dr. Child's premises, as the shipwreck of St. Paul did upon the meekness of Moses or the wisdom of Solomon. We should be almost led to suspect from this specimen, that the Doctor is a greater infant in politics, than in dissection.

This famous pamphleteer is by no means more fortunate, when he approaches the topic of the McBain meeting. The materials of which this meeting was composed are now known as far as the book, which has kindly given their names to the public. It consisted of one first judge. One Sheriff and one Clerk, appointed under the administration of Samuel Young Esq.—George Palmer Esq. Master in Chancery, As't. Justice, Justice of the peace, Post Master, &c, and whom the book holds out as the expectant of the Surrogates office—Roe deputy Sheriff and ci-devant constable—James Mutt—James Thompson Esq. who had kindly volunteered, as early as the 1st of April, to take the interests of the county under his charge as public prosecutor and States evidence—Alpheus Goodrich Esq. his partner—Doctor Nathan Thompson his brother—Mr Elias Benedict his client;—the one willing to receive, and the other to pay in certificates of the most current stamp—A justice or justices from Ballston, who knew their political God-father—Dr. Samuel Pitkin, who acted as minister plenipotentiary from Milton to Saratoga, making thirteen, who it is admitted, were from all the different towns enumerated in the caption of the meeting viz: Ballston, Stillwater, Galway, Saratoga, Greenfield and Milton. Add to these some others of minor note, and you make, as the Citizen would have it, the number of 21 or more. The Citizen too tells us he was there; but whether in the character of —— —— or —— we are left to grope in the gloom of conjecture.

Such was the formidable Areopagus convened to purify the body politic; to correct the poor misguided county convention;—and guard the people against being their own worst enemies; such was the assembly presented to the public as a numerous and respectable meeting from 6 towns out of 14 (judge Child and Dr. Thompson kindly representing the towns of Greenfield and Galway.)

No sooner had this numerous meeting assembled, than it was tho't necessary to divide them into the proper committees;—This being more genteel and parliamentary than to act in a body;—Accordingly Stillwell, Thompson and Palmer were created a committee to draw up the proceedings of the meeting; Child and Stillwell, a committee of Logic and Rhetoric, to call on absent friends and get them to consent that he should resign. Mott and Child acted as a committee of vigilance to pick up and report scraps of conversations and letters from Mr. Gowen after the meeting was over. Mott, Thompson, Kasson, Stillwell, Roe, &c acted as a committee to report to the county, the fraud which had deprived Mr Young of his undoubted right to go to the Legislature, whether the people were willing or not. Mr. Elias Benedict to draw up the proceedings of Mr. Wilkins and possibly to enforce the statute for the suppression of Vice and Immorality;—and committee of the whole to tell the county they had been there; and do away the strange reports which had gone abroad, that they were a little self-created body, without precedent, authority or premises, resembling what saucy people would call a faction.

All might yet have gone well, had not Stillwell been such a miserable slouch at telling a story. It appears that Stillwell and Palmer had written a history of the meeting for publication, in which Mr. Cowen tells the meeting, "that they must be responsible if they act without his absolute resignation." See p. 24 and 5. This presumptuous act throws the Citizen into a whirlwind of passion; and he falls a cursing like a very drab, at Palmer, Bunce and Cowen, apparently not believing that his friend Stillwell would ever have told so dangerous a truth. He calls it a farrago of nonsense, after having before asserted that Palmer as Secretary had nothing to do with it; that it belonged exclusively to the committee of publication; and then recollecting that Palmer and Stillwell were a majority of that committee, and consequently the proper authority, he takes another leap, and says, that the rough draft of the proceedings were given to James Thompson Esq for wham he claims the copy right.

Now altho' Thompson is unwilling to be outdone in telling a story, and tho' he had peaceable and quiet possession according to the book of the consciences of Stillwell and Child, instead of telling the public that Mr. Cowen had resigned, he says something which to be sure would look "like that," as the citizen says, upon the first impression; but which on being critically examined, contradicts the fact on the face of it. Even the compound of jargon and inconsistency drawn up by Thompson, and published in page 16 of the book, could not be tortured into an unconditional resignation. Mr. Cowen is there made to say, not that he resigned nomination;—But that for reasons there enumerated, "it was his personal wish to resign his own nomination &c. and he submitted to the decision of the meeting, the question whether it would be most expedient to act on his resignation which he now made (which must refer to the personal wish before expressed, for no other resignation is pretended) if the meeting should judge a postponement impracticable, or to postpone acting until he could have time to communicate to some of the particular friends of his nomination (beside those who were present at the meeting) his reasons for resigning, and procure their concurrence before hand &c."