Letters and Literary Memorials of Samuel J. Tilden, v. 1

by Samuel J. Tilden

"Yours truly,
"W. C. Bryant."

S. J. TILDEN TO MARCY (PROBABLY)

"New York, Oct. 12, 1853.

"My dear Sir,—I take the first moment I have been able to command to answer your note recd. on Monday.

"There is no truth whatever in the story that Grover[21] voted against or dissented from the resolutions of the late Syracuse convention. As the question was then taken viva voce it is foolish to say that any man actually voted for them unless you happened to see his lips move or distinguished his voice, but as Grover did not express dissent or apparently reserve his vote, I suppose he must be deemed to have concurred in their adoption. I have no doubt that he did so, for in the caucus the evening before he was openly in favor of adopting the Baltimore resolutions. My own knowledge of his sentiments, as expressed before, correspond with this course on his part. I state this as matter of fact, because it is fact; and not that I do not think it idle to expect to silence those clamors in respect to Mr. Grover. They must have something to say. The convictions I expressed to you as the true policy in respect to the collectorship would have been strengthened by subsequent events if they had not been before so clear and strong.

"The safe issue with Bronson was on the charge that he has lent his official character and influence to disorganize the party in this State, and to aid the formation of an organized opposition to the administration, and has abused the appointing power entrusted to him to accomplish those objects both of hostility alike to the Democracy and the administration. He would be easily convicted of the first charge by his overt act in taking part with the bolters from the character of the ticket he sustains and from the declarations of the body of his associates. Indeed, his practical position in that respect is already sufficiently recognized by the general public. The second charge that he had exerted his official influence and the appointing power to further the ends of the new combination into which he has openly entered would be readily believed, and its truth could be abundantly shown at leisure. These charges, if well founded, as they unquestionably are, are of a character to justify and, indeed, demand of the administration, by its duty of self-preservation and its duty to maintain the Democracy as an organized party, to intervene for objects so important and so elevated. It can act on such grounds without loss of dignity, and with a justice that is capable of triumphant vindication. That action should correspond with the nature of the case—the clear legal [obligations] of the Collector to the President and to the character of the administration. In my opinion such action is to be performed only in the exercise of the power of removal. The efforts of the administration to come to an amicable understanding with this 'refractory subordinate,' as the Globe used to say, have all failed hopelessly. Any attempt to coerce his discretion while retaining him in office is inconsistent with every attribute which ought to characterize the action of the administration, as the case now stands, and will entirely fail of results except to weaken and besmirch the administration itself.

"The failures to coerce his discretion, even his unfairness and his infidelity to the policy of the administration in the distribution of the subordinate appointments, are by no means the strongest grounds on which to place his removal. On the contrary, I think it a godsend that he has furnished other grounds proved to your hands, of impregnable strength, on which to justify a removal made necessary by petty wrongs and frauds, but now becomes at once indispensable at the hands of the administration and capable of being done without loss of dignity.

"There is still another ground besides those mentioned where the movement in this State has for its avowed object to compel the President to remove his Cabinet. This object is daily manifest through the press and by speeches and by resolutions. The Collector has taken open part with this movement, and, while disclaiming these objects, he is fairly to be held to concur in them, and I presume nobody has any doubt that he, in fact, does so. He at the same time holds an office of most power and of more importance to the administration than any member of the Cabinet. Now is it possible to suppose that if a member of the Cabinet were taking part in public meetings of men, whose object was to expel the rest of the Cabinet, the administration could omit to interfere in the matter without a total loss of all public respect? The principle that the heads of the departments should be in relations of harmony and confidence with the President has been applied as much to the Collectorship of this port as to the Cabinet offices, and with at least as much reason. Prudence as well as principle has always sustained the President through all change of parties and of individuals in bringing the chief officers of the government into this harmony with it whenever he has found them otherwise. These are the grounds on which the removal of Bronson should be placed, and his unfairness and infidelity to the policy of the administration in appointments only incidental as constituting or being part of a systematic abuse of the appointing power to aid his general object. This latter should be very incidental.

"It is important that the issue should be made on his conduct and in its moral, general, and public aspect, and not on the conduct of the administration in interfering with his appointments. It is important, in a word, that the administration should have the affirmative of the issue—that it should be charging the attacking party, and not the defending.

"You are now pausing on the edge of a marsh, when you should be in full march on solid ground, so at least it seems to me nothing remains but to recover as soon as possible a firm and strong position.