not now be." 1 The Tribune further echoed the Troy Times, Griswold's home paper, which accredited to Griswold great personal as well as political popularity and remarkably apt executive and administrative abilities.2

The Evening Post gave a qualified assent to the nomination of Mr. Griswold. It was inclined to believe that he would be of some positive good to the State if elected, were it not for the fact that the State constitution makes a figurehead of the Governor. The platform, although simply an echo of the Chicago platform, would not suffer, because the Democratic State platform would likewise ignore State matters in endorsing the New York platform. The Commercial Advertiser gave more attention to the Republican State convention than any of the other City papers. It believed that success was more certain under the leadership of Griswold than under that of any one else. But it took issue against the bad counsels that had prevailed at Syracuse. "Those eminently pure patriots, Charley Spencer and Waldo Hutchins ", were accused of having caused the disruption of the Republican ranks of New York City, producing a decrease of votes from 36,000 to 18,000.*

The World editorially took but slight notice of the Republican State convention. It purported to consider the nomination of the opulent and amiable Griswold as a fair exchange for the Republican State campaign expenses. As for the platform it "cheers Fenton as he sails to glory on his mattress; invites the general government to take an interest in the Erie canal frauds; recognizes the corruptionists

'New York Tribune, July 9, 1868.

2 Troy Times, July 8, 1868. Quoted in New York Tribune, July 9. 1868.

'New York Evening Post, July 9, 1868.

4 Votes of 1864 and 1867. New York Commercial Advertiser, July 9, 1868.

1

of Congress as praiseworthy brethren of the Albany ring; and thanks the Rump for doing 'persistently and firmly' all that it has utterly failed to do." In its next issue the World began its campaign against Griswold by showing how he had voted in Congressional committee to profit at the expense of the government in connection with his governmental iron contracts.2 The Sun refused to commit itself as to the wisdom of the selection of Griswold. It believed that Frederick A. Conkling, Horace Greeley or Marshall O. Roberts would have pulled stronger in the eastern counties of the State, where the Democrats could count upon a 100,000 majority.*

3

Even more noticeable than the failure of the Republican State convention to arouse interest among New York City journals was the lack of interest displayed in it by the upState papers. Among the Republican organs the Rochester Daily Democrat alone raised a voice of dissent to the nomination of John A. Griswold. It thought that the wisest action for the convention would have been the nomination of Horace Greeley, but agreed to support Griswold as second best." Roberts contented himself with emphasizing the unanimity of the Chicago and Syracuse conventions as contrasted with the bitterness of the Democratic National convention then in session. Of the Democratic up-State journals the Argus advanced the most noteworthy opinion; which was that Griswold was nominated by the aid of, and would be beaten by the Fentonites."

'New York World, July 9, 1868. 'Ibid., July 10, 1868.

Brother to Roscoe Conkling.

4 New York Sun, July 9, 1868.

Rochester Daily Democrat, July 9, 1868.

6 Utica Morning Herald, July 9, 1868.

7 Albany Argus, July 13, 1868.

THE DEMOCRATIC STATE NOMINATING CONVENTION

The Democrats of the State according to the time-honored custom waited until September before holding their State convention, which met at Tweedle Hall, Albany, September 2, 1868. The convention assembled under unfavorable auspices, for Vermont on the preceding day had given Grant and Colfax an emphatic indorsement.1 This tended to dampen noticeably the ardor of the delegates 2 at Albany. The chief pre-convention interest centered around the rival delegations and candidates from New York City and Brooklyn. Supervisor Tweed led the Tammany forces for Hoffman while John Morrissey led the opposition Brooklyn delegation for State Senator Henry C. Murphy.

2

Mr. Murphy was a politician of some note, having been mayor of Brooklyn, its corporation counsel, twice its representative in Congress and from 1856 to 1860 the United States Minister to the Hague. From 1860 he had sat in the New York senate, where he had advanced himself towards the governorship both in 1866 and 1868. Nevertheless, the backers of Mr. Murphy appeared to have made little progress against Hoffman prior to the convention.* Their aim on the eve of the convention was to muster sufficient strength in order to force the nomination of a third

man.

In spite of the opposition of John Morrissey, who had been one of the main factors in forcing the nomination of Hoffman two years before, the opinion seemed to prevail that Hoffman beyond question would be renominated. In

1 New York Herald, Sept. 2, 1868.

Among the more prominent delegates present were: Samuel J. Tilden, Sandford E. Church, Senator Murphy, John A. Green, H. A. Nelson, H. S. Randall, Judge Garvin, Peter B. Sweeny and Judge Connolly. Governor Seymour was not in attendance.

'New York Times, Sept. 2, 1868.

4 New York Sun, Sept. 2, 1868; New York World, Sept. 2, 1868.

1866 the country delegates in the main had united against Hoffman and his Tammany supporters because he was backed by Morrissey. Yet paradoxically in 1868 Morrissey's opposition to Hoffman proved a recommendation for the latter. This may be explained by the fact that at this time Morrissey was more widely known up-State for his political trickery than were Tweed and his Tammany ring.

The aspirants for the lieutenant-governorship were A. P. Lanning, of Buffalo; A. C. Beach, of Watertown; General James McQuade, of Utica, the soldiers' candidate; and Smith Weed, of Clinton County, with chances in favor of Mr. Lanning. The other offices incited no contest except for clerk of the Court of Appeals for which eight candidates appeared. Of these only Messrs. E. O. Perrin, W. B. Henderson and C. Ten Broeck were prominently mentioned, with Mr. Perrin in the lead.

Samuel J. Tilden, chairman of the State committee, called the convention to order in an optimistic address. A temporary organization was effected without dissent, Mr. H. O. Cheesbro, of Ontario, taking the chair. The only contest for seats was between Isaac M. Marsh, of Rich

mond County, and Dr. James Harcourt. This was referred to a committee which later reported in favor of Mr. Marsh. After arranging for committees on permanent organization and referring a motion on excise to its proper committee, the convention adjourned until 3:30 P. M.

'New York World, Sept. 2, 1868.

1 George Becker, of Broome; Wm. H. Henderson, of Cattaraugus; Orrin W. Smith, of Delaware; E. O. Perrin, of Queens; Henry J. Glowack, of Genesee; Cornelius Ten Broeck, of Albany; James D. Little, of Putnam; Wm. Lounsberry, of Ulster.

3 Messrs. Beach, Tweed and Ross.

4 New York Times, Sept. 3, 1868. John Fox moved the following: "Resolved, That no Excise laws should be enacted except such as

Upon reassembling for the afternoon session the committee on resolutions was appointed. One of the members of this committee from the eighth district was Grover Cleveland. Robert Earl,' of Herkimer, headed the list of permanent officers. In his address when taking the chair he echoed the principles of the Democratic National platform. A committee of two from each judicial district was appointed to report an electoral ticket. Under the guidance of Mr. Ten Eyck, of Seneca, the State committee was enlarged to thirty-three, one member for each congressional district. In addition, on motion of Calvert Comstock, of Oneida, the president of the convention was empowered to appoint three members at large.2

Next in order of procedure was the nomination of a Governor. It appears that the nomination was conceded by practically all to John T. Hoffman, the Tweed candidate. Results verified this belief. After Hoffman had been nominated by George W. Miller, a letter was read to the convention by Mr. D. P. Barnard in which Senator Henry C. Murphy withdrew his name in the interest of harmony. Under the placid tone of this letter it would be hard for the uninitiated to suspect that a deep wound rankled. The supporters of Murphy felt deeply chagrined not only over the withdrawal of their leader but because certain leaders of the country districts hoped to make a combination against Tammany Hall.* Mr. A. Oakey Hall seconded

are uniform in their operation throughout the whole State; and that the execution of such laws, and the collection of the taxes themselves thereunder, should only be through the medium of the local authorities of each county."

'Later of the Court of Appeals. 'New York World, Sept. 3, 1868.

New York World, Sept. 3, 1868.

New York Tribune, Sept. 3, 1868. Among the leaders of this de