CHAPTER IV.

MR. SEYMOUR'S ELECTION AS GOVERNOR.

IN recognition of Mr. Seymour's exertion in behalf of the union and integrity of the Democratic party of New York, he received in 1850 a unanimous nomination for governor; and associated with him on the ticket was the Hon. Sandford E. Church, then and ever since a popular leader in Western New York. At this time there existed in different localities in the State, but mainly in the neighborhood of Albany, a powerful organization, known as AntiRenters. An Anti-Rent State ticket was selected from the candidates of both parties, and placed in nomination, with Washington Hunt, the Whig candidate for governor, at its head. The canvass was an animated one, and the anti-rent movement operated in favor of those adopted by them, as they were elected by large majorities. Hunt, notwithstanding this support, had only 262 majority in a total poll of nearly 429,000, Seymour running ahead of those of his associates who were not on the anti-rent ticket.

The gallant bearing of the Democratic champion in this contest, endeared him still more strongly to the masses; and in the great contest of 1852 he was again unanimously placed in nomination for governor, and after making a thorough canvass of the

ELECTED GOVERNOR.

31

State in person, he was triumphantly elected over his former competitor by 22,596 majority, carrying with him all his associates, and securing the electoral vote of the State to Pierce and King. In this, as in all great contests in the State, Governor Seymour appealed directly to the people, and he seldom appealed in vain. No man called out greater crowds of persons to listen, and no other man uniformly made a stronger or more favorable impression upon his hearers.

Although he and the late lamented Washington Hunt were opposing candidates in 1850 and in 1852, and the contest in each case was exciting and bitter, the personal relations of these two distinguished popular leaders were at all times intimate and friendly. Mr. Seymour always did full justice to the ability and integrity of his rival, with whom he had commenced political life, but who separated from the Democratic party on the United States Bank question. Before his death, Gov. Hunt become a warm political friend of Seymour, and during his last days he expressed a wish for his nomination and election to the Presidency. Had Washington Hunt been spared to the people of the country until this day, his voice would now be heard in behalf of the Democratic nominees. Horatio Seymour and Washington Hunt knew each other well; they had long communed at the same altar, their religious and political views entirely harmonizing. Together they had acted in the diocesan conventions of their church; together they were elected delegates to its triennial convention. In that convention they uniformly acted

in harmony for peace, union, and the promotion of their Master's kingdom.

They were both members of the Chicago Convention, of which Gov. Seymour became the presiding officer; and while the latter advocated the nomination of Chief-Justice Nelson, Gov. Hunt as ardently desired Gov. Seymour to become the candidate. The writer well remembers the earnest and conciliatory speech he made to the assembled delegation from New York while it was deliberating upon, the course it should take in carrying out the instructions of the State convention to vote as a unit.

The administration of Governor Seymour in 1853–4 was eminently successful, though in a time of great party peril and difficulty. The temperance agitators of the day had resolved themselves into a political party in favor of a system of coercive legislation, commonly known as the Maine law. The repeal of the Missouri Compromise had opened anew the schisms of the Democratic party of the North, and involved the administration of President Pierce in an angry and bitter contest for existence. The Whig party-that party of many virtues-was abandoned by its leaders, and upon its ruins had sprung up the National American and the Sectional Republican parties, each earnest and aggressive. All of these elements were bravely encountered by Governor Seymour's administration.

CHAPTER V.

THE TERM OF 1853-'54.-VETO OF THE LIQUOR LAW AND ROVING COMMISSION ACT.-ANECDOTES.

Ar the session of the Legislature of 1854, a prohibitory liquor law was proposed, framed similarly to one that had recently been passed in Maine, and after considerable discussion it received the sanction of the New York Legislature. The opposition party had then a majority in both houses, and as this subject was one engrossing public attention throughout the States, the Governor in his annual message at the opening of the session, had referred to it and substantially stated that while he was willing to co-operate in any effort to impose greater checks on the use of intoxicating liquors, yet that legislation in regard to it should be judicious or it would increase the evils. it was intended to prevent, and that "any measures adopted should be framed so as not to conflict with well settled principles of legislation or with the rights of our citizens."

On March 31st, 1854, the governor transmitted a message to the senate, in which he stated the reasons why he could not approve the bill. He took up the sections consecutively, and showed in what respects they were unconstitutional, oppressive, or impolitic. The general views of Gov. Seymour upon the subject of the suppression of intemperance by peremptory

and intermeddling legislation, are expressed very fully in the speech delivered at Springfield, Mass., in 1856, which is given in a subsequent chapter.

We may quote the following paragraphs from the

veto:

"The idea pervades the bill, that unusual, numerous, and severe penalties, will secure enforcement; but all experience shows that the undue severity of laws defeats their execution.

"After the excitement which enacted them has passed away, no one feels disposed to enforce them, for no law can be sustained which goes beyond public feeling and sentiment.

"I have omitted any notice of many defective provisions in the bill, as they might be corrected by future legislation. I have confined my objections to those which are radically wrong; which are inconsistent with the principles of justice, with the rights of persons and of property, and which so pervade the bill that they can not be stricken out without destroying its entire fabric. The bill is wrong, because it directs unreasonable searches of the premises and dwellings of our citizens under circumstances calculated to provoke resistance; it deprives persons of their property in a manner prohibited by the Constitution; it subjects them, on mere suspicion of knowl. edge of a suspected crime, to an inquisitorial examination.

'For one act of alleged violation of law, a citizen may be proceeded against as a criminal-be fined or imprisoned, and his property seized or forfeited; he may be proceeded against in civil suits by various parties with whom he has had no dealings, and subjected to the payment of damages where none have been averred or proved. To all these prosecutions he may be subjected without the benefit of trial, in the usual and judicial meaning of that term.

"The Constitution makes it my duty to point out the objectionable features of this bill, but I owe it to the subject, and the friends of the measure, to add the expression of my belief that intemperance can not be extirpated by prohibitory laws. They are not consistent with sound principles of legislation. Like decrees to regulate religious creeds or forms of worship, they provoke resistance where they are designed to enforce obedience.

"The effort to suppress intemperance by unusual and arbitrary measures, proves that the Legislature is attempting to do that which is not within its province to enact or its power to enforce. This is