April 4, [1849.]
My Dear Sir, I have just
received your kind note of the 3rd March inviting me, in default of being able
to obtain lodgings on my arrival at Washington, to share yours. It was left for
me at Coleman's I suppose, & I never saw it until to day. I wish I
had arrived in season to avail myself of it.
I have recd. since
my return on Saturday last (31st ult) yr. 2 letters of the 14th & 28th
March. I wish I could agree with you in the sentiment, “let by gones be by
gones”: & in view of it I do. Let us arrange a satisfactory basis of future
action & I will cordially respond to the sentiment But is it not
manifest what has past must be reviewed, in some measure, in order to determine
on this basis? It is clear to me that the question growing out of the division
of this County ought to have been settled this winter by the repeal of the
clauses effecting the division. In my judgment also the apportionment law, (so
called,) should have been modified by the disjunction of counties improperly
joined; & I held junction improper, if not unconstitutional, in all cases,
where the counties, if separated, would be respectively entitled to a member. I
am very sure that had the Representatives of the Free Democracy in the Senate
and House last winter been willing to have done justice in these particulars to
the old Democracy, not only might all division in our own ranks have been
avoided, but the democrats, propitiated by this action, would have cheerfully
aided the Free Soilers not only in the repeal of the Black laws, but in the
enactment of suitable laws against kidnapping & prohibiting the use of state
jails & the aid of State officers to the pursuers of fugitive slaves, &
generally in carrying through our distinctive Free Soil Measures.
These consequences
would have flowed naturally & inevitably from the state of feeling which
always springs up among men, who find themselves in the relative positions
occupied by the Free Democrats and the Cass Democrats & act justly &
liberally towards each other.
A different line of
conduct was resolved on, & the results of the winter session are far less
complete, in my judgment, than they would otherwise have been: & we are now
embarrassed by the question What shall be done with the division of Hamilton
County? I do not see how we can keep this question out of the elections next
fall: nor, in my judgment, is it now desirable to do so. I quite agree with you
that “standing as we must in opposition to the administration necessity will
compel the democrats & free soilers to act together on all matters touching
the administration”: & I would add to this that there being a substantial
agreement between the platform of State policy adopted by the Free
Democratic State Convention last winter, & that of the old Democracy, it
seems to me, that the same general harmony of action may be easily secured as
to State matters. If such harmony can be secured without the sacrifice of
principle, & without the sacrifice of the independent organization of the
Free Democracy, the result cannot fail to be auspicious to the cause of Freedom
& to its maintainers. Such harmony, resulting in a triumph of the Democrats
& Free Democrats in the State election, would strengthen, infinitely, your
position in the House & my position in the Senate, & give complete
ascendency to our principles & measures in the Senate. The harmonious
cooperation cannot be had, I apprehend, without a definition of its position by
the Free Democracy on the Hamilton County question:1 &,
therefore I say that it does not seem to me desirable to avoid it. In fact I
should have brought the question forward in our State convention had I felt
assured that the clauses would be repealed before the end of the session & therefore
yielded to the suggestions of several, & waived the introduction either
into the Committee or into the Convention of a resolution which I had prepared.
But if it were desirable to keep this question out of the canvass could we
do it? It must be decided by the next house & the next senate. The
Democrats will elect, in this county representatives for the whole county on a
single ticket. The Free Democracy will vote in the same way in all probability.
The Whigs will vote by Districts. The democrats will have a majority in the
first eight wards of Cincinnati, which they claim to be a district. The two
sets of representatives will again present themselves at Columbus claiming
seats. The free soilers, in all probability, will again have the question to
decide between the claimants. How can we avoid the enquiry, How will the
Candidates proposed by the Free Democratic Conventions vote on the question? If
we should avoid it & elect men ignorant of their views on this question,
does not the experience of last winter clearly shew that its decisions will
divide the Free Soilers? I think then, that the Hamilton County question must
be met & settled in our primary conventions.
My views in relation to it are fixed. I thought last winter & still
think that the division clauses are not warranted by the constitution but that
these clauses having been regarded as binding by a large proportion though a
decided minority of the voters, the election held, partly under them &
partly in disregard of them, should be set aside, the clauses repealed, &
the election sent back to the people. I did not, however, regard it as the
absolute duty of the Legislature to set aside the election in every event. On
the contrary the Democratic Claimants to be entitled, stricti juris, to their
seats. & therefore when it became impossible to send the election back to the
people with the clauses repealed, through the refusal of Whig Freesoilers to
vote for the repeal of them, I did not hesitate to approve the determination of
Mess. Morse & Townshend to admit them to their seats, as constitutionally
elected. I think, of course, that the candidates of whatever party they may be,
having the highest number of votes cast in the whole county, next fall, will be
entitled to seats in the House. So fixed is this opinion in the minds of the
Democrats, that I do not doubt that they
will refuse to sit in a House from which the members from Hamilton County shall
be excluded.
It seems to me, therefore, that the question of the Constitutionality
& validity of the divisions — clauses, as well as the validity of the
pretended enactment of the apportionment law should be fairly discussed in our
conventions. I believe the result of such a discussion will be general acquiescence
in the opinions, which I, in common with nearly all Liberty men, &
Democratic Freesoilers & not a few Whig Free Soilers, confidently hold. If
such be the result, it seems to me certain that we can achieve a most important
victory next fall.
I have thus given you my views freely, I shall be glad to know they
strike you. I learn that Briggs has repeated the charge of one of the Taylor
Papers, here, that before the meeting of the Legislature I expressed an opinion
in favor of the Constitutional of the division, & changed it afterwards to
effect my purpose. This is simply false: & I should think Mr. Briggs must
have known it to be so: & I am mistaken greatly if I did not express the
opinion I now hold, in one or more letters to Cleveland before the meeting of
the Legislature not so fully perhaps as I should now, for I had not so fully
considered the subjects involved but substantially the same.
As to all personal attacks, however, I shall content myself with a simple
appeal to the whole tenor of my past life & leave my vindication to Time
& Public Reason. 1 enclose a statement of the popular vote on the question of
annexation the southern part of Mill Creek to the city a bill for which purpose
was so strenuously resisted by the Whigs in the Legislature last winter &
was defeated by a tie vote in the Senate. Hunker Whiggism musters in Whig
Cincinnati only 1092 votes. The Democrats & Free Soilers united with the
Whig annexationists & elected also an annexation council carrying
every ward but one.
With very great regard,
[Salmon P. Chase.]
_______________
* From letter-book
6, pp. 133 and 174-175.
1 See T. C. Smith Liberty and Free Soil Parties, 161.
SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical
Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 166-70
