"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.
"If Bronson answers at once, his reply will afford the occasion for an
instant removal.
"In that event, care should be taken, by a well-considered and powerful
article in the _Union_ of a semi-official character to place the
removal on the true grounds--and as little as possible on the one by
which the correspondence will probably be used by him and by the Whigs
to frame; and that article should be especially shaped to carry the war
into Africa.
"If, as I fear, Bronson should delay answering in the knowledge
that time lost is all in their favor and against us, there is one
other resource. Let the administration treat the open avowals of our
organized movement to change the Cabinet, which have been made since
the correspondence commenced, as a _new development_ of the designs
and character of the movement with which Bronson is implicated, and as
a new offence which calls for immediate action. I see no difficulty
in doing this if the administration is really earnest for action
instead of wishing occasion for temporizing. Take an affirmative,
energetic course, and the details will work out themselves or be easily
brought into conformity with the broad grounds on which you act. The
administration is perishing by slow disease, the result of indecision
and want of energy. I do not say this because I am willing to think
it is the administration's duty to come up to any personal wishes
or opinions of mine, but I should be blind if I failed to see the
indication of a general and prevalent public opinion.
"If you had not known me, and I have known you more than twenty years,
and will not think I speak rashly, I would not speak so frankly, though
it is at once the highest office and best testimony of my friendship to
convey early what is slow and late to reach the ears of men in power.
"The bolting movement in this State would have utterly failed if it
could have been understood at the outset that this administration were
united in discountenancing it. We should have carried the State, and
the President's policy, wise and right as it was, would have had the
double triumph of carrying at once Georgia and New York, and faction
would have been silenced in and out of Congress. The main force of the
movement here has been the false pretence that it was favored by a part
of them, representations of this nature being readily believed when
made by local leaders in whom they have confidence. It is idle to say
that enough has been done to counteract this evil, when we are daily
argued with by respectable men to show the contrary.
"But yesterday John Bowdish, of Montezuma, came to see me on the
subject, saying that Thomas B. Mitchell has assured him that the
President and part of the Cabinet were with the Hards. I heard also
from Putnam Co. that such is the general opinion there. It takes more
time than there is before the election to penetrate the localities with
the truth, and in the mean time men are getting committed too strongly
to change. An unmistakable act at the outset would have saved all and
would do infinite good yet. In addition to the general considerations
respecting the character of the administration it is desirable [the
next three lines undecipherable]. Excuse the haste in which I write.
"Very Truly Your Friend,
"S. J. TILDEN."