LIBRARY OF 
 
 CONGRESS 
 
 014 312 383 2 % 
 
53 
 
 42 
 
 y 1 
 
 
 TO 
 
 "THE CRISIS.'^ 
 
 Printed by James Peacock, Market street, 
 HARBISBtJRO. 
 
 
 1^ 
 
REPLY 
 
 TO 
 
 ^^THE CRISIS/' 
 
 To the Democratic Citizens of Pennsylvania. 
 
 ON the 4?th of March next, a candidate for the 
 highest oflBce in the commonwealth is to be nominated 
 for your support at the next election. The state has 
 flourished beyond all former example during the mild, 
 impartial, and able administration of the present Go- 
 vernor; and the period of his retiring from office ap- 
 proaching, another bold effort will be made by the 
 federal party, combined with the oldschool section, to 
 wrest from your hands the administration of the go- 
 vernment. It is therefore all- important that a candi- 
 date be selected who shall be superior to all excep- 
 tion — lirm, enlightened, and judicious. 
 
 Two candidates have been spoken of, Mr. Find- 
 lay and Mr. Boileau, each having claims on the 
 support of their democratic brethren. The merits and 
 claims of both gentlemen have been much spoken of 
 for some months past; their characters must be known 
 to all of you; aiid doubtless the one that may be se- 
 lected by the convention in March, will receive your 
 united and strenuous support. 
 
4i 
 
 The friends of Mr. Findlay have not deemed it 
 proper to enter into a full exposition of his character, 
 conduct and services, unless he should be nominated 
 the democratic candidate by the convention. If he be 
 selected as the candidate of the party, they will then 
 feel themselves bound to refute any and every slander 
 that may be propagii^ted against him by the enemies of 
 democracy. They have not thought proper to publish 
 any biographical sketches of his life, or minute detail 
 of his public services; much less have they stooped to 
 the meanness of abusing the character of Mr. Boileau, 
 of misrepresenting his conduct and actions, or misquo- 
 ting and perverting papers and public records, for 
 the purpose of prejudicing your minds against him. 
 
 A pamphlet arrived here and was distributed yester- 
 day, called " The Crisis,'' and signed *' One of the 
 feople,^^ the objectof which appears to be, by low abuse 
 and false insinuations, by suppression of facts, and by 
 the wicked and (we believe) wilful perversion of official 
 documents, to destroy the fair fame and unimpeacha- 
 ble character of Mr. Findlay. If this impotent at- 
 tempt at assassination of character had come from the 
 federal or oldschool parties, it would have been suf- 
 fered, at least for the present, to pass unnoticed. But 
 it comes from a man calling himself a democrat, and a 
 friend to the nomination of Mr. Boileau. It might 
 deceive and mislead^ and ought therefore to be expo- 
 sed; and the object of this address is to expose it 
 
 The author of the Crisis begins his work by acme 
 charges against'those printers of newspapers who have 
 manifested their partiality for Mr. Findlay. He char- 
 ges /^ a number of them with refusing to publish any 
 ^' thing in favor of another^^ candidate. He does not 
 state whether the number be great or small, nor men- 
 tion the names of any of them. If the number be very 
 great, if the editors of newspapers be so very gene- 
 rally in favor of Mr. Findlay, that the friends*^ of Mr. 
 Boileau cannot reach the public ear through the chan- 
 nel of the newspapers, is not this a strong proof that 
 the public voice is in favor of Mr. Findlay, and not of 
 Mr. Boileau? Printers generally consu\t their owi-. 
 
interest, and in doing so they must coiisult the pul»lic 
 sentiment, before taking part in any measure of £;eneral 
 interest. They throw themselves in front of the peo- 
 ple, and have the appearance of leading, vvheu in fact 
 they are driven and carried along by the popular voice. 
 Ninety-nine times in a hundred the editors of newspa- 
 pers in announcing candidates for office, speak the sen- 
 timents of their subscribers. Then, even if the charge 
 of '^ One of the FeopleV were true, if the number of 
 printers in favor of Mr. Findlay be great, it proves 
 that Mr. Boileau is not the candidate of the people. 
 
 But suppose the number of those who refused to 
 publish any thing in favor of Mr. Boileau to be small, 
 to be only " three or four," as the author intimates in 
 his eiglith page, what room can there be for complaint? 
 There are not less, we presume, than fifty democratic 
 papers in the state, and if the author of the Crisis has 
 forty- six or forty- seven of them open to his attacks on 
 Mr. Findlay or eulogies on Mr. Boileau^ why should 
 he whine or murmur? 
 
 But the author has another tremendous charge a- 
 gainst the democratic printers. It seems that the De- 
 mocratic Press ^' has published one or two articles 
 ^' which might be construed in favor of another can- 
 " didate;^^ and that the democratic printers throughout 
 the state neglected '' to republish the few articles that 
 '' appeared in the Democratic Press, giving some in- 
 ^'formation as to the talents, political character and 
 " services of Mr. Boileau.^' Oh, ye abominable, licen- 
 tious printers! Do ye not yet know whence ye must 
 derive all your opinions? Dare ye offer as legitimate 
 and orthodox, an opinion not sanctioned by the holy 
 imprimatur of the Press? Ye shall be hung for high 
 treason, or gibbetted by the author of th^ Crisis for 
 this unparalleled presumption. But perhaps you can 
 say something in your defence. Did the Press re~ 
 publish any of your pieces in favor of Mr. Findlay? 
 •TVo, not one. Then you may be pardoned, and pun- 
 ishment arrested. But what will the author of the 
 Crisis say of the Democratic Press, which has ^* ne- 
 glected^^ so 7na7iy printers in the state, v/hilst tiiey 
 have neglected only oneP 
 
We sli all now take notice of the writer's charges 
 against Mr. Findlay^ and his proofs of Mr, 
 Findlay's being a federalist^ oy tainted with 
 federalism. 
 
 His first proof is a piece which he copies from the 
 iVmi^rican Ceiitioel of December S7th, 1816, stating 
 that Mr. Findlay received federal votes for the Legis- 
 lature at the general election of 1806. This piece was 
 copied by the Centinel from the York Grazette, and the 
 writer of it was wholly misinformed as to the fact. Mr. 
 Findlay received no federal votes. The democratic 
 party had at that time a majority in Franklin county, 
 and owing to a division among themselves, the two 
 candidates whose names were on the ticket with Mr. 
 Findlayj fell a few votes behind the two highest of 
 the federal candidates, and were accordingly not elect- 
 ed. Mr. Findhiy being the most popular among the 
 democratic candidates, received all the democratic 
 votes, and was elected. He resigned his seat during 
 the session {^beiiig chosen State Treasurer) and Mr. 
 Bechert was elected in his place by a majority of ^00 
 votes over tiie federal candidate. This correction of 
 the error in the York Gazette, appeared not long af- 
 terwards in the Ckamhershurg Rejjiihlican, which no 
 doubt the author of the Crisis has seen; but it did not 
 suit his purpose to mention it, any more than it did to 
 state that the piece fronj the Centinel above alluded to, 
 was copied from the York Gazette. 
 
 The neoct proof given hij the Crisis of Mr. Find- 
 Imfs federalism^ relates to the quarrel hetiveen 
 
 Governor JfFItcan and Mr. Bryan^ the Compt- 
 
 roller General. 
 
 In the session of iSOl^-i?, Mr. Boileau read a bill 
 in his place, entitled '^ An act to alter the mode of ap- 
 poititiiKg the Comptroller and Register General'' (jour- 
 nal, p. 376) on the third reading of which six federal- 
 ists, and fifteen republicans, including Mr. Findlay, 
 voted iu the negative — (page -163). As far as the 
 
details of the bill can be ascertained from the Gov- 
 ernor's objections to it, the object of it appears to 
 hav6 been to take the power of appointiue; this officer 
 from the Crovernor, and vest it in the Legislature- 
 It by no means follows that the members who voted 
 against the bill, adopted the objections to it that were 
 made by the Governor. They may have had different 
 and valid reasons for their opinions. It is understood 
 from a gentleman who was a member of the House at 
 the time, that it was advocated on the ground, that the 
 Governor's having the appointment of the accounting 
 officers, gave him too much influence over the ilnances 
 of the state. And that it was opposed on the princi- 
 ple, that if the accounting officers abused their powers 
 they could be reached by impeachment, or by an ad- 
 dress from the Legislature to the Governor to remove 
 them. It was also contended that danger was to be 
 apprehended, if their appointment should be vested in 
 the Legislature: that brigade inspectors, former she- 
 riffs, county treasurers, and other revenue officers who 
 had unsettled accounts with the commonwealth, were 
 often elected to the Legislature; and if they had the 
 appointment of all the officers whose duty it was to 
 settle their accounts, it might create an improper bias 
 on the minds of the officers, Mr. Findlay was himself 
 at that time a brigade inspector, and had to settle his 
 accounts with those officers annually; and what might 
 not the Crisis have said against him if he had attempt- 
 ed to legislate to himself the power of participating in 
 the appointment of all the officers who were to settle 
 Ms own accounts? 
 
 A leading object of the bill was to keep in office Mr. 
 S. Bryan, who was the intimate friend of its^ author. 
 Legislation on general principles from sueh partial 
 considerations, is always dangerous. The bill eon^ 
 templated no reduction of salary or expenses; it in»^ 
 volved no political principle nor any favorable to the 
 cause of democracy. If it did involve any principle 
 advantageous to democracy, why has it not since been 
 introduced? Why has not the executive recommended 
 a revival of the question? True indeed, an arrange 
 
Hi 
 
 8 
 
 nient has since been made, transferring tlic powers ot" 
 the Comptroller General to the Treasurer, and chang. 
 ingHhe name of Register General to that of Auditor 
 General; but the executive authority is still predomi- 
 nant in the settlement of accounts, because the Audi- 
 tor General is appointed by the Governor, and the Go- 
 vernor is the umpire in all cases of difference between 
 the Treasurer and Auditor General. So that the Le- 
 gislatures of 1809 and 1811, have adopted the princi- 
 ples of those who opposed Mr. Boileau's bill in 1^05;^ 
 and those principles have been practised upon and ac- 
 quiesced in ever since by all branches of the goverii- 
 ment. 
 
 The bill passed both Houses and was rejected by 
 the Governor, and after M'Kean^s election in iSOSr, 
 Mr. Bryan was removed. At the siicceeding session 
 the friends of Governor M'Kean exhibited charges 
 against Mr. Bryan of improper application of publi^ 
 money. Mr. Bryan wrote a book on the subject, print- 
 ed and sold by Mv. Dickson, in the spring of 1806. In 
 page 8 of the preface he says, that ^^ the virtuous, able 
 " and public spirited exertions of a Findlay, a Holgate 
 ^^ and a Lacock, and the other patriotic meinbers> t& 
 ^^ shield me from the meditated villainy of unprincipled 
 ^^ men, merit not merely my individual gratitude, but 
 ^^ that of every honest public spirited man in the com- 
 ^^ munity." This shews that there was no hostility 
 between Mr. Findlay and Mr. Bryan, and that Mf. 
 Findlay in opposing Mr. Boileau's bill, was not acta* 
 ated by any ill will towards Mr. Bryan. Nor had he 
 any thing to fear from the executive: his office of bri- 
 gade inspector was independent of the executive will* 
 
 Thus vanishes this charge of the OWsis against Mr. 
 Findlay, which is made out by garbling the journals of 
 the House of Representatives. Instead of manifesting 
 any federal taint in Mr. Findlay, the whole facts whea 
 known shew that Mr. Findlay, with fourteen other 
 republicans,^ opposed Mr. Boileau's bill relative to 
 the Comptroller Generafl, on principles since adopted 
 
 * Several of those have since joined the federal and oldschool 
 
 parti(?s. 
 
by the democratic Legislatures of 1809 and 18H, and 
 upproved of by the whole party to this day; and that 
 even Mr. Bryan mentions in the foremost place, the 
 services of Mr. Findlay in the cause of democracy and 
 persecuted innocence. 
 
 The next proof of the Crisis relates to the im- 
 peachment of the judges of the supreme court. 
 
 The complaint of Passmore against the judges was 
 not made at the session of 1804-5, as the Crisis falsely 
 states, but at the session of 180S-3 (journal, p. 393) at 
 which session Mr. Findlay was not a member. The 
 committee to whom the complaint was referred made a 
 report, merely recommending that the power of the 
 courts to punish contempts should be more accurately 
 defined (page 456). The report and documents were 
 again referred to a special committee (p 49S) who 
 made a similar report, with ^he addition of recommend- 
 ing to the Legislature to inquire into the conduct of 
 the judges (p. 513). Nothing farther w*as done at this 
 session. The charges against the judges do not ap^ 
 pear to have been then considered as serious. 
 
 At the session of 1803-4? Mr. Findlay was a mem- 
 ber, and the affair of the judges (17th January) was 
 referred to the committee of grievances, twenty- eight 
 in number, of which Mr. Findlay was not one (pages 
 231 and ^1 j. The committee examined twelve or fif- 
 teen witnesses (page 701), had the subject under their 
 consideration for two months, and at last (13th March) 
 reported a resolution that articles of impeachment 
 should be preferred against the judges. Seven feder- 
 alists and seventeen republicans, including Mr. Find- 
 lay. on the SOth March voted against the resolutioii 
 (page 634.)* 
 
 Thus it appears that the committee had the subject 
 Utader their consideration for two months, and the re- 
 solution was . acted upon in six or seven days after 
 
 * It should be noted that Several members elected as republicans, 
 have since joined the oldschool and federal parties? 
 
10 
 
 their report. The testimony of the witnesses given be- 
 fore tlie committee, was not published. It therefore must 
 have been difficult if not impossible, amidst the press 
 of business at the close of the session, for those who 
 had not been members the preceding session, and who 
 were not on the committee of grievances, to have exa- 
 mined fully, so i 115 p or tan t a subject in the short space 
 of six or seven days. The House of Representatives 
 incases of impeachment resemble grand juries, and 
 the conscience and judgment of each member should 
 Jie fully convinced, before putting any officer on trial. 
 In criminal cases it cannot be proper to rest on the 
 opinions of others. And after all, so doubtful was the 
 evidence then in possession of the committee^ against 
 the judges, that ten members of that committee and se- 
 veral who had been members the preceding session, 
 voted against the impeachment. The impeachment 
 was not tried at this session. 
 
 At the next session, on the resolution to prosecute 
 the impeachment, several members (Mr. Fiuillay in- 
 cluded) who, Had voted in the negative at the former 
 session, now voted in the affirmative (journal, page 
 4f0-50). Whether this change arose from their having 
 had time to examine the testimony and investigate 
 the merits of the case, or from the opinion that the 
 judges ought to be tried since crime had been charged 
 against them, cannot now be ascertained. The judges 
 were finally tried by the Senate, and acquitted. 
 
 After this statement of facts, who does not feel in- 
 dignant at the base insinuations and charges of the 
 Crisis against Mr. Find I ay? The author in referring 
 to the journals, meanly omits every circumstance tend- 
 ing to explain the cotiduct of those members who at 
 first voted against the impeachment of the judges; and 
 in particular most shamefully omits to state that Mr. 
 Findlay did vote for the impeachment at the session 
 in which the ji^lges were tried. He even conveys the 
 idea that !Vlr. Fiodlay was a member of the Senate, 
 and voted for th^ir acquittal. But possibly this was 
 a blunder in language merely, and instead of execra- 
 ting the mal'gnity of the heart, we should only smile 
 at the folly of the head. 
 
11 
 
 Is it not most contemptible and ridiculous, lo charge 
 a man with change of political principles, because on 
 some abstract questions of legislation he may sometimes 
 vote with federalists, or federalists with him? At the 
 session of 1803-^1, a bill entitled " An act to render 
 ^' the administration of justice more efficient and less 
 ^^ expensive within this commonwealth," reached its 
 third reading in the House of Representatives. On 
 the passage of the bill, 03 democrats including Mr. 
 Findlay, voted in the affirmative, and Mr. Boileau and 
 all the federalists voted in the negative (page 543), 
 And did ever any rational man call this a proof of Mr. 
 Boileau's having R,\iy federal taint? 
 
 So corrupt and prejudiced is the mind of the author 
 of the Crisis, so bent is he upon injuring the reputation 
 of Mr. Findlay, that even his best actions he ascribes 
 to unworthy motives. The laudable and spirited con- 
 duct of Mr. Findlay to vindicate the insulted dignity 
 of the Legislature in the case of judge Brackenridge's 
 letter (1803-'!?, jour. p. 576, fi70) is imputed by the 
 Crisis to sycophantic motives! What conduct could 
 pass the ordeal of the Crisis? When good, he per- 
 verts and falsities so as to render doubtful; and where 
 he is compelled to admit the correctness of a measure, 
 he blackens it by ascribing it to motives similar to his 
 own. 
 
 The next proof of Mr. Findhiy's heivg a feder- 
 alist, brought forward hy the Crisis^ relates to 
 his being absent at a certain vote. 
 
 A bill regulating the administration of justice, §*c. 
 was returned by the Grovernorat the session of ls04-5, 
 and on the final vote Mr. Findlay was not in his seat. 
 The principles of the bill are not known; but it is 
 known that twenty of those who were elected as re- 
 publicans, among whom were Cunningham, Lacoek 
 and Holgate, voted against the hill — But can it be 
 supposed that a member can constantly be in his seat? 
 Are there no causes of necessary absence? Western 
 members in particular frequently have business to 
 
tffaiiSact at the land offices, which must be done in of^ 
 4ee hours whilst the House is in session. The known 
 :|iainess and integrity of Mr. Findlay, spurn the idea 
 pjf his ever having flinched from a vote. It will appear 
 fj.'oni the journals that few if any of the members ever 
 attended to the duties of the House with more punc- 
 tuality. 
 
 At the same session a resolution was offered respect- 
 ing the alteratioo of the hundred dollar law (page 141). 
 Mr. Boileau was not present at the vote, though he 
 was at his seat and voted on another question on the 
 same day (page 139). — -Would the author of the Cri- 
 sis call this a proof of Mr. Boileau's having some 
 federal taint? 
 
 The last proof in tJie Crisis of Mr. Findlay^s 
 
 federalism^ is drawn from hi^i conduct at the 
 
 nomination of candidate for Qovernor in iS06. 
 
 On this part of the subject we have had the satis> 
 faction of deriving information from a late distinguish- 
 ed member of the House of Representatives from the 
 eastward, who was also a member in 1805, and at all 
 times a decided democrat. From him we learn that 
 Mr. Findlay in the winter of 1805, doubled the policy 
 of opposition to Governor M'Kean at the then ap- 
 proaching election for Governor. The probability of 
 success was by almost everyone at that time deemed 
 i)ot to be great, and Mr. Findlay apprehended that a 
 defeat v/ould discourage and might prostrate the de- 
 mocratic party for a series of years. Eut he uniformly 
 declared that if the republican members thought dif- 
 ferently, he would cheerfully unite with them and 
 strenuously use every exertion to promote success. 
 Several gentlemen were proposed as the candidate to 
 be supported in opposition to Mr. M'Kean; and Mr* 
 Findlay was among the first, if not the first, to men- 
 tion the name of Mr. Snyder as the most suitable 
 c^andidate. This, several members of the present Le- 
 gislature, and many others of the Legislature of 1805, 
 eould attest. The author of the Crisis says he voted 
 
1^ 
 
 •• in favor of M'K^ati's nomination fov Governor.^^ 
 The voting in the nominating caucus was by ballgt, 
 and it could not now be ascertained, unless from him- 
 self, whom Mr. Findlay voted for; but the whole of his 
 subsequent conduct manifested his approbation of and 
 zeal for the election of Mr. Snyder. 
 
 In the electioneering campaign of 1805, the result of 
 the election in Franklin county proves the efficient aid 
 of Mr. Findlay to the cause of Snyder and democracy. 
 At that time there was no republican paper in Frank- 
 lin county by which to refute the federal charges 
 against the democratic candidate, and every thing de- 
 pended on the zeal and activity of the leading demo- 
 cratic citizens. And certainly it would be folly to deny 
 that his success was in part owing to the exertions and 
 influence of Mr^ Findlay. The democratic candidate 
 failed in Montgomery and other counties, from which 
 more was expected than from Franklin. That Gro- 
 vernor Snyder had no more active, vigilant and indus- 
 trious friend in 1808 than Mr. Findlay, is universally 
 known. The charge of his having been at any time 
 hostile to Mr. Snyder, is preposterous; and to say any 
 thing on the subject is condescension too great. It is 
 for the first time insinuated by the author of the Crisis^ 
 solely for the purpose of creating jealousy between 
 personal and political friends. 
 
 Such are the proofs adduced by the author of the 
 Crms, of Mr. Findlay's being or having been a feder- 
 alist. Proofs founded on false and unsupported asser- 
 tions, and on garbled and perverted extracts from of- 
 ficial documents. Proofs, which if they had the slight- 
 est foundation in fact, the people of Franklin county 
 in particular must be stupid beyond conception; since 
 from his entrance into public life in 1797? he has been 
 uniformly supported with zeal by one party, and 
 warmly opposed by the other. 
 
 The object of this address is not to discuss or de- 
 tail the character, talents, conduct and services of Mr. 
 Findlay. This may properly be done in reply to im- 
 putations from the ailverse party, if Mr Findlay 
 should be nominated at the convention in March*, in 
 
14 
 
 which without doubt there will be many memberg 
 long and intimately acquainted with his public and 
 private life. The object of the present writer is merely 
 to expose those charges made by the author of the 
 Crisis, which he professes to support by reference to 
 papers and records. As to those of his accusations 
 which he purports to rest on his bare assertion. Mr. 
 Findlay's character must be weak indeed if they 
 could affect him. We disdain to bestow a pen full of 
 ink upon them. 
 
 But whence, let us enquire, whence arises the 
 malignant opposition of the author of the Crisis to 
 Mr. Findlay? Is it because Mr. Findlay, experien- 
 ced, intelligent, firm and independent, would not 
 in any situation submit himself to the control and 
 dictation of any man or any set of men from any part 
 of the state? Or is it because he secretly desires to 
 injure a leading character of the democratic party, in 
 order to promote the success of the oldschool or allied 
 candidate? 
 
 After all, however, it is amusing to observe how 
 malice often defeats itself. The author of the Crisis^ 
 with the view of shewing that Mr. Findlay had not 
 the public sentiment in his favor, stated that his pre- 
 tensions were urged by ^^ three or four printers^^ 
 only. Yet in his last sentence but one, his caution for- 
 sook him, and the truth inadvertently slipt from his pen. 
 He admits that he has. perceived those pretensions to 
 have been ^' repeated and repeated in every quarter 
 of the state,^^ Is not this demonstrative evidence of 
 public favor and approbation? If the author of the 
 Crisis could have said half as much of his own can- 
 didate, his pamphlet would never have existed. 
 
 Democratic Citizens of Pennsylvania, 
 You have now heard both parties — weigh and de- 
 cide. Your determination will be final, and that it 
 will be just and impartial, no just and impartial man 
 can doubt. 
 
 ANOTHER OF THE PEOPLE, 
 
 Harjisbui^g, January 25, 1817. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 ■m 
 
 014 312 383 2 f