our fathers? May I not then be permitted to say that although "the ides of March have come, they have not passed?" Again, then, I ask, how are our institutions to be perpetuated? How is the prosperous career of the state to be secured?

I answer briefly,

1. By inducing, in the rising generation, habits of industry, sobriety and TEMPERANCE.

2. By early impressing upon the mind of every child the leading principles of civil and religious liberty, and the duty of sustaining and preserving order and law.

3. By encouraging and improving our COMMON SCHOOLS, by causing every child to be instructed in them; and by establishing a mode of instruction in these institutions, which shall not alone enlighten the intellect, but also affect the morals and reach the hearts of the pupils. "We are looking," says the benevolent and eloquent Dr. Channing, "as never before, through the disguises and envelopments of rank and classes, to the common nature which lies below them, and are beginning to learn, that every being who partakes of it, has noble powers to cultivate, solemn duties to perform, inalienable rights to assert, a vast destiny to accomplish. The grand idea of humanity, of the importance of man as man, is spreading silently, but surely." Every child should be taught the leading principles of the government, and should be impressed with a proper sense of the high responsibility which devolves individually upon him, and his own dignity as a citizen of a free state.

4. By instilling into the young mind a love of all the social virtues, and piety towards God.

Posterity will have high claims on the present generation. If, with the means placed in our power by a beneficent Providence-by the labors of our predecessors, and by our own enterprise and industry, we discharge faith

fully our duty to those foreigners who flock to us to obtain the means of subsistence and protection, and also to our own children, by whom I mean all the children of the republic, then, indeed, there is reason to believe that the most sanguine hopes of the patriot will be realized; that the march of the EMPIRE STATE to wealth and power will be onward, and onward; and that she will be distinguished as well by her moral elevation and intellectual superiority, as by her wealth and physical power.

(NOTE A, REFERRED TO ON PAGE 156.)

In characterizing Mr. Cramer, (see page 156, 2d vol.) as a "cunning" man, I do not mean to insinuate that he was addicted to trickery. The word shrewd would perhaps have been more appropriate than the one used in the text. Mr. Cramer is a man who looks deeply into the human heart; he is eagle-eyed in discovering the motives which govern those with whom he comes in contact, and persevering and indefatigable in carrying into effect his own views. No man more promptly than he, discerns the objects and schemes of his opponents, and few possess greater skill and tact, in embarrassing, deranging and defeating them.

There are two other men in Saratoga, whose names are not mentioned in the preceding sketches, but who for a long time have had great influence with the democratic party in the northern section of the state. The one is HALSEY ROGERS, Esq., formerly of Warren county, and the other is James Thompson, late first judge of Saratoga county, son of the venerable Judge Thompson, who, in the perilous period of 1798, we have seen, was the successful candidate for congress of the democratic party, against Gen. Williams, of Washington county.

Mr. Rogers has been several times a member of the assembly, and on those occasions his influence has always been greatly felt, and he has been distinguished for his energy and efficiency. He is a man of great mental resources, bold, enterprising and persevering-ardent and generous in his friendship, but skilful and vigilant as an opponent. Were I in political life, I do not know three individuals whose united opposition I should so much dread as that of Halsey Rogers, John Cramer and James Thompson. The two gentlemen last mentioned have, for many years, been the uniform, steady and ardent friends of Col. Young; Mr. Rogers has generally also been friendly to him.

Although Mr. Young and Mr. Cramer were dissatisfied with the democratic majority in the senate, because they refused to pass an electoral law at the winter session of 1824, it did not follow that they intended, and in fact they did not intend, on that account to detach themselves from the republican party; it therefore was not inconsistent, nor can it be considered improper, that Col. Young accepted a nomination for governor from that party, or that Mr. Cramer supported it. The firm and independent stand taken by Col. Young in opposition to expen. ditures for roads and canals in 1835-6, in the face of an overwhelming majority, consisting as well of political friends as opponents, affords decisive evidence, not only of his integrity and moral courage, but of his independence and utter diзregard to personal popularity, when it can only be obtained or retained by a sacrifice of principle. While on this subject, I will take the occasion to remark, that in Vol. I, p. 454, I have spoken of Col. Young as "vindictive" towards his opponents. The word vindictive was not well chosen, for I did not mean to speak of him as a man capable of cherishing feelings of revenge upon his political adversaries. If I nad said he was pertinacious and inexorable in his opposition to those who differed from him in opinion, I should have better expressed my meaning.

In Vol. I, p. 182, in mentioning the fact that Mr. J. O. Hoffman resigned the of fice of attorney general, and that Judge Spencer was appointed his successor, it is further stated that in 1801, when the judge was a member of the council of ap pointment, all the heads of the executive departments were removed except Mr. Hoffman, who, although a zealous federalist, was not disturbed; and it is inferred that Mr. Spencer desired the office, but from delicacy declined receiving the appointment while he was a member of the council, and that there was an understanding between him and Mr. Hoffman, that in case the next council of appointment should be democratic, the latter should resign the office. I am told that Judge Spencer affirms that no such understanding existed. Of course what I have stated by way of inference must be incorrect.

I seize this occasion further to remark, that I have, through the whole work, availed myself of a liberty or privilege which I supposed was universally allowed to those who undertake to write the history of the actions of men, to assume that they acted from such motives as I thought were fairly deducible from any given action and the circumstances under which the particular act was done. Whether I am correct, the reader can judge as well, and many readers much bet ter than I. In this way I have ascribed motives and views, in a great variety of instances, to such leading politicians as Clinton, Spencer, Van Buren, Young, Tompkins, and many others, which may or may not be the true motives. In none of these cases do I mean to assert the existence of the motive as a fact known to me, or as susceptible of being proved by positive evidence, but it is inferred from the act itself, in connexion with the circumstances which attended it.

In Vol. I, p. 381, the fact that at the extra session of 1814 a bill was brought into the assembly by Col. Young which passed both houses of the legislature, for rais ing two regiments of colored men to serve in the army for three years, is mentioned; and the conduct of Mr. Young, in the convention of 1821, when he contended that the right of suffrage of colored citizens ought to be restricted to freeholders, is alluded to as inconsistent with the course he took in 1814. This intimation is unjust as respects Col. Young. Gen. Root, in the convention, opposed allowing the negroes the privilege of voting on the ground that they did not perform military duty; and at the time I wrote the paragraph in the first volume, an impression was on my mind that Col. Young at that time concurred with Gen. Root. When I examined the reports of the convention with a view of presenting a digest of its proceedings, I found I was mistaken, as will be seen by a reference to vol. II, p. 18; but I forgot to correct the paragraph in the first volume before it was stereotyped and published. Col. Young advocated the restriction of the right of voting to colored citizens who were freeholders, upon the ground that a legislator, in making laws or framing constitutions, ought to adapt his sys. tem to the state of society as it actually is; that the blacks were, in point of fact, too ignorant and too degraded; that (conceding that it was wrong to have reduced them to that condition) they were an unsafe depository of the right of suf frage. (See vol. II, page 18.)

In speaking of the resolution of the assembly, (vol. I, p. 83,) to dismiss the com. plaint against JUDGE COOPER of Cooperstown as "frivolous," while I express an opinion, that the testimony produced against him did not prove him guilty of any official misconduct, I at the same time allege that the complaint was not frivo lous; but by this allegation, I do not mean to be understood, that Judge Cooper, as a private citizen, was proved guilty of acting corruptly. Mr. Cooper was an ardent and zealous man. Whatever he did, "he did with all his might ;" and I have no doubt, that he occasionally supported the political party with which he acted on some occasions, with intemperate and indiscreet zeal. This, at any rate, is what I intended to intimate in the text. He was one of the most enter