\ F 153 .037 Copy 1 H. A:. TO THE Electors of the State of Pennsylvctiiwh^ ^^ . FRIENDS AND FELLOW CITIZENS, APPOT '?, F- 1) by the convent ion tliat met at Harrisburg, 'on the ith of March Jast, for the purpose of noininatinj; a ( an- tes of the dem(!C{'alic members oi the iei^islalure, and. miaiiimc«, we see, been tried for a series of years in a situation n^flft in importanee.to that of j^ovcrnor a situation in which lie has necessarily become familiar wige, William Ciibbons, D vid Redick, JOSEi^lI IIELSTER, Jonathan Shoemaker 12 There were- 46 Nays The question on the proviso itself, was carried by 3- .iffirmative votes to 30 negative ones, among the latter, JOSEPH Hhl^ i EH. Every citizi-n who approves of cireumseHMnt^^the elective fraiiehise — who would adach peeu'lar privilej^es (o frefitoM- ees — who would wish to elevate one portion of our eitizens at the expense of the others — oug-'it, fir sal>e of eonsii^tenej, to supj'Oi't Mr. Heister, for this aristocratic vote. But aiitliose who are in favour «)f an equality of rit^hts — who are aii^ainst aecordiiiijj; distinctive privi!ej;es to a few — ought to carry td the election-j2;round, in October, their coudemnation of this anti-republican procedure of Mr. Heister We turn our eyes from this trait of conduct to the compen- sation law, on which it has been atteuijAed to establish a high degree of character for Mr. Heister It was confidently as- serted that he had not only opposed the passage of that law, but had nobly and disinter'siedly reiused to receive any mnre than the usual ( -ugre.'ss wages, six dollars per day. This re- port gained him great credit and numerous friends. It was regarded as a favourable augury of the qualities of the futuse govesnor. But unfortunately for * r. lleister those preten- sions were canvassed- the proper records were investigated — and it was found that these encomiums were wholly destiiute of foundation. Mr. Heister did not vote on the passage of C 4 T ilic compensation law. He was absent from the house. It is not for us to say whether lie ileelined voting, for the pur- pose ol screenini^liimself Fjoin th«' responsibility of sanetion- inj^ a bill wliicb lie foresaw vvouki be obnoxious — or whether his non-appearance was accidental. Suffice it to say, he was not in the house, and that all the applause bestowed on him for his slrcudous and patriotic opposition, <• vanishes like the base- less fabric of a vision " But i idependently of the encomiums bestowed on him for his imas;inary opposition to the compensation law, his fricHds, as we have stated, have been loud in his praise, for his refusal to accept more than the six dollars per day. Audit was uni- versally believed that he had received exactly that sum, and no more, from the treasury, flere again we discover, that when " weighed in the balance, he is found wanting," as much as in the former instance. The protest which, by this noble procedure, he was said to have entered against the selfish con- duct of his colleagues, had no existence but in the iuiagina- tions of his friends. The facts of the case are simple. We submit then\ for yonr consideration. At the close of the session of 1815-16, Mr. Heister, in com- mon with the other members of congress, received the full amount of his compensation of St 500 per annum. He had no scruples of conscience on the subject. The money went to enlarge his enormous wealth. The session of 1816-17 closed in the same manner, with full payment to Mr. Heister. He had no more scruples ihan before. But on the 4th of March, he was unexpectedly recommended as a candidate for govern- or at Carlisle ; and then for the first time did he feel any un- easiness at parta'ring of the obnoxious compensation. He was probably impelled by his friends to perform some popular act whereby to ingratiate himself Avith the public. Accordingly, he presented the surplus beyond six dollars per day, amount- ing to thirteen hundred and sixty-four collars, to the treasu- rers of the counties of Berks and Schuylkill. And this dona- tion, which comes in so very ♦♦ questionable a shape," vvas de- layed until so late as the '^9th of March. The time in which the measure was adopted, demands us much consideration as the measure itself It is hardly pjjssible to hesitate what opinion to form on this procedure, it has a most sinister aspect. If Mr. Heister be- lieved the compensation law unjust — if he believed that mem- bers of congress were not entitled to more than six dollars |»er day — if his disinterested spirit spurned at the idea of receiving tlje extra pay, why draw it from the treasury of the United States? Why contaminate himself with any part of the 1364 dollars ? or if he believed it to be an act of duty, with the money of the ? nited Htates to relieve the landholders of Berks and Schuylkill from a portion of tkeir taxes, why not r 5 ] have paid the surplus to the treasurers immediately on his re- turn home ? why wait for the illumination arising" from his nomination as candidate for the chair of governor ? Had he adopted eitlier of these alternatives, there might have been less grounds for censure. We leave it to the freemen of the state of Pennsylvania to form a correctestimateof tiiis unprecedented trait of conduct. If it display public spirit, patriotism or liberality, let tUem reward it with their free suffrages, and elevate iVIr IT. to the station to which he casts his eyes. But if it bear on its fore- head the unequivocal marks of a sinister policy — of an awk- ward an>^t serious and so- ber reflection. Ask yourselves this plain question, will you become parties to this alliance, the consequence of which if it Ire successful, must be to reduce your party to insignificance? Will you imprudently tOxi THE [ 7 ] « BEST OBJECTS, the republican cause must suffer."— Thus in 180* he clearly reprobated <' making common cause V'ith t!ie federalists" even " for the best objects." And now, by a most wonderful inconsistency, be and bis friends •• make common cause with tliem," to secure tlie office of (Governor for biniself, and the patronage of the office for bis friends. There is another strong and most decisive oI)jection to Mr. Ileister. In the year 1805, he made himself tsie instrument of giving general circulation to a most atrocious calumny against the whole of f lie democratic party. This was noth- ing less than that they were ripe for and determined on a di- vision of propublic offices. On this important operation, whicli is in general, in its results very nearly equivalent to an election, they are wholly silent. This is a defect much to be regretted — a defect which the citizens have to supply at the approach of an election, in the best manner they can devise. — Different modes have been adopted for the purpose at differ- ent times and in ditTerent j)!aces. The nominations, by both parties, of candidates for the pre- sidency of the United States, have been uniforuily made by meetings of members of Congress ; and those of candidates for governors of the states, generally, if not universally, by meet- ings of menibers of the state legislatures. The objections to this system, radical and strong as they are. did not ioi' a series of years attract general atfenlion. It was acquiesced in checr- fuliy by the citizens throughout the union. 'Fhe |)revalence of party spirit extended the acquiescence to a much longer period than would otherwise have taken place. This appeared to be the plan best calculated to secure the unanimity of the parties respectively. Each of them was apprehensive of losing its candidate, if it departed from the received system of nomi mition,n!ore particulariy when their respective numbers were nearly equally balanced At length, however, the conviction ])eeame very general, that legislative nomination's were radically unsound, and that a different mode of nomination was requisite : And accord- ingly the college of electors, chosen by the citizens of this [ 8 ] state ^r tbo important purpose of electing a president of the United . tutes, and who met last Deceniher, after having per- formed the fiiiKtiioii!? for\vhich they were specially delegated, toftk up the tonsideration of the approaching election for gov- ernor And aiter a full and free deliheration on the reasons i'<}r and against the various plans tbat had heen either practised or suggested, tliey recommended a momentous change in the operation; that the deniocralic citizens of the various dis- tricts in the slate should assemhle at their usual places of election — and elect delegates lo meet at Tlarrisburg, on the itli of the then ensuing March, to nominate a candidate for governor. Let it be observed — and the observation deserves peculi- ar ittlention that tliere was n other body of men then assem- bled, or {JkeJy soon to assemble, to whom the citizens of the state of FeKns_\ivania could mure naiurully look up for such a recommeudation — and none, of course, so suitable to take cognizance of the affair. 'IMtis. no doubt, had its due share of iriiiuence in the acquiescence that took place. Tliat this was an imporiant and radical improvement will not admit ol a doubl. And it reflects a high degree of credit on the good sense of the state that this >ound recommenda- tion, which ntade a total and salutary change in a vital oper- ation of our elections, was at once adopted and acteosed, and worthy of the state which thus so readi y carried it into effect. Meetisigs were accordingly held in every county of the state, except two. Delegates were appointed to 'ueet at Ilar- risburg. So2; r (Ji the counties delegate'^ the power of act-- ingfor then>, to their senators am! represefifatives in the state legislature. This they had an iiidnbituble right i<> do — ^lut the greater part elevtcd delegates for this esj»ecial purpose. Of the former Jtescrifition, there were, on the ilnnl vote. foHy- fonr menshf rs — and of the latter, sixty-nitfe, besides souie. who ^vere not early enough acquainled vvitis tlu? fwct of tin ir elec- tion — an'5 one or two who, tiiough in llarrisburg, weic absent when the v«;te was taken. it may be asserted with perfect safety that a more respecta- ble body of n.e:T jever assem5)'ed in «r!e state of SA-nnsvlvinJa. Their procee'^in^.s were conducted widia most exemplaw de- gree* of digntiy, decorujn, ant! propriety. They sat ivri rvans- acted their business with open doors. They oourtrd ;t-}:; de- fied scrutiny, i'very man who chose, ha<5 free aumittanxc to the ga,llery. \Vhi_n ti-e final vote was taken, the numbers were. For Mr. Findlay, 99 Mr. Boileau, 1* [ 9 ] The members who had voted for Mr. Boileau, came une- quivocally forward — declared their determination, as became good citizens, to submit to the voice of the majority — and pied^j^ed themselves to support, by every fair and honorable means, the candidate selected by that majority. We have thus given a candid statement of the origin and proceedings of the llarrisburg convention. AVe feel a pride and pleasure in the retrospect — and we trust that among the great mass of the liberal and enlightened democratic citizens of the state, they will meet with an unanimous and decided approbation. But, say the friends of Mr. Ileister, the meeting at Har- rishurg was '< a caucus'* — and therefore the citizens of the state ought to reprobate their proceedings and reject the can- didate they have submitted. We ask— and we hope for an explicit reply — if the proceed- ings of the Harrisburg convention are to be rejected on the ground of its having been <* a caucus," on what ground can the advocates of Mr. Heister ask or expect an acquiescence in the proceedings of the meeting at Carlisle ? This is a plain question — an answer to which is expected from the support- ers of that gentleman. It is rare to find a stronger contrast than existed between the two bodies, in their organization and in their proceedings. The Harrisburg convention consisted, as we have stated, of 113 members, fairly chosen throughout the state, and the on- ly complete representation of the state that has ever taken place for such a purpose. But the meeting at Carlisle was composed of only thirty-nine members, representing not a third part of (he state, and several olthcse irregularly chosen. We have shewn the ingenuous mode in which the proceedings of the Harrisburg convention were conduet«d. 'I'lie Carlisle meeting exhibited a most marked constrast. They sat wi(h closed doors, with strong appearances of concealment and mystery. If ever there was a caucus, or conclave, that meet- ing was surely one. Can there be a much higher grade of inconsistency tiian those citizens are guilty of, who, on the ground of'« caucus," raise such a clamour against the Harrisburg convention, consisting of 113 members, from every part of the state, and who were themselves members, or are advocates, of the Carlisle meeting, consisting of only thirty nine ? There are fifty counties and two cities in this state : and according to the statement published by the president and at- tested by the secretary of the Carlisle meeting, there were but thirteen counties and the city of Philadelphia represented in it. There was not one member from any county west of the mountains. The representatives were from thccitv of Phila- B [ iO ] (lelpliia, counties of Philnilelphia. Chester, T.ancaster, North' ampton, Berks, Sehuylki!!, Oaiiphin. and l^elmnon. on this side of the Susquehanna ; and from Cuml)erland, Franklin, Centre, Mifflin, and Lyeouiing, he^ond it. We couhi liave gone into mueh more ample details — hut we have suffieiintjy trespassed on your patience — and we shall close with a brief recapitulation. 1, Mr. Fifidlay lias been nom- inated by a convention from eve ry county in the state but t>vo and consisting of ' 13 members. 2. Mr. I'indlay r-lies wholly on the votes ot the democrats. 3. If Mr. Findlay succcevls it will unite the democratic' party. 4. Mr. Findlay is supported uni- versally by the friends and ^vell wishers of the administr itors of the general and state govern- ments. 5, Mr. Findlay 's public ca- reer has not only been free from censure, but has had the Mgh est testimony in its favor for ei.jhleen successive years. 6. The proceedings of the Harrisburg convention were con- ducted in open day, without mys- tery or concealujent. 1 Mr Heisler has been nom - inated by a meeting of from less than a third of the state, and con- sisting of thirty-nine members. 2. Vlr* Heis'er's prin ipal re- liiincc is on the aid of the fede- ralists. 3 If Mr. Heister succet ds, the seeds of lasting hostility and t f the prostration of the p^irty will be sown. 4. The supporters of Mr. Heister were decidedly opposed to the election ot Mr. Monroe — They are, particularly the feder- a portion ot them, still hostile to him. 5. Mr. Heister has been pro- ved to have committed various political sins of deep dye ; and even on points whereon his sup- porters have highly eulogized him, has pursued a sinister course. In proof of both allega- tions, we refer to his votes in the (onveniionin 1790 — liis calum- ny of the democratic party on the subject of an agrarian law — and tlie compensation law. 6. The proceedings of the meeting at i'a»* lisle, were con- ducted with closed doors, and in complete conclave. 7. Mr. Hei-iter, as far as in him lay, laboured to defranchise all our young men, arr vcd at ma tutity, for one y< ar, unless their fathers were fr eholdtrs. And lastly, 8. After having in 1804, de- nounced as political heresy all associations wit'; the federalists, even ''for the best objects," he has now, through the medium of his friends, formed an alliance with them for his own personal aggrandizement. [ 11 ] Weigh well these things. Lay seriously to heart ihe high duty that devolves on you, and the I • poitatit consequences th^t depend on it. Perform that duty faitfifully to our com- mon country — and may her good genius direct your votes for the promotion of her best interests MATHEW CARKY, Chairman. PAUL COX, J\C;OB HOLfiATF, DANIEL H. MILLER, DANI5