performed. After four years of retirement he was made Secretary of State, under President Pierce. In this position he added greatly to his reputation. His state papers commanded high respect. His Martin Koszta letter gave great satisfaction to the American public. It has not yet been fully answered. In all the positions he ever held, he acquitted himself in a most satisfactory manner. In all of them he was noted for his straightforward mode of transacting business. His crowning virtue was strict integrity. In no case has this been called in question by even his severest political adversaries. He died just four months after leaving Mr. Pierce's cabinet, while lying on a couch at Ballston, with a favorite book in his hand. He was a devoted Democrat, never in the least swerving from the faith. His intellect was remarkably clear and strong, and his faculties well balanced. He expressed himself in concise, simple, and strong language. It was admirably adapted to the common mind. All could understand him. What he wrote needed no interpretation, because two meanings could not be given to his language. He never said one thing when he meant another. When, in 1838, he was defeated as a candidate for reëlection as Governor, it was not because the people had lost confidence in him, but because the bank power was brought to bear against him. The banks required the people to pay them, while they refused to pay their own debts. This brought hard times, which demagogues induced many to believe were occasioned by some unspecified fault of his, or his political friends at Washington. Had he remained Governor, the great debt, which is so heavily pressing upon the energies of the State, would never have grown to its present enormous dimensions.

In a debate in the United States Senate wherein the question of removals and appointments was discussed, Mr. Marcy used the celebrated expression, "To the victors belong the spoils." It was a frank and manly avowal of the principle upon which every political party has acted and ever will act. Each, as far as practicable, enjoys the fruits of its victory. Denying it will not change the fact. Mr. Webster very zealously denounced Mr. Marcy for its utterance, although through a long life he practised.

upon this identical principle. His acceptance of a seat in General Harrison's and Mr. Fillmore's Cabinets was an undeniable illustration of the practical truth of Mr. Marcy's proposition. It was the principle acted upon by General Harrison when he removed Mr. Van Buren's appointees, and it was thoroughly applied by General Taylor and Mr. Lincoln when they came into power. The failure to act upon it by Mr. Adams, Mr. Fillmore, and Mr. Johnson, to any considerable extent, shows how fatal the policy is for a President to attempt to conduct an administration through the agency of enemies, and how little they have to hope for who try the experiment. Mr. Adams was without a real party, had few friends, and sank without efficient support when piloting the ship of state. Mr. Fillmore was surrounded to a great extent by the partisans of Mr. Seward, who gladly saw him sink. Mr. Johnson has been, from the beginning, surrounded by enemies, and, while he had the undisputed power to do so, he failed to remove his enemies and appoint friends, and is now more a slave than Dred Scott ever was. He has hardly freedom to breathe or even to think. Had he followed Mr. Marcy's maxim, he would now be the nation's favorite, and morally certain of becoming his own successor. There is a good religious maxim which requires us "to love our enemies," but there is none requiring us to love them better than we do our friends. The whole world acts upon Mr. Marcy's maxim, and none but hypocrites deny the motive. In defending it, it is not to be assumed that removals are required, that friends may be secured.

63.-POLITICAL ANTI-MASONRY.

Free-Masonry for many years spread over most civilized countries, and was esteemed a charitable and benevolent institution. Men of high character sought places in it, and proudly acknowledged their connection with its ceremonies. Imputations upon the objects and upon its honor and intentions were not even whispered. The first men in the nation sought its highest official stations. The charities and benevolent acts of the order commanded public recognition. Masonry seemed to have many friends and no enemies.

But a change came, and it received the most bitter denunciations. Not only the institution, but its individual members, were subject to every possible form of contumely and reproach. Lodges, long the recipients of respect, were driven to waive their accustomed public ceremonials, and some to discontinue their meetings. The feeling against Masonry was spread with energy and success, and soon became political, and an important element in the proceedings of partisan operations. The success of anti-Masonry in the place of its birth gave it life, and it soon spread in New York and other States, forming in some a controlling element in the elections. Men, before not successful aspirants for public favor, rose to the surface and won high positions. For a time the waves of anti-Masonry ran higher and higher, and politicians rose with them, until both fell to rise no more. AntiMasonry, in its ascent, clung to National Republicanism, the legitimate successor of the Federal party, but both perished when the Whig party arose.

Anti-Masonry had its origin in the following manner: William Morgan, of Batavia, a Mason, commenced the publication in 1826 of a book, in which the secrets of Masonry were said to be revealed, which aroused the feelings of the Masonic fraternity. He was arrested and taken to Canandaigua, but discharged. Subsequently he was taken secretly to Fort Niagara, beyond which no authentic information was obtained, though it was charged that he was sunk in Niagara River. These things aroused the people of Western New York, public meetings were held, and the Masonic fraternity denounced. It is a singular fact, asserted by the Hon. Francis Baylies of Massachusetts, who carefully studied the evidence, that but two men knew the fate of Morgan, and they were political anti-Masons. From those presumed to be guilty, this feeling rapidly spread to all who belonged to or upheld the order. Morgan's book was published and circulated, and the oaths and proceedings of Masons denounced. It soon became apparent to managing men, that this excitement could be turned to political account, and they nominated no one for office who was not an anti-Mason, overlooking all other considerations. Ambitious and designing men found their account in becoming zealous anti

Masons. It was resolved to destroy all Masonic societies. Thurlow Weed, Francis Granger, Frederick Whittlesey, William H. Seward, and some others, rose upon this anti-Masonic storm. Mr. Seward profited more largely by his connection with the antiMasonic party than any of his associates. There doubtless were some anti-Masons honest and sincere in their purposes, but the mass of them were simply selfish. In some other States-Vermont, Pennsylvania, and other places-anti-Masonry took root, and influenced elections, conferring office upon many who, without the aid of some such prejudice, could never have been elected. The heroes of the "Buckshot War" in Pennsylvania, who in their fright in attempting to resist a lawful election, but made their final exit out of the capitol through the back-windows, were leaders in anti-Masonry. Thaddeus Stevens was present as the great leader. From the beginning to the end of anti-Masonry, none of its disciples gave a Democratic vote or sustained Democratic principles. It began by holding the innocent responsible for the acts of those assumed to be guilty. It sought to strike down a benevolent and charitable institution throughout the land, because a few men in Western New York had been accused of crime. It rested upon too narrow a base to stand, and soon fell, to rise no more. It was organized, not to protect individuals, but to punish a large class, because some of them were supposed to be bad. It had no just political element-it was connected with no great public policy-was sustained by prejudice and passion against all members of lodges, because somebody supposed that somebody was guilty of crime. It was not confined to the punishment of the guilty, but measured out revenge, indiscriminately, upon thousands of innocent and estimable citizens.

Soon after General Jackson refused to allow further deposits of Government money in the United States Bank, in 1833, the old National Republican party (on the suggestion of Colonel Webb, of the New York Courier and Enquirer, made in his paper) changed its name to "Whig," and all who opposed that measure combined under the new name. Hammond, in his "Political History of New York," very properly says:

"It is remarkable that when this attitude and name was as

sumed by the National Republican party, the anti-Masonic party instantly disbanded. They seemed, as if by magic, in one moment annihilated. That unbending, and, as they were called, proscribing party, comprising many thousands of electors, among whom were great numbers of men of high character for talents and standing, and distinguished for their piety and sacred regard for the dictates of conscience, who had repeatedly most solemnly declared they would never vote for an adhering Mason for any office whatever, in one day, ceased to utter a word against Masonry, assumed the name and title of Whigs, and, as it were, in an instant, amalgamated into one mass with National Republicans, a party composed as well of Masons as of other citizens. This seems to me high evidence of the community of feeling which existed among the members of the anti-Masonic party; and what is called the discipline of party was by no means confined to the Democratic party in the State of New York."

Whatever pretences were then, or now may be, made to the contrary, it is beyond question that, with few exceptions, the anti-Masonic was a political party organized and arrayed against the Democratic party and its principles. By skilful manipulations many honest Democrats were drawn into it, carried along and swept away by it, and passed into the Whig party, whose principles at first were claimed to be more democratic than those of the Democratic party itself.

That anti-Masonry had no fixed and enduring political principles to stand upon, and that the controlling spirits in the party. managed it for selfish and personal purposes, and as an engine to overthrow the Democratic party, can admit of no question. This is proved by the fact that it never sought to adopt a democratic measure; that the leaders first joined the Whig party, and profited by its liberality as long as it had power to bestow favors; that they then proclaimed its death; then joined the Free-Soil, and then the Republican party, and still fight and vilify the Democ racy. The political biography of William H. Seward for the last forty years, during which time he has been a leader in these parties, establishes the truth of each of these positions. Now he is seen clinging to office, instead of going full lengths with his Re