The Enquirer

Conversation in every quarter of the union, for a considerable time before it takes place. The pretensions of the several candidates are everywhere publicly and freely discussed. The members of Congress, then, will have learnt the sentiments of their respective constituents, before they leave home. The object of a caucus, is understood to be nothing more nor less, than to bring those sentiments together and by comparing them to ascertain who has the preponderance of popular favor. What odds does it make how this conference is called; whether by an anonymous card, or one signed with the name of Mr. Bradley. The essential object is the conference: and so that one be fairly obtained, the people care very little about the forms and ceremonies which led to it. As to the assertion that the notice was private, we require evidence. We have seen a very different statement of this fact—a card published in the name of Mr. Bradley: and a counter-card in the name of Mr. Some-body-else. And as to you, gentlemen, we presume that it would have made very little difference whether the notice was public or private: since your new-born religion on this subject, you would have been too scrupulous or too stately to have attended, although the notice had come to you in the form of a subpoena ad testificandum, and, that, on the solemn call of your country.

As little weight is there in the objection, that one of the gentlemen who attended the caucus was a delegate from one of the territories: "a man who in elections has no suffrage and in legislation no vote." For the business of the conference was neither to elect a president nor to make a law. It was simply to collate and compare the sentiments of the people in the different parts of the union, as to the person who should be the next president; and we presume that the delegate from the territory was as capable of reporting the sentiments of his constituents upon this subject, as if he had had "a suffrage in elections" or a vote in legislation.

Where, then, are all those terrors which are supposed to exist in caucuses? According to our apprehension of them, their conclusions will flow from the people; will be the mere echo of the people's voice. But should it be otherwise; should they misrepresent the opinion of the people, they have spoken as a caucus, not as congress; their conclusions have no obligation, no coercion in them; they are not laws which the people are bound to obey: on the contrary, against the conclusions of a corrupt caucus which should misrepresent their opinion, the people would not fail to vindicate their rights. You seem to think that a congressional caucus has the power of forcing on the people whomsoever they please as president—that by bribes in one shape and another, a caucus composed of members of congress might be induced to place any candidate in nomination, and that such nomination would bind the people like a magic spell; that from it they would have no possibility of appeal or escape. Do you really believe all this, gentlemen? If you do, we are sorry for you. You have lived to very little purpose and know but little of the independence of the American character. Waiving, at present, your remark on the corruptibility of congress, and of which it is hoped you do not speak experimentally—let me ask you this question: do you suppose that, if one of you (and let it be the most prominent character among you) could have prevailed on the last caucus to put him in nomination, the people would have had no choice but to have made him a president? It is impossible to read the question, without smiling at the supposition of an answer in the affirmative. The nomination would have been laughed to scorn. And why would it? Because there are men of another stamp who are willing to serve us: men, whom we have tried for upwards of thirty years; men, who sat at the helm through the storms of our revolutionary war; men, whom we have ever found faithful and vigilant; men, as profound in policy as they are upright in their views; men, who have never had an object but their country's good; men, compared to whom, you are but as boys of yesterday.

These are the men whom our fathers have gone down to their graves blessing; and whom we certainly shall not desert; because of your petulance and importunity.

You will hear from me, again: for the present, I take my leave. Learn to think a little more respectfully of the people of the U. States. Believe it; they are not to be so easily duped, as you imagine. They know that spleen and ill-nature are not patriotism; nor hot-headed intemperance, political firmness.

ONE OF THE PEOPLE.

(1) In the caucuses of 1808, the contest related, as these protestants say, to the Vice-President: but it was not a contest between Federalists and Republicans—but such a one as the present is: between two Republicans—Mr. Clinton of New York and Mr. Breckenridge of Kentucky. On that occasion, it is believed that a distinguished member of this protestant association took an active part in opposition to Mr. B.

(2) This circumstance would never have excited so much feeling and criticism, if the humorous character of Mr. Bradley had been well understood. This is so strongly marked that a writer in the Enquirer of Jan. 26th, says, "that if he was gasping on the bed of death, he would not miss an opportunity of gratifying his propensity to fun." These protesting gentlemen ought to have known this trait.

It is impossible to publish the two following letters, without expressing the utter indignation and disgust which they are calculated to inspire—Such essays, however, are not without their use. They will shew in what way and by what kind of men the most pertinacious opposition is made to the election of Mr. Madison. They will shew how completely every principle of truth, liberality and justice is trampled under foot, when such men are determined to press the pretensions of a rival candidate, at any hazard. Woe be to the cause that is cursed by such supporters! In reading these essays—this fur nobile fratrum—it is impossible not to remark the similarity which marks the two, in the articles, in the manner and the illiberality of the accusations. It would really seem as if some master spirit had guided both: as if a kind of political liturgy had been laid down to be studied and delivered to the people. In one respect, indeed, Conon has out-stripped the labors of Falkland. He has ventured to touch the transactions of the Louisiana purchase. Be it so. If hereafter, some person should demand, who it was that provoked this discussion, let it not be forgotten that it was not the friend of Mr. Madison.