"There is no truth whatever in the story that Grover[21] voted against or dissented from the resolutions of the late Syracuse convention. As the question was then taken _viva voce_ it is foolish to say that any man actually voted for them unless you happened to see his lips move or distinguished his voice, but as _Grover_ did _not_ express dissent or apparently reserve his vote, I suppose he must be deemed to have concurred in their adoption. I have no doubt that he did so, for in the caucus the evening before he was openly in favor of adopting the Baltimore resolutions. My own knowledge of his sentiments, as expressed before, correspond with this course on his part. I state this as matter of fact, because it is fact; and not that I do _not_ think it idle to expect to silence those clamors in respect to Mr. Grover. They must have something to say. The convictions I expressed to you as the true policy in respect to the collectorship would have been strengthened by subsequent events if they had not been before so clear and strong. "The safe issue with Bronson was on the charge that he has lent his official character and influence to disorganize the party in this State, and to aid the formation of an organized opposition to the administration, and has abused the appointing power entrusted to him to accomplish those objects both of hostility alike to the Democracy and the administration. He would be easily convicted of the first charge by his overt act in taking part with the bolters from the character of the ticket he sustains and from the declarations of the body of his associates. Indeed, his practical position in that respect is already sufficiently recognized by the general public. The second charge that he had exerted his official influence and the appointing power to further the ends of the new combination into which he has openly entered would be readily believed, and its truth could be abundantly shown at leisure. These charges, if well founded, as they unquestionably are, are of a character to justify and, indeed, demand of the administration, by its duty of self-preservation and its duty to maintain the Democracy as an organized party, to intervene for objects so important and so elevated. It can act on such grounds without loss of dignity, and with a justice that is capable of triumphant vindication. That action should correspond with the nature of the case--the clear legal [obligations] of the Collector to the President and to the character of the administration. In my opinion such action is to be performed only in the exercise of the power of removal. The efforts of the administration to come to an amicable understanding with this 'refractory subordinate,' as the _Globe_ used to say, have all failed hopelessly. Any attempt to coerce his discretion while retaining him in office is inconsistent with every attribute which ought to characterize the action of the administration, as the case now stands,