“We regret that the Democracy of the city are prevented from holding this meeting in their accustomed hall.… The Democracy of the city waged in time past a successful war against a corporation which sought to control by money the political destinies of the country. We now from this time forward commence a campaign against another corporation known as the Tammany Society--a secret, self-elected and irresponsible body of men who have dared to usurp the right of determining who shall and who shall not meet in Tammany Hall.… The accidental ownership of a small equity of redemption of a small part of the ground upon which Tammany Hall stands may continue to enable the Sachems to prevent the Democracy from meeting within the hall, but we can meet in the park or in the open air or elsewhere.” The City Reform party nominated acceptable Whigs and Democrats pledged to reform, and obtained a decisive majority in the next Common Council. FOOTNOTES [1] William H. Cornell, a sometime Sachem, was, according to the affidavit of Coulter, the head of this organization. [2] _Documents of the Board of Aldermen_, Vol. XXI, part 2, No. 55. [3] _Documents of the Board of Aldermen_, Vol. XXI, part 2, No. 55, pp. 1333-35, and p. 1573. See also _The History of Public Franchises in New York City_ by Gustavus Myers in which full details are given of the briberies attending the grants of the Eighth, Ninth and Third Avenue Railroad franchises, and other franchises. [4] _Proceedings of the Board of Aldermen_, Vol. XLVIII, pp. 530-37. [5] _Ibid._, p. 532. [6] For violating this injunction one Alderman--Oscar W. Sturtevant (a Whig)--was sentenced to a nominal fifteen days in prison and to pay a fine of $350, and the other offending Aldermen were merely fined. The courts afterward annulled the Sharp franchise. [7] _Document No. 55_, p. 1219. [8] _Ibid._ p. 1310. [9] _Ibid._ p. 1403. [10] _Ibid._ pp. 1426-28. [11] _Document No. 55_, pp. 1575-76. [12] _Ibid._, p. 1282. [13] _Ibid._ p. 1445. In 1862 the Council resolved to buy back this same property for $533,437.50 and repassed the resolution over Mayor Opdyke’s veto on January 3, 1863, thus, as the Mayor pointed out, entailing a new loss to the city of over $499,000, though the property had not increased in value. _Proceedings of the Board of Councilmen_, Vol. LXXXVIII, pp. 723-25. [14] _Document No. 55_, p. 1572. [15] _Document No. 55_, p. 1219. [16] _Ibid._, pp. 1395-96. [17] _Ibid._, pp. 1397-98. [18] _Documents of the Board of Aldermen_, Vol. XXII, No. 20, pp. 52-54. [19] _Ibid._, No. 43, p. 79. [20] _Ibid._ [21] _Documents of the Board of Aldermen_, Vol. XX, No. 32, and Vol. XXII, No. 41. [22] _Ibid._, Vol. XXX, part 1, No. 16. [23] _Ibid._, Vol. XX, No. 5. [24] _Ibid._, No. 6.