who can carry Indiana, California, Nevada etc., we can get along without it. While I do not believe in precisely the kind of administrative reform you do, still I have no doubt that any Republican who may be elected will carry out the existing law, in obedience to his oath and to public sentiment. If Blaine is objectionable why would not Mr. Tilden, for instance, be equally objectionable? And to this complexion it will come at last according to present indications. I concur with you to the extent of saying that it is not wise to nominate either Blaine or Arthur—and yet I regard Blaine's nomination as very likely to happen. Who is to make headway against him? The only really strong man is Mr. Sherman (John), who is not yet really in the canvass. How would he do? The General is talked of—objections being that his wife's religion would offend many Presbyterians and Methodists. Gresham is a good man, but little known. Hawley is better, but from the East and from a small State. I confess the more I think of it the more the muddle grows. David Davis would be my solution, but he can't be nominated.
TO P. B. PLUMB
Your note of the 25th has reached me. In my opinion any calculation according to which the Republican party can get along without New York in the Presidential election is very faulty, for the same causes which make certain candidates unavailable in this State will act with similar force in others. Moreover, the business troubles will have a decided influence upon the canvass. Do you think that after the developments that have taken place here, any Republican candidate whose record and character are not entirely above question will have any chance of success? It matters little who may be the nominee on the other side. You know very well that there are
