is hardly necessary to enquire whether they combined for the purpose,
or instinctively assembled like birds of the same feather, from a
common spirit of domination. It is false, however, that the Journal
ever made such a charge. This and a number of these remarks are only
suffering them to wear a coat which they themselves have cut out of
whole cloth, and which seems to fit them so exactly. That paper never
charged Mr. Young with any management or compromise with the
federalists, further than what justly resulted from his being chosen
_supervisor_ in _Ballston_ by _federalists_, contrary to the _regular
town nomination_, and his afterwards being complimented by the federal
paper as a modern political _Luther_, on account of his having quit his
own party in that town and submitted to federal policy, not denied by
the _book_--from his having _aided_ in the election of the _federal
candidate for Congress_ in the fall of 1812; and from his "at least"
conniving at _federal aid_, in the spring of 1815--all of which are
facts of too general notoriety to be denied.

But the Journal did charge some of Mr. Young's friends with a
_political understanding_ between them and the federalists, which is
not only passed over in silence by the _book_, but proved by the
foregoing estimates and certificates.

On seeing Mr. Young supporting, and supported in his turn by a Senator
or Senators of this state for office, the Journal did ask the question,
whether it was pursuant to an _arrangement_ on the subject between
them? This question was put in the Journal directly to Mr.
Young--taking it for granted that Mr. Young has adopted the language in
the book on this question as his own, this might be received as an
_answer_, had not a mere _question_ been first perverted into a charge.