_unguarded conversation_, they had held with Mr. Bunce, and which they
were afraid he would make mischief of? Do they call the conversation
which they detail an unguarded one? Or was it some other conversation
and conversations which shall be proved upon them? Instead of saying
that they expressed no opinion to Bunce that "Young ought not _again_
to be nominated," why do they not tell us, whether they or either of
them expressed any opinion to Bunce, or any other person, against his
nomination _the then next spring_? In Mr. Kasson's letter (p. 33) it
appears they told him that "_Bunce and another gentleman_" called on
them, with whom they held a conversation; whereas the one given in
their recent certificate is confined exclusively to Bunce. Read also
the following certificate of these men, which they gave to the public
last spring; in which they admit some other conversation which they
call _a free and unreserved conversation_, and protest against the
"treacherous perversion" of it.


"_To the Citizens of the county of Saratoga_."

"Having heard that a private conversation of ours has been represented
to our Fellow Citizens in a light unfavorable to the character of
Samuel Young, Esq. and has been used to his prejudice, in the
estimation of his constituents.--We discharge a duty grateful to our
individual feelings, due to the feelings and character of a highly
useful, able, faithful and industrious Member of Assembly, and due to
our county, to express our _pointed indignation_ against the
_treacherous perversion_ of the spirit of a free and unreserved
conversation by stating to our fellow citizens, that we have always
lived in the most perfect harmony with Mr. Young, have had with him on
all legislative business the most cordial co-operation and concert: