John R. Mott were two of the _delegates_ from Saratoga, and as such
mutually bound to discuss with freedom the _allegation for and against_
Mr Young, or any other person who would be a candidate before the
general committee; and Mr. Cowen at this time _at least_, had no reason
to doubt the truth of what Young's colleagues had asserted. He also
mentioned it to James Mott, who was spoken of as a substitute in the
event of his brother's absence. It seems he also conversed freely with
these men on the subject of _his_ having consented to be considered a
candidate, and (so James Mott says) examined the probability of his
success, by calculating the favorable state of the delegation. But it
seems that communications to these _leaky gentlemen_ on the subject of
candidates are not to be made under any circumstances with impunity;
and Mr. Cowen is to be censured as _criminal_ for giving that
information, which it would have been _criminal_ to withhold. The only
way to make his act in this respect _criminal_ is by saying, "he ought
to have known that Young's colleagues had _lied_." But it will be
recollected that this was impossible, for the public did not know them
_then_ as well as it does _now_; nor had Mr. Cowen yet seen their
_certificate_ which is herewith published, by which they acknowledge
_what the book_ is so anxious for Mr. Cowen to have assumed. He did
afterwards see it, and then (so say the certificates) bore public
testimony to his opinion of the merits of Mr. Young, as well as
afterwards by letter to judge Child.

Thus does the charge of duplicity, made against Mr. Cowen, resolve
itself into a base attempt to fix upon him, what so snugly suits the
shoulders of others. It seems he finally bestows that justice upon a
_political adversary_, which the baseness and treachery of his
_colleagues_ and pretended friends had withheld. Am I acting the part
of an accuser towards those men? No. They have accused themselves. Why