AMIDST its sweeping march to victory, in all quarters, the Democratic party has had to sustain an unexpected defeat in the great State of New-York. The disappointment naturally felt at this result, was vastly increased by the extraordinary contrast exhibited in almost all other elections throughout the Union. The results of these had equally surprised both parties, exhibiting so much earlier than was expected, by the most sanguine, a complete recovery from the popular delusion, which induced many of the Democratic states to abandon the party nominee, allured by the false glare of a meretricious military reputation inciting even our southern neighbours to elect a vice President, whose abolitionism was veiled in the delirium of Taylorism. This recovery we had, even in the darkest hour, regarded as certain and inevitable. The reasonless clamor in favor of an isolated individual, who had no sympathies with any of the cliques, which agreed in nothing but to wriggle into office under the wing of General Taylor, could not last. For this motley crowd of mercenary partizans, the moment of success was the moment of mutual disgust. The elevation of the instrument of their cupidity, only served to show in bolder relief to the mass of his adherents, the nothingness of his pretensions. Those who aided directly in such a triumph have not been slow to make amends, by electing a democratic congress in both branches. Without enumerating all the states, the elections of which afford the strongest condemnation of the administration, if Pennsylvania, Georgia, Louisiana, and Maryland, came round of their own accord, to manifest their disappointment and chagrin at the administration of General Taylor in one overwhelming vote for the opposition, what might not have been expected of New-York! The results of the election, as it is, show that the undivided strength of the democracy presents a majority of some 25.000 votes in the state; that is to say-if the votes of all those who adhere to the democratic policy, in the state and federal administrations, were brought out unitedly in support of a single ticket, there is no manner of doubt but their strength exceeds that of their federal opponents by at least 25,000. Yet with this power at its command, we find a federal vote diminished by mutual disgusts between its several sections,

sufficient to place the destinies of the state in the hands of those men who have frequently jeopardised its interests, and once carried it to the brink of insolvency. This result has presented itself, notwithstanding, that in most other states, party divisions have been healed, and the democracy has resumed its ascendancy. When it was proposed to unite the party in New-York-a high wrought anticipation of triumph was manifest, which has given place to expressions of doubt and alarm, at the very time when the general issue of all the elections exhibits one of the most substantial of party triumphs-establishing the ascendancy of the democratic policy in the federal administrations on a high ground of impregnable security, which certainly, a year ago, we had not ventured to dream of so soon attaining. However, the very contrast of the exception of New-York, will serve to bring out into bolder relief the peculiar causes to which alone it can be ascribed; and thus to strengthen the moral of political truth to be derived from it.

It would be unnecessary to dwell upon the means which were strained to the utmost, by the opposite party, to carry the election, rendered more important to the administration in that some relief was indispensable from the universal condemnation of its conduct, which reached Washington from every quarter of the Union. This election was confessedly the last chance of the party. This lost, and every shadow of hope or inducement to prolong the struggle was gone. The activity of those interested in supporting the administration was great, and made effective by a lavish expenditure of money, raised by heavy contributions, here and at Washington, on those best able and most interested in the result. The mode in which such an influence was made to bear effectively on the election, was simple in its means, and grand in its combination. An admirable organization by districts throughout the state, guided by knowledge of men open to influences, and the allotment of their application to suitable local committees, was made effective by use of money, and aided by appeals to local prejudices, through such factitious documents as that of the Hon. Samuel B. Ruggles, in relation to the state financial policy. In considering these facts, the question recurs, why was not the democratic party, in view of its superior strength, triumphant in spite of all these opposing elements? Why did not those great popular principles, now that they are recognised as sound by thousands, who formerly voted against them, suffice as in former elections, to reassure the ascendancy of their advocates? The answer is to be found in the internal weakness of the party itself, proceeding from long and deeply operating influences. The immediate cause it is true, was total want of organization. Formerly, when internal dissensions had not disturbed the energies of active men, some 16,000 local working committees might have been counted, where this year there was not one. A long deferred attempt at union had occupied men's minds, down to the moment of conflict; and while the irritating discussion, combined with the selfish obstinacy of certain leaders, had prevented preparation for the polls, there was no hearty and frank acceptance of the conditions of union, such as was necessary to awaken and confirm confidence in mutual good faith. Weakness, vacillation, and above all, any liability to the mere suspicion of double dealing, could not but be fatal at such a period. It is always a mistake to attempt to unite, where a party has suffered defeats through the defection of any portion of its members who may choose to recede, from any cause, from the main body. The only

true policy is to reconstruct from the foundation anew. Instead of attempting a quasi compromise between the conflicting opinions in the democratic party itself, the great principles involved in the administration of the government, and which were always the guides to power, should be thoroughly probed and discussed, and such progress made in a radical direction as embraces the rights of all members of the Union, and sacrifices the equality of none for impossible abstractions. The crisis through which the party is now passing is not dissimilar to that of 1837-9. At that period the democracy had held too long and too absolute a control of the state, and had by no means been exempt from the corrupting influence upon the purity of its first principles, incident upon too certain a tenor of power. A complete stirring-up of all the elements of its composition had become necessary. A long course of erroneous legislation had built up a stupendous fabric of chartered interests, interwoven with the party organization, and supported by a rigorous application of official patronage. The gradual enlightenment of the public mind upon the evils of class legislation, and the necessity of extending the elective franchise, had made reform necessary. The existence of these elements for a long period had arrayed one half the voters in implacable opposition to that organization popularly known as "the Regency." Thus placed, that organization had run its course. It was at the mercy of any section of its own numbers, however small, that chose to secede. Its long and arbitrary use of power had destroyed or driven into the ranks of the opposition any neutral body that might, under other circumstances, have furnished recruits to replace its seceding members. And such a defection produced the overwhelming defeat of 1837. The mistaken idea was then indulged in respect to the conservatives, as last year, in relation to the free-soilers, that such a body, with all the motives, interests, and feelings which had attended their secession, could possibly be brought back to a sound and healthy reunion. The error then was expiated in the overthrow of the administration of Governor Marcy and in the predominance of Whig rule, until the recurrence to sound principles, and the avowal of a uniform practical policy, on which the party was entirely reconstituted, again restored it to power in 1842, and the renewed adhesiveness of the party produced the triumph of 1844. These two triumphs, viz: that of the state in 1842, and of the National Democracy in 1844, definitively settled, as the state and national policy, those leading principles for which the party had so often rallied, and in defence of which they had so often triumphed. The divorce of bank and state, the ad valorem revenue tariff principle, and the re-annexation of Texas, were all consummated past the power of faction to defeat. In New-York, the debt-paying and antimonopoly policy, with the decentralization of the executive power, were established at the election of 1842, and consolidated in the constitution of 1846. The adhesiveness which the advocacy of these fundamental principles had imparted to the democracy was much loosened when they were established beyond the reach of partisan attack. There was no longer any principle at stake in favor of, and against which both parties were uncompromisingly committed, and the door was open for the intrigues of faction. Thus, previous to the revulsion of 1836, the stupendous pyramid of chartered interests built up in New-York could not be charged to the exclusive errors of either party, both having participated in it; and before the full current of public opinion had been directed against the