Secrist—The Anti-Auction Movement of 1828. 
155 
debts on private sale in excess of those of public sale.” 37 Others 
looked upon them with favor because they quickened sales and 
did away with the middleman, etc. 38 
The chief objections to curtailing the auction monopoly were 
political and fiscal. The auctioneers were wealthy men, closely 
connected with the banks and other fiscal agents, and it was 
politically dangerous for Cambreling and others to pledge them¬ 
selves against auctions. As for relief in the state legislature, 
that was next to impossible. 39 The state tax of one and one-half 
per cent, brought into the treasury about $250,000 annually, 
and there appeared to be no other source of revenue in case this 
one were cut off. 40 This was the reason assigned by Cambreling 
and Verplanck in 1828, 41 for not opposing the system; and it 
was said to be something demanding serious consideration, in 
Governor Martin Van Buren’s message to the Legislature, Jan¬ 
uary 6th, 1829. 42 The committee report on the Governor’s 
message emphasized the same consideration; 43 while the New 
York Evening Post thought that the election of the Anti-Auction 
men would “destroy an immense trade which.attracts thousands 
of merchants from the north, south, east and west, and gives 
additional employment to nearly two hundred thousand mer¬ 
chants, traders, carmen,, shipwrights, boat-builders, etc.,” 44 as 
well as take from the state a revenue of approximately $300,000 
a year which is being so well spent. 45 
The vote is very interesting. White was common to the Anti- 
37 N. Y. Evening Post Nov. 7, 1828, p. 1, col. 2. Communication 
signed “Shipowner.” 
38 N. Y. Am. Jan. 3 and 10, 1829, pp. 2 and col. 4 and 6, respectively, 
“A consumer.” 
39 N. Y. American, May 13/29. 
40 See table at end of paper. (Appendix “B.”) 
41 Anti-Auctioneer Nov. 1, 1828, p. 4 (copy). 
42 “it is respectfully submitted, whether the amount of revenue de¬ 
rived from this source by the state: the valuable purpose for which it 
is appropriated, and the difficulties of supplying its place, should not 
induce you to consider whether measures may not be adopted by you, 
which, while they may save the interest of the state, would at the same 
time, respect those of the complainants.” N. Y. American Jan. 7, 1829, 
p. 2, col. 2. 
43 N. Y. Even. Post, Feb. 17/29, p. 4, cols. 4 and 5. 
44 ibid. Nov. 4/28, p. 1, col. 2. 
45 The revenue was used to support hospitals, foreign poor, orphan 
asylums, and to keep up the Canal fund. N. Y. Am. Jan. 7/29, p. 2, c. 2. 
