Secrist—The Anti-Auction Movement of 1828. 157 
lawyer, was not unlike Taylor’s. He received his greatest 
numerical vote in the eighth, first, ninth and second, in the order 
named; and his greatest relative vote in the third, second, first 
and fifth, in the order named. That is, the first and second 
wards, as in the case of Taylor, gave him both the largest nu¬ 
merical and relative vote. The first five wards were mercantile 
and it is in them that at least two of the candidates received their 
greatest support. 47 
Although none of the candidates was successful, the leaders 
of the movement considered the election at least a partial 
triumph. At a meeting, May 9, 1829, called by the Anti- 
Auction Committee, the progress of the work was reviewed in 
an elaborate report read by Jonathan D. Steele. It was related 
that some fifty memorials from different parts of the United 
States had been received by Congress; that Congress had re¬ 
ported a bill; 48 which, however, was not passed because of the 
rush of business, that, “many members of Congress, not being 
merchants were ignorant of the forms of mercantile business, 
and, consequently, had but imperfectly understood the evils of 
auctions.” 49 It was further observed that, “It will require but 
a few years longer to force men of capital out of trade; to- ex¬ 
tinguish that intermediate class of wholesale dealers, which is 
as essential to the freedom of commerce as the middle ranks 
generally are to political liberty. . . .” 50 Resolutions of 
the typical sort were adopted and spoken to by Messrs. James 
Auchincloss, M. Disosway, Lewis Tappan, Daniel Jackson, and 
John E. Hyde, all merchants. 
The next Anti-Auction meeting of importance was December 
47 N. Y. Amer. May 13, 1829. Jonathon D. Steele, Sec. of an Anti- 
Auction meeting, May 8th, 1829, says “We are proud to publish to all 
our constituents that in the first, second, third, fourth and fifth wards 
of the city, where the commercial and trading classes principally re¬ 
side, the anti-auction candidates had a great preponderance. They 
polled 14,655 votes, while our opponents polled only 13,966.” 
48 This was not satisfactory to the merchants in Washington^ who 
had come there from N. Y. and other places to watch their interests. 
A substitute measure, which, it was hoped would conserve the rights of 
the manufacturers, mechanics, and merchants, was drawn up, but was 
not reported. N. Y. Am. May 13, 1829. 
49 N. Y. Amer. May 13, 1829. 
so ibid. 
6 
