As the matter in dispute, between the two antagonistic factions, related only to the designation of those who should control the local politics of the day and what should be realized from those politics, it is not probable that any material opposition was made to the first and second of the three Resolutions which were adopted by the Caucus -- none has been mentioned by any contemporary writer -- but when the third was proposed, those who assumed to represent the unfranchised masses made an attempt to reduce the number from fifty to twenty-five, by which means they hoped to be able to control the action of the Committee, notwithstanding they were so few in number ; but their proposed amendment to the original Resolution was promptly rejected, " by a great Ma- " jority." '

With very great good judgment, the majority of the Caucus evidently treated the minority with respectful consideration, notwithstanding the former steadily

3 Compare the terms of the " A<lcerlixemeiit"' calling the Caucus, "in- "viting Ihi: Merchnnl» to meet," etc., with the otlicial description of those who had boen present at that Caucus, which was contained in the published call for the meeting at the Coffee-house, to confirni or amend the doings of that Caucus -- "a very respectable and large number of the " Merehaiits and other Iiihahitants did accordingly appear."

* \ small broadside, containing a list of twenty-five names of persons who were " nominated by a N umber of respectable merchants and the " Body of Mechanics of this City, to be a Committee of Correspondence "for it, with the Xeighboring Colonies," may be seen in the Library of the New York Historical Society. It was evidently the result of a consultation of those who assumed to have been the leaders of the masses of the unfranchised inhabitants of tha City.