“Could not, while in the employment of Mr. Deming, act on the republican side”

Elisha Horton’s letter detailing what he would have said in court about Julius Deming, quoted yesterday, was actually a response to a previous publication.

Sometime around the turn of the year 1806, Horton testified in a court case that hinged on whether Deming had tried to influence votes in favor of the Federalists.

That day didn’t go well. As in his letter, Horton evidently complained of “a violent pain in my head.” Deming’s political opponents thought that was just a lousy excuse for evasiveness.

On 8 Jan 1806, the Republican Witness newspaper of Litchfield, Connecticut, published an item headlined “Cure for the Headache; Or a Spur for a Dull Memory.” It was a letter from a local man named John Kilborn saying:

That a few days before freeman’s meeting [i.e., Election Day], in the Spring of 1804, I was in company with Mr. Elisha Horton, of Litchfield, at the Paper-mill then owned by Julius Deming, Esq; Mr. Horton then being under the employ of said Deming, as principal workman in said mill.

Mr. Horton remarked to me that he had been requested to use his influence with the republicans to put forward as general an attendance at the approaching election as possible; but that his situation was such with Mr. Deming, that he could not consistently with his interest, pursue that open line of conduct,…that he was convinced from what Mr. Deming had repeatedly manifested to him when speaking to him on the subject of politics, that he would actually discharge him in case he was known to be active with the republicans. . . .

he observed that but a few days before this, Mr. Deming had conversed with him very fully on politics, and had spoken freely of republicans, and declared so sure as republicanism prevailed in Connecticut, he should quit all business and retire to private life;…that he [Horton] was so fixed in business and had expended so much in repairing a convenient dwelling, expecting to continue a long time in said business, that to be turned aside [i.e., laid off], would greatly injure him…

Some of Kilborn’s story matched Horton’s—they agreed that Deming disliked the rise of Republican politics in Connecticut and threatened to retire from business if it continued. But Kilborn said Horton had told him something that Horton denied in court and in his letter: that Deming would fire him for being a Republican voice, and he couldn’t afford to make his boss that angry.

Horton saw one solution to his dilemma, Kilborn wrote: “he was very desirous that some republican should set forward and purchase the paper-mill of Mr. Deming, so that he could continue in business, and at the same time act freely in politics.”

On Election Day, Kilborn wrote, Horton told him about another conversation with Deming, in which the factory owner identified his manager as “a committee-man” for the Republicans and Horton had denied that. Again, that matched Horton’s version of events.

But then Kilborn said Horton did something he hadn’t told the court: that he “immediately left the store, and went to see Mr. Moses Seymour, jr. and had earnestly solicited him to purchased the Paper-Mill.” Seymour (1776–1824, shown above) was the head of the local Republicans.

Moses Seymour, Jr., himself wrote a letter published in the Witness on 24 February:

On the morning of Freeman’s meeting day in April 1804, Mr. Elisha Horton called on me (his feelings appearing to be much agitated) and requested me to purchase Mr. Deming’s paper mill, as he told me he wished for his own sake, that it might be shifted into other hands; that he could not, while in the employment of Mr. Deming, act on the republican side of politics; that he believed from what Mr. Deming had said, that he would discharge him from his employment provided he so acted, which would be a great damage to him as he had laid out considerable money in repairs, expecting to continue in his business; he said he dare not stay and vote that day; I told Mr. Horton he best knew what Mr. Deming had said to him; and if he believed his fears well founded, I could not advise him to stay and vote.

In that same issue, John Stone told the same story that Kilborn had. So did Amos Parmalee, Jr., who added:

On the day of the late trial for a libel on Esq. Deming, previous to the commencement of the trial, I saw Mr. Horton at Timothy Peck’s store. I observed to him that I was requested to attend this trial and testify what he (Horton) had confessed to me requesting Mr. Deming’s influencing his voting. He then requested me to step one side with him in private; which I did.—He then addressed me thus: “what I told you about Esq. Deming was a confidential matter—I expect the lawyers will question me whether Mr. Deming has influenced me; but I am not obliged to answer them.”

The clear implication of the letters in the Witness was that Horton had curtailed his political behavior and his honesty in order to stay in Julius Deming’s favor. Because Deming remained his boss.

TOMORROW: Horton’s community reputation.