Produced by Marvin Hodges, Stan Goodman,

and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team

[Frontispiece: Theodosia]

MEMOIRS OF AARON BURR.

WITH MISCELLANEOUS SELECTIONS

FROM HIS CORRESPONDENCE.

BY MATTHEW L. DAVIS.

"I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him."

IN TWO VOLUMES

VOL. II.

* * * * *

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1836, by

MATTHEW L. DAVIS,

in the Clerk's Office of the Southern District of New-York.

* * * * *

CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME.

CHAPTER I.

Colonel Burr's study of the law; shortness of his study; different opinions respecting his law learning; his definition of law; his manner of preparing causes and of conducting suits; his maxim for sluggards; tendency to mystery in his practice; fondness for surprising an opponent; an illustration of this remark; his treatment of associate counsel; nice discrimination in the selection of professional agents; their various characteristics; the same acuteness displayed in politics; anecdote on this subject that occurred during the contested election in 1800; great coolness and presence of mind in civil as well as military life; an example in the death of Mr. P.; commenced practice at the close of the revolution under the most favourable auspices; multiplication of his papers; condensation a peculiar trait in his mind; never solicited a favour from an opponent; a strict practitioner; character of his mind; manner of speaking; accorded to General Hamilton eloquence; an incident in relation to Hamilton and Burr in the cause of Le Guen vs. Gouverneur and Kemble; letter from John Van Ness Yates explanatory of Chief Justice Yates's notes on that occasion; the effect he produced as a speaker; his display of extraordinary talents on his trial at Richmond; his legal opinions on various important occasions; a letter from him evincing his great perseverance when nearly eighty years of age

CHAPTER II.

A brief history of the rise of political parties in the state of New-York; the city of New-York the rendezvous of the tories, from which they communicated with the British ministry during the war; feelings of the whigs on this subject; Joseph Galloway, of Philadelphia, sails in 1778 for England; his correspondence with the loyalists extensive; extracts from various letters written during the war of the revolution, viz., from the Reverend Bishop Inglis, from Isaac Ogden, from Daniel Cox, during the year 1778; from John Potts, from Daniel Cox, from Isaac Ogden, from Daniel Cox, from Thomas Eddy, from Bishop Inglis, from John Potts, from Bishop Inglis, from Isaac Ogden, from Bishop Inglis, from Isaac Ogden, from Daniel Cox, during the year 1779; from Charles Stewart, David Sproat, and James Humphrey, Jun., printer, in 1779, in which General Arnold's tory sympathies are alluded to; from Bishop Inglis, John Potts, and Christopher Sower; from David Ogden, with the plan of a constitution for the government of the American colonies after the whigs are conquered

CHAPTER III.

Defeat of General Schuyler as a candidate for the office of governor of the state of New-York, in opposition to George Clinton, in 1777; commencement of the Clinton and Schuyler parties; defeat of General Schuyler as a candidate for Congress in 1780; "a supreme dictator" proposed; opposition of Hamilton to the project; the Clinton and Schuyler parties continued to exist until the adoption of the federal constitution; in 1779 a law passed disfranchising tories; in 1781 an act confirmatory of this law; first session of the legislature after the war held in the city of New-York, in 1784; petitions of the tories rejected; Robert R. Livingston's classification of parties in the state; suit of Mrs. Rutgers vs. Waddington for the recovery of the rent of a building occupied by Waddington in the city of New-York during the war; the mayor's court, James Duane and Richard Varick presiding, decide against Mrs. Rutgers; great excitement and public meetings; Waddington compromises the claim; in 1786 and 1787, sundry laws restricting the privileges of the tories, through the instrumentality of General Hamilton are repealed; the tories unite with the Schuyler party; the strength of the Schuyler party in the legislature elected from the tory counties; names of the members in 1788, 89; to which of the political parties Colonel Burr belonged; letters from John Jay on the subject of proscribing the tories

CHAPTER IV.

The Livingstons were of the Schuyler party; subsequently of the federal party; their change; reasons assigned; the federalists triumph in the city of New-York at the election of 1799; Mr. Jefferson's opinion as to the effect of the city election in 1800; the several factions of the democratic party unite in this contest, through the arrangements of Burr; the character of his friends; he is elected to represent Orange county; the manner in which the city ticket for 1800 was formed; great difficulty to obtain Governor Clinton's consent to use his name; interview of a sub-committee with the governor; his denunciation of Jefferson; Burr's and Hamilton's efforts at the election; success of the democratic party; apprehensions that the federalists intended to change the result by fraud; a federal caucus held on the evening of the 3d of May, 1800; letter to Duane, editor of the Aurora, stating that the caucus had decided to request Governor Jay to convene the legislature, and change the mode of choosing presidential electors; federal printers deny the charge; the letter to Jay, published in his works, thus proving the correctness of the Aurora's statement

CHAPTER V.

General Hamilton's pamphlet on the conduct of John Adams; Colonel Burr ascertains that it is in the press; as soon as printed, a copy obtained, and extracts sent to the Aurora and the New-London Bee; Hamilton thus compelled to make the publication prematurely; presidential electors chosen; letter from Jefferson to Burr; Jefferson to Madison; tie vote between Jefferson and Burr; rules for the government of the House of Representatives during the election; informality in the votes of Georgia; constitutional provision on the subject; statement of the case by Mr. Wells, of Delaware, and Mr. Nicholas, of Virginia; balloting commenced on the 11th, and continued until the 17th of February, 1801, when, on the 36th ballot, Mr. Jefferson was elected president; letter from Burr to General S. Smith, constituting him (Smith) his proxy to declare his sentiments in the event of a tie vote

CHAPTER VI.

Mr. Burr's political position on being elected vice-president; letters from Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Madison; the doubtful states in Congress on the presidential question; the doubtful persons; their appointment to office by Mr. Jefferson; address to Colonel Burr by certain republicans at Baltimore, on his way to Washington in 1801; his answer, disapproving of such addresses; casting vote, as vice-president, on the bill to repeal the midnight judiciary act; effects of this vote; letter from A. J. Dallas on the subject; from Nathaniel Niles; from A. J. Dallas; Wood's history of John Adams's administration; suppression by Burr; attacks upon Burr by Cheetham and Duane; private letters from Duane approving of Burr's conduct

CHAPTER VII.

Effect of Burr's silence under these attacks; allegation that Dr. Smith, of New-Jersey, as a presidential elector, was to have voted for Burr; denial of Dr. Smith; Timothy Green charged with going to South Carolina as the political agent of Burr; denial of Green; General John Swartwout charged with being concerned in the intrigue; denial of Swartwout; Burr charged with negotiating with the federalists; denial of Burr, in a letter to Governor Bloomfield; David A. Ogden said to have been the agent of the federal party or of Burr in this negotiation; letter from Peter Irving to Ogden, inquiring as to the fact; answer of Ogden, denying the charge; Edward Livingston represented as Burr's "confidential friend" on the occasion; denial of Livingston; Burr, in the year 1804, commences a suit against Cheetbam for a libel; wager-suit between James Gillespie and Abraham Smith, and a commission taken out to examine witnesses, April, 1806; transactions in the United States' Senate on the 18th January, 1830, in relation to Mr. Jefferson's charge against Mr. Bayard; letter from R. H. Bayard to Burr; from Burr to Bayard; from Burr to M. L. Davis; from Davis to Burr; from General S. Smith to R. H. and J. A. Bayard; from R. H. Bayard to Burr

CHAPTER VIII.

Letter from Judge Cooper to Thomas Morris; ditto; from James A. Bayard to Alexander Hamilton; from George Baer to R. H. Bayard; interrogatories to James A. Bayard, in Cheetham's suit; answers to said interrogatories by Mr. Bayard; interrogatories to Bayard in the suit of Gillespie vs. Smith; answers thereto; reasons why Mr. Latimer was not removed from the office of collector of Philadelphia; answer of Samuel Smith to interrogatories in the suit of Gillespie vs. Smith

CHAPTER IX.

Effect of the attacks upon Burr; power of the press in corrupt hands; Mr. Jefferson's malignity towards Burr; his hypocrisy; false entries in his Ana of conversations said to have been held with Burr; letter to Theodosia; ditto; ditto; to Joseph Alston; Theodosia to Joseph Alston; to Theodosia; ditto; to Joseph Alston; to Theodosia; to Thomas Morris; from P. Butler; to Joseph Alston; to Theodosia; from Thomas Jefferson; to Theodosia

CHAPTER X.

Letter to Joseph Alston; from D. Phelps, from Joseph Brandt (Indian chief); from William P. Van Ness; to Theodosia; to Barnabas Bidwell; to Joseph Alston; to Theodosia; from Charles Biddle; from Marinus Willett; from John M. Taylor; from Mrs. *****; to Theodosia; ditto

CHAPTER XI.

Letter to Theodosia; ditto; to Joseph Alston; from Charles Biddle;
from John Coats; to Theodosia; from C. A. Rodney; to Theodosia; ftom
C. A. Rodney; from Uriah Tracy; from General Horatio Gates; from David
Gelston; to Theodosia; ditto; from Midshipman James Biddle; from John
Taylor, of Caroline

CHAPTER XII.

Letter from Theodosia to Joseph Alston; ditto; from A. Burr to Joseph
Alston; to Natalie; Theodosia to Joseph Alston; to Joseph Alston;
ditto; to Theodosia; to Joseph Alston; ditto; to Theodosia; ditto; to
Dr. John Coats; from Theodosia; to Theodosia; from Theodosia; to
Theodosia; ditto; ditto

CHAPTER XIII.

Letter to Theodosia; ditto; from Theodosia; to Theodosia; from
Theodosia; from Charles Biddle; from John Taylor, of Caroline; from
Pierce Butler; to Theodosia; ditto; from Theodosia; from Theodosia;
ditto; to Theodosia; ditto; from Theodosia; to Theodosia; ditto; to
Charles Biddle; from Midshipman James Biddle

CHAPTER XIV.

Note from Mr. Madison; from J. Wagner to Mr. Madison; from Samuel A.
Otis; letter from George Davis; from Charles Biddle; from Robert
Smith; from Robert G. Harper; from J. Guillemard; from John Vaugham;
from John Dickinson; to Charles Biddle; to Theodosia; to Peggy (a
slave); to Theodosia; to Joseph Alston; to Charles Biddle; ditto; to
Natalie Delage Sumter; to Theodosia; to A. R. Ellery; to Theodosia; to
Thomas Sumter, Jun.; to Charles Biddle; to F. A. Vanderkemp; to W. P.
Van Ness; to Theodosia; to Mrs. *****; to Theodosia; to Miss ——; to
Theodosia

CHAPTER XV.

Letter from Charles D. Cooper, which produced the duel between General Hamilton and Colonel Burr; correspondence between the parties, with explanations by W. P. Van Ness, second of Colonel Burr; statement of what occurred on the ground as agreed upon by the seconds; explanations of the correspondence, &c., by Nathaniel Pendleton, second of General Hamilton; remarks on the letter which Mr. Van Ness refused to receive; account of General Hamilton's wound and death, by Dr. Hosack; remarks by General Hamilton on his motives and views in meeting Colonel Burr; death of Hamilton; oration by Gouverneur Morris; letter from Colonel Burr to Theodosia, dated the night before the duel; same date to Joseph Alston

CHAPTER XVI.

Letter to Joseph Alston; to Theodosia; from John Swartwout; to
Theodosia; ditto; to Joseph Alston; to Theodosia; ditto; journal for
Theodosia; to Joseph Alston; to Theodosia; to Joseph Alston; to
Theodosia; to Joseph Alston; to Theodosia

CHAPTER XVII.

Letter to Theodosia; ditto; trial of Judge Chace before the United States' Senate; Burr presides; acquittal; letter to Theodosia; ditto; an account of the effect of Burr's speech on taking leave of the Senate; letter to Joseph Alston; to Theodosia; journal of his tour in the Western country; letter to Joseph Alston

CHAPTER XVIII.

Burr's early views against Mexico; letter from General Miranda to
General Hamilton, in April, 1798 on the subject of an expedition, in
conjunction with Great Britain, against South America; from Miranda to
Hamilton, in October, 1798, announcing the arrangements made with the
British; from Miranda to General Knox, same date, on the same subject;
General Adair's statement of Burr's views; grant of lands by the
Spanish government to Baron Bastrop; transfer of part of said grant to
Colonel Lynch; purchase from Lynch by Burr; the views of Burr in his
Western expedition, as stated by himself; he is arrested on the
Tombigbee; the cipher letter; transported to Richmond; trial and
acquittal of Burr; testimony of Commodore Truxton; Dr. Bollman's
treatment by Mr. Jefferson

CHAPTER XIX.

Excitement produced against Burr by Jefferson, Eaton, and Wilkinson; Senate of the United States pass a bill suspending writ of Habeas Corpus; House rejects the bill on the first reading, ayes 113, nays 19; extracts from Blennerhassett's private journal; official Spanish documents, showing that General Wilkinson, after he had sworn to Burr's treasonable designs, despatched his aid, Captain Walter Burling, to Mexico, demanding from the viceroy for his service to Spain, in defeating Burr's expedition against Mexico, the sum of two hundred thousand dollars; sundry letters of Burr to Theodosia, while imprisoned in Richmond on the charge of treason

CHAPTER XX.

Burr sails for England on the 7th of June, 18O8; arrives in London on the 16th of July; makes various unsuccessful efforts to induce the British ministry to aid him in his enterprise against South America; receives great attention from Jeremy Bentham; continues his correspondence with Bentham after his return to the United States; visits Edinburgh; experiences great courtesy; introduced to M'Kenzie and Walter Scott; returns to London; the ministers become suspicious of him; his papers are seized, and his person taken into custody for two days, when he is released, but ordered to quit the kingdom; leaves England in a packet for Gottenburgh; travels through Sweden, Germany, &c.; Bourrienne's (French minister at Hamburgh) account of Burr, and Burr's account of Bourrienne; arrives in Paris on the 16th of February, 1810; endeavours to induce Napoleon to aid him in his contemplated expedition, but is unsuccessful; asks a passport to leave France, and is refused; presents a spirited memorial to the emperor on the subject; Russell, chargé d'affaires, and M'Rae, United States consul at Paris, refuse him the ordinary protection or passport of an American citizen; in July, 1811, obtains permission from the emperor to leave France; sails from Amsterdam on the 20th of September; is captured next day by an English frigate, and carried into Yarmouth; remains in England from the 9th of October, 1811, until the 6th of March, 1812; arrives in New-York, via Boston, on the 8th of June, after an absence of four years

CHAPTER XXI.

Colonel Burr, on his return to New-York in 1811, resumes the practice of law; prejudices against him; kindness of Colonel Troup; letter from Joseph Alston to Burr, announcing the death of Aaron Burr Alston; effect upon Burr; Theodosia's health precarious; Timothy Greene despatched to bring her to New-York; letter from Greene; letter from Greene, stating that he is to sail for New-York in a few days, on board a schooner with Theodosia; letter from Alston to Theodosia, expressing apprehensions for her safety; from Alston to Burr on the same subject; from Alston to Burr, abandoning all hope of his wife's safety; Theodosia supposed to have perished in a gale of wind early in January, 1813; from Burr to Alston in relation to his private affairs; Burr expresses his opinions on great, but not on minor political questions; letter from Burr to Alston, denouncing the nomination of Monroe for president, and recommending General Jackson; Alston replies, concurring in sentiment with Burr, but ill health prevents his acting; Alston's death; letter from William A. Alston to Burr, explanatory of his late brother's will so far as Burr is interested; from Theodosia to her husband, at a moment when she supposes that death is approaching; Burr's continued zeal in favour of the South American States; letter from General Toledo to Colonel Burr in 1816, soliciting him to take command of the Mexican forces; Burr commissioned by the Republic of Venezuela in 1819; Burr's pursuits after his return from Europe; superintends the education of the Misses Eden; his pecuniary situation; state of his health; paralytic; manner of receiving strangers; restive and impatient at the close of his life; death; conveyed to Princeton for interment; an account of his funeral; proceedings of the Cliosophic Society

MEMOIRS OF AARON BURR.

CHAPTER I.

Colonel Burr's study of the law [1] has been already briefly noticed. He brought to that study a classic education as complete as could, at that time, be acquired in our country; and to this was added a knowledge of the world, perhaps nowhere better taught than in the camp, as well as a firmness and hardihood of character which military life usually confers, and which is indispensable to the success of the forensic lawyer. He was connected in the family circle with _two[2] eminent jurists, who were at hand to stimulate his young ambition, and to pour, in an almost perpetual stream, legal knowledge into his mind, by conversation and by epistolary correspondence. The time he spent in his studies preparatory to his admission would be considered short at the present day; but (to use the language of another) "it is to be recollected that at that time there were no voluminous treatises upon the mere routine of practice to be committed to memory, without adding a single legal principle or useful idea to the mind, and which only teach the law student, as has been said of the art of the rhetorician, 'how to name his tools.' Burr, fortunately for his future professional eminence, was not destined to graze upon this barren moor. He spent his clerkship in reading and abstracting, with pen in hand, Coke and the elementary writers, instead of Sellon and Tidd; and learnt law as a science, and not as a mechanical art."

On the other hand, it has been said "that Colonel Burr was not a deep-read lawyer; that he showed himself abundantly conversant with the general knowledge of the profession, and that he was skilful in suggesting doubts and questions; but that he exhibited no indications of a fondness for the science, nor of researches into its abstruse doctrines; that he seemed, indeed, to hold it and its administration in slight estimation. The best definition of law, he said, was 'whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained.' This sarcasm was intended full as much for the courts as for the law administered by them."

If Colonel Burr may have been surpassed in legal erudition, he possessed other qualifications for successful practice at the bar which were seldom equalled. He prepared his trials with an industry and forethought that were most surprising. He spared no labour or expense in attaining every piece of evidence that would be useful in his attacks, or guard him against his antagonist. He was absolutely indefatigable in the conduct of his suits. "He pursued (says a legal friend) the opposite party with notices, and motions, and applications, and appeals, and rearguments, never despairing himself, nor allowing to his adversary confidence, nor comfort, nor repose. Always vigilant and always urgent, until a proposition for compromise or a negotiation between the parties ensued. 'Now move slow (he would say); never negotiate in a hurry.' I remember a remark he made on this subject, which appeared to be original and wise. There is a saying, 'Never put off till tomorrow what you can do to-day.' 'This is a maxim,' said he, 'for sluggards. A better reading of the maxim is—Never do to-day what you can as well do to-morrow; because something may occur to make you regret your premature action.'"

I was struck, says the same friend, in his legal practice, with that tendency to mystery which was so remarkable in his conduct in other respects. He delighted in surprising his opponents, and in laying, as it were, ambuscades for them. A suit, in which I was not counsel, but which has since passed professionally under my observation, will illustrate this point in his practice. It was an ejectment suit, brought by him to recover a valuable tenement in the lower part of the city, and in which it was supposed, by the able lawyers retained on the part of the defendant, that the only question would, be on the construction of the will. On the trial they were surprised to find the whole force of the plainfiff's case brought against the authenticity of an ancient deed, forming a link in their title, and of which, as it had never, been questioned nor suspected, they had prepared merely formal proof; and a verdict of the jury, obtained by a sort, of coup-de-main, pronounced the deed a forgery. Two tribunals have subsequently established the deed as authentic; but the plaintiff lived and died in the possession of the land in consequence of the verdict, while the law doubts, which form the only real questions in the case, are still proceeding, at the customary snail's pace, through our courts to their final solution.

To be employed as an assistant by Mr. Burr was not to receive a sinecure. He commanded and obtained the constant and unremitted exertions of his counsel. It was one of the most remarkable exhibitions of the force of his character, this bending every one who approached him to his use, and compelling their unremitted, though often unwilling, labours in his behalf. His counsel would receive notes from him at midnight, with questions which were sent for immediate replies.

He showed nice discrimination in his selection of his professional assistants. When learning was required, he selected the most erudite. If political influence could be suspected of having effect, he chose his lawyers to meet or improve the supposed prejudice or predilection. Eloquence was bought when it was wanted; and the cheaper substitute of brow-beating, and vehemence used when they were equivalent or superior. In nothing did he show greater skill than in his measurement and application of his agents; and it was amusing to hear his cool discussion of the obstacles of prejudice, or ignorance, or interest, or political feeling to be encountered in various tribunals, and of the appropriate remedies and antidotes to be employed, and by what persons they should be applied.

Equal discrimination and acuteness was displayed in his political movements. An anecdote which occurred in the contested election of 1800 will exemplify this remark. Funds were required for printing, for committee-rooms, &c. The finance committee took down the names of leading democrats, and attached to each the sum they proposed to solicit from him. Before attempting the collection, the list, at Colonel Burr's request, was presented for his inspection. An individual, an active partisan of wealth, but proverbially parsimonious, was assessed one hundred dollars. Burr directed that his name should be struck from the list; for, said he, you will not get the money, and from the moment the demand is made upon him, his exertions will cease, and you will not see him at the polls during the election. The request was complied with. On proceeding with the examination, the name of another wealthy individual was presented; he was liberal, but indolent; he also was assessed one hundred dollars. Burr requested that this sum should be doubled, and that be should be informed that no labour would be expected from him except an occasional attendance at the committee-rooms to assist in folding tickets. He will pay you the two hundred dollars, and thank you for letting him off so easy. The result proved the correctness of these opinions. On that occasion Colonel Burr remarked, that the knowledge and use of men consisted in placing each in his appropriate position.

His imperturbable coolness and presence of mind were displayed in his civil as well as in his military life. Against most of the vicissitudes of a trial he guarded by his forethought and minuteness of preparation. I was present myself, says the legal friend already referred to, when he received with great composure a communication which would have startled most men. Mr. P. had long been an inmate of his house; he had been connected with him in many respects and for many years. Colonel Burr and two other lawyers were discussing a proposed motion in a chancery suit in which P. was the plaintiff, the colonel himself having, an interest in the result. P. was then out of town. A letter was brought in and handed to the colonel, which, telling us to proceed with our debate, he carefully read, and then placed it, in his customary manner, on the table, with the address downwards. Our discussion proceeded earnestly for ten minutes at least, when the colonel, who had listened with great attention, asked, in his gentlest tone, "What effect would the death of P. have on the suit?" We started, and asked eagerly why he put the question. "P. is dead," he replied, "as this letter informs me; will the suit abate?" The colonel was himself ill at the time, and unable to leave his sofa; and even if there was some affectation in his demeanour, there was certainly remarkable collectedness.

Colonel Burr commenced the practice of his profession at the close of the revolution, under the most favourable auspices; and may be said at one bound to have taken rank among the first lawyers of the day, and to have sustained it until he became vice president, at which time, it is believed, he had no superior at the bar, either in this state or in the Union, nor even an equal, except General Hamilton.

The eclat which Burr, yet a beardless boy, had acquired by his adventurous march under Arnold to Canada, through our northeastern wilds, then a trackless desert; his gallant bearing at Quebec and Monalouth; his efficient services in the retreat of our army from Long Island and New-York; and his difficult and delicate command on the lines of Westchester, followed him to private life, gathered around him hosts of admirers and friends among our early patriots, particularly the youthful portion of them, and no doubt essentially aided him in making his successful professional debut. The name of the chivalrous aid-de-camp who supported in his youthful arms the dying hero of Quebec was familiar in the mouths of men, and from one end of the continent to the other he was eulogized for his military prowess. Such were the cheering auspices under which he sheathed his sword when his physical energies would permit him no longer to wield it.

"He was indefatigable," says another legal friend, "in business, as he had been in his previous studies, and no lawyer ever appeared before our tribunals with his cause better prepared for trial, his facts and legal points being marshalled for combat with all the regularity and precision of a consummate military tactician. No professional adversary, it is believed, has ever boasted of having broken or thrown into confusion the solid columns into which he had formed them, or having found void spaces in their lengthened line, or to have beaten him by a ruse de guerre or a surprise.

"He never heeded expense in completing his preparations for trial; and, while laborious himself to an uncommon degree, he did not stint the labours of others, so far as he could command or procure them. Every pleading or necessary paper connected with his causes was in tile first place to be multiplied into numerous copies, and then abstracted or condensed into the smallest possible limits, but no material point or idea was by any means to be omitted. His propensity to concision or condensation was a peculiar trait in his mind. He would reduce an elaborate argument, extending over many sheets of paper, to a single page. Had he written the history of our revolution, which he once commenced, he would probably have compressed the whole of it in a single volume."

In his professional practice, he never solicited from an opponent any favour or indulgence any more than he would have done from an armed foe; but, at the same time, rarely withheld any courtesy that was asked of him, not inconsistent with the interest of his clients. He was a strict practitioner, almost a legal martinet, and so fond of legal technicalities, that he never omitted an opportunity of trying his own skill and that of opposite counsel in special pleas, demurrers, and exceptions in chancery, notwithstanding the risk of paying costs sometimes, though rarely incurred, and of protracting a cause.

The labour of drawing his pleadings and briefs, however, at least after his return from Europe in 1812, always devolved upon others; and, with marginal notes of all the authorities which had been consulted, from the year books downward, which were sometimes in law French and law Latin, to the last reports in England and some half a dozen of our states, in which may be properly called law English, were submitted to his critical acumen; his thousand doubts, suggestions, hints, and queries, which would start from his mind like a flash, and for a moment seem to throw into inextricable confusion what had been laboriously, and perhaps profoundly studied, at last would most generally be adopted without material alterations or additions.

Colonel Burr's mind cannot be said to have been a comprehensive one. It was acute, analytical, perspicacious, discriminating, unimaginative, quick to conceive things in detail, but not calculated to entertain masses of ideas. He would never have gained celebrity as an author; but as a critic, upon whatever subject, his qualifications have rarely been surpassed, though in literary matters and the fine arts they were only exhibited in conversation. His colloquial powers were impressive and fascinating, though he generally seemed a listener rather than a talker; but never failed to say a proper thing in the proper place."

As a public speaker, his ideas were not diffuse enough; or rather, he appeared to lack fluency to make a long, and what is called an elaborate argument upon any matter, however grave or momentous. In a cause in which he was employed as associate counsel with General Hamilton, an incident occurred, in relation to Chief Justice Yates, not unworthy recording. It speaks a language that cannot he misunderstood, and is demonstrative of the influence which he had over the feelings as well as the minds of his hearers. It was the celebrated case of Le Guen vs. Gouverneur and Kemble, one of the most important, in regard to the legal questions and amount of property involved, which at that day had been brought before our tribunals, and in which case he completely triumphed. Only a short period previous to his decease Colonel Burr remarked, that on this occasion he had acquired more money and more reputation as a lawyer than on any other during his long practice at the bar. A letter was addressed to Thurlow Weed, Esq., requesting him to apply to the Hon. John Van Ness Yates, son of the late chief justice, and ascertain whether the incident, as reported, was founded on fact. To that letter Mr. Weed received the following answer.

JOHN VAN NESS YATES TO THURLOW WEED.

Albany, July 8th, 1837.

DEAR SIR,

After some difficulty in finding my father's notes of the argument in the case of Le Guen vs. Gouverneur and Kemble, I have ascertained that the account you showed me, given in the letter of M. L. Davis, Esq., is in the main correct. My father's notes of General Hamilton's argument are very copious. Those of Colonel Burr's are limited, in this way—"Burr for plaintiff, I. The great principles of commercial law which apply to this case are"—then follows a hiatus of some lines. After which, as follows:—

"II. The plaintiff"—another hiatus.

"III. !!!!!" and this concludes all I can find.

Hamilton's eloquence was (if I may be allowed the expression) argumentative, and induced no great elevation or depression of mind, consequently could be easily followed by a note taker. Burr's was more persuasive and imaginative. He first enslaved the heart, and then led captive the, head. Hamilton addressed himself to the head only. I do not, therefore, wonder that Burr engrossed all the faculties of the hearer. Indeed, I have heard him often at the bar myself, and always with the same effect. I do not recollect, in conversation, any particular allusion of my father's to Burr's argument in the case of Le Guen vs. Gouverneur and Kemble; but I have frequently heard him say, that of all lawyers at the bar, Burr was the most difficult to follow in the way of taking notes. Yet Burr was very concise in his language. He had no pleonasms or expletives. Every word was in its proper place, and seemed to be the only one suited to the place. He made few or no repetitions. If what he said had been immediately committed to the press, it would want no correction.

Yours respectfully,

J. V. N. YATES.

Colonel Burr's style of speaking at the bar was unique, or peculiarly his own; always brief; never loud, vehement, or impassioned, but conciliating, persuasive, and impressive; and when his subject called for gravity or seriousness, his manner was stern and peremptory. He was too dignified ever to be a trifler; and his sarcasm, sometimes indulged in, rarely created a laugh, but powerfully told upon those who had provoked it. His enunciation was slow, distinct, and emphatic; perhaps too emphatic; and this was pronounced, by his early and devoted friend, Judge Paterson, [3] a fault in his mode of speaking while a youth, and seems never to have been fully corrected, as he did that of rapid utterance, attaining the true medium for public speaking in this respect. He spoke with great apparent ease, but could not be called fluent, although he never appeared at a loss for words, which were always so chaste and appropriate that they seemed to, have been as carefully selected before they fell from his lips as if they had been written down in a prepared speech and committed to memory. His manner was dignified and courteous; his self-possession never for an instant forsook him. He never appeared hurried or confused, or betrayed the slightest embarrassment for want of ideas to support his argument, or language in which to clothe it; and possessed a memory so well disciplined as never to forget any thing in the excitement of the legal forum which in the retirement of his study he had intended to use. He has frequently been heard to say that he possessed no oratorical talents; that he never spoke with pleasure, or even self-satisfaction, and seemed unconscious of the effect which he produced upon the minds of his audience.

Colonel Burr accorded the palm of eloquence to General Hamilton, whom he frequently characterized as a man of strong and fertile imagination, of rhetorical and even poetical genius, and a powerful declaimer. Burr's ruling passion was an ardent love for military glory. Next to the career of arms, diplomacy, no doubt, would have been his choice, for which not only his courtly and fascinating manners, but every characteristic of his mind peculiarly adapted him. It is idle now to speculate upon what he might have been had Washington yielded to the importunities of Madison, Monroe, and others, and appointed him minister to the French republic. Our country, before which he then stood in the original brightness of his character, would have been honoured in the choice, both at home and abroad, and his own destiny, at least, would have been widely different.

Notwithstanding oratory was not his forte, and he never spoke in public with satisfaction to himself, still many anecdotes are told of him which would show that the effect of his speeches were sometimes of unequalled power. It is said, that at the close of his farewell address to the Senate of the United States on his retirement from the vice-presidency, there was scarcely a dry eye to be seen among his grave auditors, many of whom were his bitter political adversaries. His manner of speaking was any thing but declamatory, and more resembled an elevated tone of conversation, by which a man, without any seeming intention, pours his ideas in measured and beautiful language into the minds of some small select circle, dislodging all which they may have previously entertained upon a particular subject, and fixing his own there, by the power of a seeming magical fascination, which he could render, when he chose, almost irresistible. To judge him by his success as a public speaker, few men could be called more eloquent.

As a monument of his legal knowledge and talents, his trial at Richmond may be referred to. The two volumes of Reports which contain it exhibit on almost every page the impress of his great mind, in its singular acuteness and perspicacity, and great powers of analysis and argument. On that trial were engaged some of the ablest lawyers of our country, and he manifestly took the lead of them all. But the abilities which he displayed, hour by hour, and day by day, through that long protracted contest, in which the verdict sought for by those who then wielded the political destinies of our country was an ignominious death, were no less remarkable than his unshaken firmness and high moral elevation of deportment, struggling as he was for honour and for life.

Fiat Justicia ruat coelum, was the motto of Chief Justice Marshall on the trial of Colonel Burr. He was acquitted, but his acquittal was not owing to the clemency or partiality of his judges. His acuteness as a lawyer, and the adroitness with which he managed his defence, contributed greatly, no doubt, in saving him from becoming a victim, though his innocence of the charge of treason which had been brought against him could hardly have effected that acquittal. Here, then, his talents have done some good to his country, even if it be of a negative character. They saved it from a stain of blood, which would have been as indelible as is that of Admiral Byng upon the escutcheon of England.

After Colonel Burr's return from Europe in 1812, he was engaged in several important causes, in which he was preeminently successful. His legal opinion in the great steam-boat cause aided in breaking up that monopoly. He was originally employed in the important land trial of Mrs. Bradstreet, and in the Eden causes, involving a large amount of property in the city of New-York, and turning upon some of the nicest points of the most difficult branch of the law of real property: he triumphed over almost the entire force of the New-York bar, backed by powerful corporations and individuals of great wealth, which they profusely lavished in a long-protracted contest. He commenced the Eden suits in opposition to an opinion which bad been given by General Hamilton, Richard Harrison, and other members of the profession of high standing, and on the faith of which opinions the parties in possession of the lands had purchased and held them at the time the suits were commenced.

Had Colonel Burr assiduously pursued the study of law through life, like Marshall, Kent, and others, it is not easy to conjecture to what elevated point he might have risen; but such was not his destiny; the bent of his genius, which had received its inclination at the stirring period of the world when he entered into active life, was military. But to show his persevering industry in his practice as a lawyer, and his power of enduring fatigue, even when almost an octogenarian, the following letter, written by him, is inserted.

Albany, March, 1834.

Germond's, Wednesday Evening.

Arrived this evening between 6 and 7 o'clock, having been forty-five hours in the stage without intermission, except to eat a hearty meal. Stages in very bad order—roads excellent for wheels to Peekskill, and thence very good sleighing to this city. The night was uncomfortable; the curtains torn and flying all about, so that we had plenty of fresh air.

The term was closed this day. Nelson will hold the Special Court to-morrow morning—have seen both Wendell and O'Connor this evening—all ready—came neither fatigued nor sleepy.

A. B.

Footnotes:

1. For the remarks which I am now about to present to the reader I am principally indebted to two highly intelligent members of the bar. Either of whom is fully competent to a development of Colonel Burr's legal character; and neither of whom would be disqualified by any prejudices in his favour. These gentlemen, it is believed, entertained different views as to the Practical value of that species of reading which is necessary to form what is by some termed "a truly learned lawyer."

2. Colonel Burr's brother-in-law, Judge Tappan Reeve, and his uncle, Pierpont Edwards.

3. see Vol. I., Ch. III.

CHAPTER II.

Before entering upon the details connected with the election of 1800, a brief history of the rise and progress of political parties in the State of New-York is deemed necessary. By the Constitution adopted during the revolutionary war, the state was divided into four districts, viz., The Southern, the Middle, the Eastern, and the Western. In the Southern District was included the counties of Richmond (Staten Island), Kings, Queens, and Suffolk (Long Island), New-York (Manhattan Island), and Westchester. These six counties, from the autumn of 1776 until the summer of 1783, were in a great measure in the possession of the British forces, and those portions of them which were nominally within the American lines were generally inhabited by tories and refugees. Lord North, or the most unrelenting of his followers, were not as much opposed to American independence as were the tories of the united provinces. The city of New-York became the rendezvous of the most intelligent and influential of this class. From this point they communicated with the British premier, through their correspondents in London. Many of them that were in exile from their late homes in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Connecticut, left their families behind them, under the protection of the whigs. By this arrangement facilities were afforded for ascertaining the position, resources, and movements of the rebel armies. These facilities were not neglected, and the information thus obtained was promptly communicated to the British commander-in-chief in New-York, and to the ministry in England. The whigs felt that ingratitude was returned for their hospitality, and, in consequence, they became daily more incensed against the tories.

It is believed that the war would have terminated in 1780 or 1781, if the British minister and his military commanders in America had not been constantly led into errors by the opinions and advice of the refugees, but especially those residing in the city of New-York. Entertaining such views, the suffering whigs, in their most trying hours, consoled themselves with the hope and belief that, when the struggle should terminate and the country become independent, their oppressors and persecutors would no longer be permitted to remain among them. These were the predominant feelings of the men who were perilling their lives and enduring every species of privation and hardship for the freedom of their native land.

During the year 1778, Joseph Galloway, formerly of Philadelphia, sailed for England. His correspondence was extensive, and he became the depository of all the grievances of the American loyalists. He was the medium of communication between them, Lord North, and Lord George Germain. He possessed, in a high degree, the confidence of those who were the conscience keepers of the king. Among the correspondents of Mr. Galloway may be enumerated William Franklin, former governor of New-Jersey, Daniel Cox, and David Ogden, members of his majesty's council in New-Jersey, the Rev. Dr. Inglis, subsequently bishop of Nova Scotia, and Isaac Ogden, counsellor at law of New-York, John Potts, a judge of the Common Pleas in Philadelphia, John Foxcroft, postmaster general of North America, &c., &c. None of Mr. Galloway's correspondents exhibited a more vindictive spirit than the Rev. Bishop Inglis. These letters were private and confidential, excepting so far as, the ministry were concerned, for whose use most of them were intended. None of them, it is believed, have ever heretofore found their way into print. They are now matters of history. They are well calculated to develop the secret designs of the tories, and, at the same time, they afford the strongest view that could be given of the patriotism, the sufferings, and the untiring perseverance of the sons of liberty in those days. Some extracts will now be made from the original manuscripts, for the purpose of showing, in a limited degree, the cause, and thus far justifying the hostile feelings of the whigs towards the refugees.

The Rev. Bishop Inglis, under date of the 12th December, 1778, says—"Not less than sixty thousand of the rebels have perished by sickness and the sword since the war began, and these chiefly farmers and labourers. I consider it certain that a famine is inevitable if the war continues two years longer; nay, one year war more will bring inexpressible distress on the country with regard to provisions, and this will affect the rebellion not less than the depreciation of their pasteboard dollars. The rebellion, be assured, is on the decline. Its vigour and resources are nearly spent, and nothing but a little perseverance and exertion on the part of Britain is necessary to supress it totally. Butler and Brandt's forces, Indians and loyalists, I am told, amount to five or six thousand men. They have distressed and terrified the rebels more since last spring than the whole royal army.

Isaac Ogden, under date 22d November, 1778, says—"Thus has ended a campaign (if it deserve the appellation) without anything capital being done or even attempted. How will the historian gain credit who shall relate, that at least twenty-four thousand of the best troops in the world were shut up within their own lines by fifteen thousand, at most, of poor wretches, who were illy paid, badly fed, and worse clothed, and scarce, at best, deserved the name of soldiers?"

Daniel Cox, under date of 17th December, 1778, says—"Ned Biddle has declined his seat in Congress. The truth is, he means to do more essential service in the assembly, which has ordered the general sense of the people to be taken respecting the present constitution of Pennsylvania. Joe Reed is elected, and accepted the honour of being president and commander-in-chief of the state."

John Potts, under date 1st March, 1779, says—"An opinion prevails here that government (the British) will adopt the mode of devastation. If that should really take place, adieu to all the hopes of the friends of government ever again living in America. Be assured that, should government be restored by such means, her friends would find it impossible to travel this country without a guard to prevent assassination. This is not only my opinion, but the real sentiments of every friend to government. I have conversed with none, except some of the violent tories, indeed, of New England, who seem to partake of the savage temper of our countrymen." G—— N——[1] has said, in a confidential letter to a friend of his, "that government wish to get rid of this country, and is only at a loss how to do it without leaving it in a situation to injure her."

Daniel Cox, 28th February, 1779, says—"At any rate, I see absolute ruin attend us poor attainted loyalists should the colonies be given up, or this place (New-York) be evacuated. I once fondly imagined neither would happen. I wish that our old friend, the Black Prince, [2] could have the direction here again, and have the glory of conducting the future operations to a happy conclusion. I think he is more calculated for it than somebody [3] else, who, though he may possess zeal and honesty, wants head."

Isaac Ogden, 8th March, 1779, says—"Admiral Gambier is ordered from this station, to the universal joy of all ranks and conditions. I believe no person was ever more generally detested by navy, army, and citizen, than this penurious old reptile."

Daniel Cox, 10th April, 1779, says—"In an open letter to me, Mrs. Cox speaks of the increasing depreciation of the continental money, under the allegory of an old acquaintance of mine lying in a deep consumption. Should Great Britain be really treating, and give us up, there must be an end to her glory. But such a misfortune I can never believe her subject to, unless from her own folly and internal factions of the accursed opposition."

Thomas Eddy, under date 5th month, 3d, 1779, says—"From accounts received by last packet of the determined resolution of government to pursue the war in America with vigour, I am led to believe that the leaders in the rebellion must give up before fall. Indeed, when I consider the dissatisfaction universally prevalent caused by the badness of their money, I should not be surprised if such an event would take place as soon as General, Clinton opens the campaign."

Bishop, Inglis, 14th May, 1779, says—"Remonstrate loudly to those in authority against treating with the Congress—treating with them is establishing them, and teaching the Americans to look up to them for deliverance and protection. We have been guilty of a fatal error in this from the beginning; we now see and feel the consequences. This should teach us wisdom and better policy. Though we should conquer the rebels, yet, if an accommodation is settled with the Congress, I shall consider the colonies as eventually lost, and that in a little time, to Great Britain."

John Potts, 15th May, 1779, says—"In my last I mentioned some sanguine hopes which I could not help entertaining, from the prospect of an election to be held in the beginning of April, for a new convention, as they call it, in Pennsylvania. Those hopes are now totally destroyed by the efforts of Joe Reed [4] and the violent party. Their artful cry of tory against the party in favour of the convention raised a flame too great to be withstood, and procured more than twelve thousand signers to petitions against that measure, in consequence of which the assembly rescinded the resolution for holding the election."

"The person to whom I alluded in my last letter is the woman whom I mentioned to you last fall as so truly enterprising. She has brought three messages through the winter. From her I have this much further to assure you, that great preparations are making at Pittsburgh for the reception of troops.

"The friends of government all agree that they will be content to risk for ever every future hope and prospect of being restored to their estates, provided Great Britain will but secure her own authority fully before any terms are listened to; and, when that is acknowledged and established, then grant terms as liberal as she pleases, consistent with good government and future security."

Bishop Inglis, 3d September, 1779, says—"General Tryon made two or three descents on the coast of Connecticut, and burnt the towns of Fairfield and Norwalk. He was accompanied by a large body of refugees, who were extremely useful, and behaved with a resolution and intrepidity which did them great honour. Had the descents on Connecticut been longer continued and carried on more extensively, the most salutary consequences might be apprehended.

"The delusive notion of treating with Congress, I find, still prevails in some degree among you. Yet nothing could be more destructive to the interest of government. Treating with them would be confirming their usurpation. The loyalists, universally dread this above all things. However they may differ in opinion on other points, they are unanimous and united in this; and where so many are perfectly agreed in a matter which is level to all understandings, it must be the evident dictate of truth and reason."

Isaac Ogden, 20th September, 1779, says—"You may well ask what we are doing here. Our army is now (including the garrison from Rhode Island) at least twenty-four thousand men, a number sufficient to march through the whole continent; but what do numbers avail when they are cooped up in this dastardly manner? A want of knowledge of the country, a want of enterprise, or a want of something else, God only knows what, has prevented any and every attempt to interfere with the enemy. It is not a want of sufficient force, neither is it because it was impracticable. These are facts that the warmest of the rebels acknowledge. Their force is really despicable when compared to the army here. How is General Vaughan? I sincerely wish to see him at the head of the army here, as he is the only general that has been here that would listen to the advice of the American loyalists."

Bishop Inglis, 6th of November, 1779, says—"We have now within our lines upward of twenty-six thousand effective men, as I have been informed. Such a force, if led out and exerted with judgment and spirit, could not be resisted by the rebels—it must bear down all opposition. It is reported that Sir Henry Clinton is appointed sole commissioner, with authority to choose five assistants as a counsel, and that he is vested with power to treat with Congress, &c. It may be very proper to have a commissioner here, vested with extensive powers; but as to any hopes of treating with Congress about an accommodation, be assured they are visionary. Congress have done enough to dissipate all such fond expectations, unless their independence is acknowledged; and I should be heartily sorry if a measure so dishonourable to the nation, as treating with the Congress in any respect, were adopted. Insult and obstinacy is all that can be expected from them.

"With respect to the rebellion, I am clearly of opinion that it daily declines. Washington is the man to whom the army look for redress and support. He is now in America what Monk was in England in 1659. I wish I could say in every respect. Were he equally disposed, he might effect as sudden and total a revolution, here as honest George Monk did then in England."

Isaac Ogden, 16th December, 1779, says—"There is an anecdote of General Grey that I have lately heard and believe to be true, though the fact cannot now be fully ascertained. Just before the battle of Brandywine, an officer was despatched home by General Howe. General Grey undertook to give him his instructions how to demean himself on his arrival in London, &c. A copy of these instructions was found by a countryman, and delivered to Joe Shippen (Secretary Joe,) who now has them in Philadelphia. A gentleman here has seen them. As he related them to me, you have them. 'You will first go to Lord George Germain; he will ask you such and such question; you will answer them so and so. You will then be sent to Lord North, who will ask you these questions; you will thus answer them. You will then be sent to the king, who will also ask you, &c.; you are also to give him these answers. You will then be examined by the queen. She is a sensible woman. You must answer with caution, but, of all things, be careful that you say nothing that will condemn the conduct of General Howe.' Some pains are taken to procure this paper from Mr. Shippen; if it can be obtained, you will have it."

David Ogden, 3d December, 1779, says—"What gives me great concern is the fear of a dishonourable peace being made with the rebels. My fears arise from what I am told many of the officers in the army give out that America can never be conquered; and the sooner it is given up, and independence admitted by the crown and parliament, the better for Great Britain; and I am also informed that they have wrote to that purpose to their friends in England. What effect this may have on your side of the Atlantic, backed by the anti-ministerial party with you, enemies to monarchy and the great supporters of the rebellion in America, time must show; but I am persuaded that the present ministers will never give the least countenance to the independence of America. The laying the country waste has been called cruelty by the favourers of the rebellion, and said to be below the character of Britons; but in cases of rebellion, it has always, by the most civilized nations, been held justifiable, and no history affords an instance of calling it cruelty. The great mercy shown the rebels since the commencement of the rebellion is esteemed to be the greatest cruelty, as the lives of many thousands would have been preserved by a vigorous, exertion of the king's troops to distress the rebels wherever they marched, having a strict regard not to injure the loyalists."

Daniel Cox, 7th December, 1779, says—"Should you see Joe Reed's late speech to the assembly of Pennsylvania, you would imagine they felt no shock from the Georgia defeat. [5]

If but common means are actively employed and properly conducted, the rebellion must be crushed totally next campaign. I doubt not every effort in the power of Congress, both abroad and at home, will be made to carry themselves through another year; but, if you are successful at home, they must go to the devil. For God's sake, therefore, do not be frightened nor give us up; all must go right if You are but firm."

Reference has already been made to General Arnold's treason during the summer of 1780.[6]

From the private correspondence of Mr. Galloway, it appears, that as early as the autumn of 1778 Arnold was considered by the refugees as "lenient," if not friendly to them, and in this light was represented to the British ministry.

Charles Stewart, under date of the 17th December, 1778, says—"General Arnold is in Philadelphia. It is said that he will be discharged, being thought a pert tory. Certain it is that he associates mostly with those people, and is to be married to Miss Shippen, daughter of Edward Shippen, Esq."

David Sproat, 11th January, 1779, says—"You will also hear that General Arnold, commandant in Philadelphia, has behaved with lenity to the tories, and that he is on the eve of marriage to one of Edward Shippen's daughters."

James Humphreys, Jun. (printer), 8th of April, 1779, says—"General Arnold has been accused by the council of sundry misdemeanors. He has insisted upon a trial by a court martial, and was triumphantly acquitted. The Congress, however, have thought proper to remove him from his command in the city of Philadelphia, he being of too lenient a disposition to answer their cruel purposes."

This correspondence also develops the conflicting views which were taken by the tories as to the operations of the British army. So far as it had any influence, it was calculated to embarrass the ministry. Only two very short extracts will be given on this subject. The dividing point between the northern and the southern tories was whether the main army should take possession of Hudson's river, or the isthmus between Newcastle and Chesapeake Bay.

Bishop Inglis, May 14th, 1779, says—"I am still of opinion that taking possession of Hudson's river should be the first object. When that is done, which will effectually divide the rebel forces, circumstances should determine whether our operations should be directed eastward or westward."

John Potts, December 17th, 1778, says—"If government means to pursue this matter, she must spare men enough to take possession of the isthmus between Newcastle and Chesapeake Bay, and, by clearing that country of rebels, procure sufficient provision and forage for the whole British force in America. That country can also supply the fleet with a great quantity of naval stores. The whole trade of Maryland and Pennsylvania will be destroyed, and a great part of Virginia. The interior of that peninsula is better disposed towards the British government than any other country in the middle colonies. If possession of Rhode Island and this place (New-York) is retained, and that post taken, America has no access to sea from any intermediate port but Egg Harbour, which will then be scarcely an object. This is your plan, excepting the possession of Philadelphia and Bordentown, and, as the troops would not be dispersed too much, would, for that reason, be more eligible."

During the winter of 1778—79, the tories had it in contemplation to establish a regular corps for the purpose of plundering the whigs. About this period Colonel Burr took command of the lines in Westchester. His opinion of this system of warfare is expressed in a letter to General McDougall from which the following is extracted—"Colonel Littlefield, with the party, returned this morning. Notwithstanding the cautions I gave, and notwithstanding Colonel Littlefield's good intentions, I blush to tell you that the party returned loaded with plunder. Sir, till now I never wished for arbitrary power. I could gibbet half a dozen good whigs with all the venom of an inveterate tory." [7]

Let the reader compare the above whig sentiment with the following tory arrangement:—

Christopher Sower, 1st March, 1779, says—"An association is signing here (New-York), according to which the loyalists are to form themselves into companies of fifty men each; choose their own officers; to have the disposal of all prisoners by them taken; to make excursions against the rebels, plunder them, sell the spoil, appoint an agent to receive the money, and to divide it among them in equal shares." [8]

In the autumn of 1779 the refugees in New-York formed a board of delegates from the several provinces. In reference to it, Daniel Cox, December 7th, 1779, says—"I have lately brought about a general representation of all the refugees from the respective colonies, which now compose a board, called the board of refugees, and of which I have the honour at present to be president. We vote by colonies, and conduct our debates in quite a parliamentary style."

Christopher Sower, the 5th of December, 1779, says—"The deputies of the refugees from the different provinces meet once a week. Daniel Cox, Esq., was appointed to the chair, to deprive him of the opportunity of speaking, as he has the gift of saying little with many words."

Only one more extract will be given from the correspondence of Mr. Galloway, and that relates to the doings of this board of refugees. Among their labours, the manner of bringing the war to a speedy termination, and the formation of a constitution for the British provinces, engrossed their attention. No comments will be made on the plan; but it will not be found unworthy a careful perusal. Although presented as the individual suggestion of Mr. Ogden, it is evident, from other portions of the correspondence, that it was not unadvised, and, to the American reader, is now an amusing document.

David Ogden, 3d December, 1779, says—"When America submits to the crown of Great Britain, which I take as a matter certain, and will soon happen if proper measures are not neglected—pray, will not a constitution and government, in a manner something similar to the following, be most for the honour, security, peace, and interest of Great Britain, and also for the happiness and safety of America, and most compatible to the spirit and genius of both?

"That the right of taxation of America by the British parliament be given up. That the several colonies be restored to their former constitutions and forms of government, except in the instances after mentioned. That each colony have a governor and council appointed by the crown, and a house of representatives to be elected by the freeholders, inhabitants of the several counties, not more than forty nor less than thirty for a colony, who shall have power to make all necessary laws for the internal government and benefit of each respective colony that are not repugnant or contradictory to the laws of Great Britain, or the laws of the American parliament, made and enacted to be in force in the colonies for the government, utility, and safety of the whole. That an American parliament be established for all the English colonies on the continent, to consist of a lord lieutenant, barons (to be created for that purpose), not to exceed, at present, more than twelve, nor less than eight from each colony, to be appointed by his majesty out of the freeholders, inhabitants of each colony; a house of commons, not to exceed twelve nor less than eight, from each colony, to be elected by the respective houses of representatives for each colony, which parliament, so constituted, to be three branches of legislature of the northern colonies, and to be styled and called the Lord Lieutenant, the Lords, and Commons of the British Colonies in North America. That they have the power of enacting laws, in all cases whatsoever, for the general good, benefit, and security of the colonies, and for their mutual safety, both defensive and offensive, against the king's enemies, rebels, &c.; proportioning the taxes to be raised in such cases by each colony. The mode for raising the same to be enacted by the general assembly of each colony, which, if refused or neglected, be directed and prescribed by the North American parliament, with power to levy the same. That the laws of the American parliament shall be in force till repealed by his majesty in council; and the laws of the several legislatures of the respective colonies to be in force till the same be repealed by his majesty, or made void by an act and law of the American parliament. That the American parliament have the superintendence and government of the several colleges in North America, most of which have been the grand nurseries of the late rebellion, instilling into the tender minds of youth principles favourable to republican, and against a monarchical government, and other doctrines incompatible to the British constitution.

"A constitution and government something similar to the above, I am convinced, from the knowledge I have of the temper and spirit of the inhabitants of the colonies, will be most acceptable to them in general (it being what they wish for), and will also be conducive to establish a continued and lasting peace and harmony between Great Britain and the colonies. The Congress, no doubt, as it will deprive them of their power, will oppose the same by every artifice, as well as every other plan of accommodation that will lessen their grandeur and consequence. I am therefore persuaded that the Congress had best be altogether disregarded in any overtures of accommodation to be made or proposed, and all treaties with them absolutely refused, either directly with them, or indirectly through the courts of France and Spain, as men void of faith, or even common justice—deceivers of the people, and enemies to the public weal and happiness of mankind. And to facilitate a submission instead of a treaty, proceed with the army against the rebels with vigour and spirit, and issue a proclamation containing a constitution for North America, and a pardon to all who lay down their arms and take the oath of allegiance to his majesty and his government, excepting, as necessary examples of justice,

"First. The several members of the Continental Congress who have been elected and served as members thereof since the declaration of Independence.

"Second. All governors, presidents of the supreme executive councils or of other councils, or of any of the colonies, acting under the Congress, or any new and usurped form of government.

"Third. All those who have been by his majesty appointed of his council in any of the colonies, and since taken an active part in the civil or military department under the Congress or under any establishment of the rebel government.

"Fourth. All judges who have, since the rebellion, passed sentence of death against any of his majesty's liege subjects, for any supposed or real crime, committed or pretended to be committed against any law enacted or made by the Congress, or by any of the usurped or pretended legislatures of the colonies, making the fact or facts criminal for which he, she, or they were condemned to suffer death.

"Fifth. All commissaries and others who have seized and sold the estates of any of his majesty's liege subjects, under any pretence whatsoever, unless it was done by the consent and orders of the rightful owner, leaving all such to the mercy of his majesty, to be granted to those only whose conduct merits mercy, and hold up the same in the proclamation, if any should issue.

"Will it not be proper as well as just to have the estates of the rebels who are gone out of the king's lines among the rebels forfeited, confiscated, and sold by commissioners to be appointed for that purpose, and the moneys arising on the sales to be applied to the use of the refugees, to compensate for their sufferings by the rebels in ease of the parliamentary donations? Will not the perfidy of France and Spain justify Great Britain in proposing and entering into an alliance with the courts of Russia, Prussia, and other powers, to unite against France and Spain, the common disturbers of public tranquillity; take and divide among them all their islands in the West Indies?"

Footnotes:

1. Lord North.

2. General Vaughan.

3. Sir Henry Clinton.

4. The Hon. Joseph Reed, whom the British attempted to bribe through the agency of Mrs. Ferguson.

5. Referring to the discomfiture at Savannah of the combined forces of France and the United States; the former under the command of Count D'Estaing, the latter commanded by General Lincoln.

6. See Vol. I., Ch. XIII.

7. See Vol. I., Ch. IX.

8. On the back of Mr. Sower's letter Mr. Galloway has made, in his own handwriting, this endorsement—"Mr. Sower is a German refugee at New-York, and a person of the greatest influence among the Germans in Pennsylvania."

CHAPTER III.

The extracts which have been given from the correspondence of Mr. Galloway present, in a point of view sufficiently clear and distinct, the unquestionable hostility of the tories towards the whigs; the manner in which they wished the British ministry to conduct the contest; the punishment they would have inflicted upon the rebels if they had been successful, and the form in which they would have subsequently governed the country. These views are deemed a sufficient reason for the feelings of the whigs; a justification of those legislative disqualifications of the tories which were adopted by the State of New-York during the war of the revolution, and cause for the patriotic determination that the refugees should not be protected or permitted to remain in the land which they had so zealously struggled to enslave.

At a very early period after the declaration of Independence, parties were formed among the whigs. In the State of New-York, at the first election, in 1777, for governor under the new Constitution, General Schuyler was presented in opposition to George Clinton, but was defeated. With that defeat it is believed commenced political heart-burnings and collisions which, although at times smothered, were never extinguished. Schuyler was a man of great boldness and sagacity. He was personally unpopular, yet he possessed a commanding influence over the mind of those with whom lie commingled or was in any manner connected; an ascendancy which, in a measure, was to be ascribed to the force of intellect.

On the 12th of September, 1780, General Schuyler was a candidate for Congress. At that time the members were chosen by the legislature. Each house, viva voce, named a candidate. The two branches then met together and compared their nominations. If they both designated the same individual, he was declared to be chosen. If not, they proceeded as one body to a ballot, and the person having a majority of all the votes given was duly elected. The house almost unanimously nominated General Schuyler, the vote being for Schuyler, thirty-one, for Ezra L'Hommidieu seven. The senate nominated L'Hommidieu. In joint ballot, notwithstanding the vote Schuyler had received in the house, L'Hommidieu was chosen. For some reason not then explained, there was a sudden and extraordinary change of opinion in the legislature in relation to General Schuyler.

About this period, certain individuals were for the appointment of a "Supreme dictator, with all the powers conferred by the Roman people." A convention was to be held at Hartford, consisting of delegates from the five New-England states and the state of New-York, for the purpose, among other objects, of devising more efficient measures for the supply of the army. Judge Hobart, Egbert Benson, and General Schuyler were the delegates. "It was for a contemplated by the legislature to give them instructions to propose that a dictator should be appointed, for which a majority in the more popular branch were believed to be favourable. This 'mad project,' as Colonel Alexander Hamilton designated it, was communicated to him by General Schuyler in a letter of the 16th of September, 1780." [1]

The scheme was opposed with great ardour and perseverance by Governor George Clinton, Ezra L'Hommidieu, and others; but, through the influence of the former, in a great measure, the "mad project" was defeated. Here again the party lines were drawn between Governor Clinton and General Schuyler. It is highly probable that the plan for appointing a "supreme dictator" was a principal cause for the change of opinion respecting General Schuyler in the legislature on the 12th of September, and contributed to defeat his election to Congress.

From this period until the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the Clinton and the Schuyler parties continued to exist. In the ranks of the latter there was great concert in action. On an examination of the legislative journals from 1777 to 1788, it will be seen, that with General Schuyler were the Jays, the Livingstons, the Van Rensellaers, and the Bensons, and that they almost uniformly voted together.

And now of the tories. In the year 1779 some of them, who had removed from Albany within the British lines, petitioned the legislature for leave to return, which petition was rejected. At the same session an act was passed requiring all counsellors and attorneys, before they could be permitted to practice in any court, to produce evidence of their attachment to the liberty and independence of the United States. On the 20th of November, 1781, a special act was passed on the same subject, confirmatory of what bad been done in 1779.

The first session of the legislature after the revolutionary war was held in the city of New-York. It was convened by proclamation of the governor on the 6th of January, 1784, and continued its sitting until the 12th of May following. In the first month of the session, numerous petitions were presented by the tories, praying to be relieved from their banishment, and to be permitted a residence within the state. The legislature perceived that, if they did not act promptly, their tables would be covered with these memorials. Therefore, in the language of Governor Clinton at the opening of the session, the assembly said—

"While we recollect the general progress of a war which has been marked with cruelty and rapine; while we survey the ruins of this once flourishing city and its vicinity; while we sympathize in the calamities which have reduced so many of our virtuous fellow-citizens to want and distress, and are anxiously solicitous for means to repair the wastes and misfortunes which we lament," we cannot hearken to these petitions. They were referred to a select committee, which committee in a few days reported against granting their prayer, and the house instantly, without a division, agreed to the report. This was on the 9th of February, 1784.

On the 11th of February, 1784, the assembly passed a resolution directing that the names of those persons that had been attainted should be communicated to the governors of the several states; requesting to be supplied, in like manner, with "a list of the persons proscribed or banished by their respective states, in order that thereby the principles of federal union may be adhered to and preserved." In the senate this resolution was permitted to sleep.

Chancellor Robert R. Livingston, in a letter to John Jay dated the 25th of January, 1784, thus speaks of parties at this period. "Our parties are, first, the tories, who still hope for power, under the idea that the remembrance of the past should be lost, though they daily keep it up by their avowed attachment to Great Britain; secondly, the violent whigs, who are for expelling all tories from the state, in hopes, by that means, to preserve the power in their own hands. The third are those who wish to suppress all violence, to soften the rigour of the laws against the loyalists, and not to banish them from that social intercourse which may, by degrees, obliterate the remembrance of past misdeeds."

On the 8th of March, 1784, Peter Yates and three hundred others petitioned the legislature to prevent those persons who had joined or remained with the enemy during the late war from returning, and to prohibit such as have remained from being eligible to any office of profit or trust. On the 31st of the same month strong resolutions were introduced into the house, and adopted by both branches, against the tories, declaring, among other things, "That as, on the one hand, the rules of justice do not require, so, on the other, the public tranquility will not permit, that such adherents who have been attainted should be restored to the rights of citizenship."

In May, 1784, the legislature passed an act entitled "An act to, preserve the freedom and independence of this state, and for other purposes." The object of this law was to prohibit the tories from holding any office. The Council of Revision returned the bill, with objections to its passage, one of which was, "that so large a portion of the citizens remained in parts of the Southern District which were possessed by the British armies, that in most places it would be difficult, and in many absolutely impossible, to find men to fill the necessary offices, even for conducting elections, until a new set of inhabitants could be procured."

This bill of disfranchisement, notwithstanding the objections of the Council of Revision, was passed by more than two thirds of both branches, and thus became a law. Such were the feelings of the "violent whigs;" such the policy of the first legislature after the termination of the war. But, unfortunately, among those who had fought the battles of the revolution, there were some who doubted the capacity of the people for self-government, while there were others who sought power and influence at the hazard of principle. The Schuyler party were in the minority. The Clinton party, designated by Chancellor Livingston as the "violent whigs," were uncompromising on the question of banishing the tories, who were numerous, especially in the Southern District. It seemed probable, therefore, if restored to citizenship, that they would amalgamate with the third party, or that class of whigs "who wished to suppress all violence, and to soften the rigour of the laws against the royalists."

In March, 1783, the legislature passed an act entitled "An act for granting more effectual relief in cases of trespass." The object of this act was to enable the whigs at the termination of the war to recover from the tories rent for any landed estate they might have occupied; and in cases of suit for such rent, the act declares "that no defendant or defendants shall be admitted to plead in justification any military order or command whatsoever for such occupancy."

Under this statute an action was commenced by Mrs. Rutgers against Mr. Waddington, in the Mayor's Court of the City of New-York, for the recovery of rent for the occupancy of a brewhouse and malthouse, the property of the said Mrs. Rutgers. The cause was argued on the 29th of June, 1784, James Duane as Mayor, and Richard Varick as Recorder, presiding. On the 27th of August the court gave judgment "that the plea of the defendant was good for so much of the time as he held under the British commander-in-chief; because, in the opinion of the court, a liberal construction of the law of nations would make it so." As this decision involved a great principle, and would materially affect the whigs whose property had been occupied by the tories during the war, it produced great excitement.

A meeting of the whigs was convened on the 13th of September, 1784. A committee was appointed, and an address to the people of the state prepared and published by them. That committee consisted of Melancton Smith, Peter Ricker, Jonathan Lawrence, Anthony Rutgers, Peter T. Curtenius, Thomas Tucker, Daniel Shaw, Adam Gilchrist, Junr., and John Wiley. Of this committee Melancton Smith was the life and soul. He was the author of the address—a clear, able, and unanswerable exposition of the case. It states the determination of Mrs. Rutgers to carry it up to the Supreme Court, and, if defeated there, to the Senate, which, with the judges of the Supreme Court, constituted the Court for the Correction of Errors. Having reference to the contemplated proceedings, the address closes as follows:—

"Preparatory to such an event, we exhort you to be cautious, in your future choice of senators, that none be elected but those on whom, from long and certain experience, you can rely as men attached to the liberty of America, and firm friends to our laws and constitution; men who will spurn at any proposition that has a tendency to curtail the privileges of the people, and who, at the same time that they protect us against judicial tyranny, have wisdom to see the propriety of supporting that necessary independence in courts of justice, both of the legislature and people.

"Having confined ourselves to constitutional measures, and now solemnly declaring our disapprobation of all others, we feel a freedom in sounding the alarm to our fellow-citizens. If that independence, which we have obtained at a risk which makes the acquisition little less than miraculous, was worth contending for against a powerful and enraged monarch, and at the expense of the best blood in America, surely its preservation is worth contending for against those among ourselves who might impiously hope to build their greatness upon the ruins of that fabric which was so dearly established.

"That the principle of decision in the case of Rutgers vs. Waddington is dangerous to the freedom of our government, and that a perseverance in that principle would leave our legislature nothing but a name, and render their sessions nothing more than an expensive form of government, the preceding remarks must evidence.

"Permit us, on this occasion, earnestly to entreat you to join us in watchfulness against every attempt that may be used, either violently and suddenly, or gently and imperceptibly, to effect a revolution in the spirit and genius of our government; and should there be among us characters to whom the simplicity of it is offensive, let our attention and perseverance be such as to preclude the hopes of a change."

Here again the party lines of 1777 are distinctly marked. Melancton
Smith, Jonathan Lawrence, &c., were of the Clinton party, while Mr.
Duane and Mr. Varick were attached to the Schuyler interest.

In October, 1784, the case of Rutgers vs. Waddington was brought before the legislature, and on the 27th of that month the assembly

Resolved, That this adjudication is subversive of all law and good order; because, if a court instituted for the benefit and government of a corporation may take upon themselves to dispense with a law of the state, all other courts may do the like: therefore,

Resolved, That it be recommended to the honourable the Council of Appointment, at their next session, to appoint such persons to be mayor and recorder of the city of New-York as will govern themselves by the known laws of the land.

Subsequently Waddington compromised the claim against him; but the law in similar cases became operative, and remained so until its repeal by the legislature. In the following session, March, 1785, an unsuccessful attempt was made to repeal the act of 1781, disqualifying tory counsellors and attorneys; some modification, however, of other laws of a similar character was effected. In April, 1786, the repealing act passed; and the restriction on the tory lawyers being removed, they were permitted to practise in the several courts of the state. During the same month, "an act for the payment of certain sums of money" was amended by adding a clause, "restoring to the rights of citizenship, on taking the oath of abjuration and allegiance," all such persons as had been disfranchised by the third clause of the act entitled "An act to preserve the freedom and independence of this state," passed the 12th of May, 1784. During this session the Schuyler party had the ascendence, and on all questions having a political aspect the names of Alexander Hamilton, Richard Varick, C. Livingston, Nicholas Bayard, David Brooks, James Livingston, &c., will be found on the same side.

On the 10th of March, 1787, Mr. Hamilton asked leave, which was granted, to bring in a bill to repeal the act entitled "An act for granting relief in case of certain trespasses." This was the act under which the suit had been commenced against Waddington, and which case produced so much excitement in the summer and autumn of 1784. Mr. Hamilton's bill passed; but, lest there should be some forgotten statute that might restrict or limit the political privileges of the tories, it was deemed expedient, on the 13th of April, to introduce and pass an act under the imposing title of "An act to repeal all laws of this state inconsistent with the treaty of peace." As its provisions met every possible case, the tories were now placed on a footing with the whigs. All they wanted was leaders. The rank and file they already possessed.

The Schuyler party sought allies. The tories were numerous, especially in the Southern District. The Clinton party, designated by Chancellor Livingston, in his letter to John Jay, as the "violent whigs," were uncompromising on the question of banishing the tories from the state. It seemed probable, therefore, that, sooner or later, if restored to citizenship, they would amalgamate with that class of whigs who wished to suppress "all violence, and to soften the rigour of the laws against the royalists."

The effect of these legislative measures on the tories was anticipated by both friends and foes. Chancellor Livingston, in January, 1784, had said that there were three parties in the state:—

First. The tories.

Second. The violent whigs.

Third. Those who wished " to soften the rigour of the laws against the royalists."

The Council of Revision, composed of Robert R. Livingston, Justice Morris, and Judge Hobart, had solemnly placed on record their opinion, that, in some portions of the Southern District "it would be difficult, and in many absolutely impossible, to find whigs to fill the necessary offices even for conducting elections." Under such circumstances it was evident that the first and third parties must amalgamate, and such was the result.

In January, 1788, the legislature met, and directed the call of a State Convention, to whom was to be submitted the Federal Constitution, as adopted by the General Convention held in Philadelphia in May, 1787. During this session the same party lines continued to be visible, although the respective parties had now assumed, or were designated by new names. The Schuyler was called the Federal party, and the Clinton the anti-Federal party; thev were composed, however, of the same individuals, with very few exceptions. The great, and almost the only strength which the federal party possessed in the state was in the Southern District. Here the acquisition of the tories rendered their power and influence irresistible. From this district, composed of the counties of Westchester, New-York, Richmond, King's, Queen's, and Suffolk, the federalists had in the Assembly, during the session of 1788-89, twenty votes, and on no party question did they command, during the whole session, more than twenty-three votes.

In December, 1788, a bill for carrying into operation the federal constitution being under consideration, a proposition was made to choose United States senators; but the federalists having a majority in the Senate, and the anti-federalists a majority in the House of Assembly, no compromise between the parties could be effected, and consequently no senators were chosen.

The following persons may be considered as constituting the strength of the Schuyler, now federal party, in the assembly of 1788-89:—

Brockholst Livingston, of the city of New-York. William W. Gilbert, "
" Alexander Macomb, " " Richard Harrison, " " Nicholas Hoffman, " "
John Watts, Jun., " " Nicholas Low, " " Gulian Verplanck, " " Comfort
Sands, " " Philip Van Cortlandt, Westchester county. Philip
Livingston, " " Nathaniel Rockwell, " " Walter Seaman, " " Jonathan
Horton, " " John Younglove, Albany county. Henry K. Van Rensellaer, "
" Stephen Carman, Queen's county. Whitehead Cornwell, " " Peter
Vandervoort, King's county. Aquilla Giles, " " Abraham Bancker,
Richmond county. John C. Dongan, " " Samuel A. Barker, Dutchess
county.

It will be observed, that all the above Schuyler or federal members, with the exception of two from Albany and one from Dutchess county, were elected as representatives from the Southern District.

Having stated the origin and progress of the great political parties in the State of New-York, as they appear from the public records, it may be proper to add that Colonel Burr belonged to what was termed by Mr. Livingston "the violent whig party." By that party, while the tories were disfranchised, Mr. Burr was elected in 1784 to represent the city and county of New-York in the legislature. By that party, in 1789, he was appointed attorney-general of the state. By that party, in 1791, he was appointed a senator of the United States. By that party, in 1792, he was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court. By that party, subsequently, he was elected a member of the Assembly and a member of the Convention to revise the Constitution of the State, of which convention he was president; and by that party, in 1800, he was elected vice-president of the United States.

It is not intended to discuss the policy, the humanity, or the justice of the several measures proposed or adopted in relation to the tories by "the violent whigs," or by those whigs who wished "to soften the rigour of the laws against the loyalists." The historical facts have been given, and the sources from whence they were derived specified. The feelings and opinions of "the violent whigs," are expressed by the legislature of the state on the 9th of February, 1784, and by Governor George Clinton at the opening of that session in the city of New-York. They say—" While we recollect the general progress of a war which has been marked with cruelty and rapine; while we survey the ruins of this once flourishing city and its vicinity; while we sympathize in the calamities which have reduced so many of our virtuous fellow-citizens to want and distress, and are anxiously solicitous for means to repair the wastes and misfortunes which we lament, we cannot hearken to these petitions."

On the other hand, the sentiments and views of those whigs who wished "to soften the rigour of the laws against the loyalists" are to be found in the following extracts of letters.

JOHN JAY TO GOVERNOR WILLIAM LIVINGSTON. [2]

"Passay, 9th April, 1783.

"The tories will doubtless cause some difficulty; but that they have always done; and as this will probably be the last time, we must make the best of it. A universal, indiscriminate condemnation and expulsion of those people would not redound to our honour, because so harsh a measure would partake more of vengeance than of justice. For my part, I wish that all, except the faithless and cruel, may be forgiven. That exception would indeed extend to very few; but even if it applied to the case of one only, that one ought, in my opinion, to be saved."

JOHN JAY TO ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.

"Passay, 12th September, 1783.

"Europe hears much, and wishes to hear more of divisions, seditions, violences, and confusions among us. The tories are generally and greatly pitied; more, indeed, than they deserve. The indiscriminate expulsion and ruin of that whole class and description of men would not do honour to our magnanimity or humanity, especially in the opinion of those nations who consider, with more astonishment than pleasure, the terms of peace which America has obtained."

Footnotes:

1. See Life of Hamilton, Vol. I., p. 316

2. Jay's Works, Vol. I., p. 128.

CHAPTER IV.

It has been seen that the Livingstons were of the Schuyler party during the revolutionary war, and that they continued so until the year 1787, when, in common with their political friends, they were the warm and ardent champions of the Federal Constitution. After its adoption, and the organization of the government under it, they soon became dissatisfied. The cause of that dissatisfaction has been differently explained. On the one hand it was said that they were alarmed at the doctrines of those who had been called to administer the government, and at the assumption of powers not delegated by the people. That they apprehended the government was verging towards a consolidated national, instead of a federal government of states.

On the other hand it was alleged that the family were disappointed and disgusted at the neglect which they experienced from General Washington. That, as Robert R. Livingston had been, in the state convention which adopted the Constitution, one of its most splendid and efficient supporters, he and his connexions anticipated his appointment to some exalted station; but that, while he was passed by unnoticed, his colleagues in that body, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, had both received distinguished appointments—the one as Chief Justice of the United States, and the other as Secretary of the Treasury. Whatever may have been the cause of this change, it is certain that they soon abandoned the federal, and united their political destiny with the anti-federal party. Although these gentlemen, as politicians, were acting in concert with Mr. Burr, yet there was no cordiality of feeling between them. In their social intercourse, however, the most perfect comity was observed; and as they were in a minority, struggling to break down a party haughty, proscriptive, and intolerant beyond any thing that the American people had beheld, they zealously united their efforts in effecting the revolution of 1800.

Soon after the adoption of the new constitution, the anti-federal party were recognised by a name more descriptive of their principles and their views. They assumed the title of democrats. They considered themselves anti-consolidationists, but not anti-federalists. They knew that a section of the dominant party were the friends of a splendid national government. That they were the advocates of a system, by means of which all power would have concentrated in the general, and the state governments been reduced to the level of mere corporations. Against this system the democrats reasoned and contended with unabated zeal. They were the early, unflinching, and faithful champions of state rights_.

From the year 1790 until 1800, the democratic and federal parties were alternately triumphant, both in the city and in the state of New-York. In the former, the result of an election was frequently decided by the operations of some local or exciting topic. No decisive contest took place between the parties previous to 1800, founded on any great or controlling principle of government. But, during the years 1798 and 1799, the whole country was agitated from one extreme to the other. Revolutionary France was convulsed, and, in the midst of her convulsions and sufferings, was daily committing the most cruel and wanton excesses towards her own citizens, while she was offering taunts and insults to foreign nations. The federal party seemed to sigh for a war with France. Pretending that they apprehended a French invasion, a large standing army was raised. At the head of this army, second in command to General Washington, was placed General Alexander Hamilton. To support the army and other useless extravagant expenditures, a land tax and an eight per cent. loan was found necessary. To silence the murmurs of an oppressed people, a sedition law was enacted. Such were some of the fruits of the elder Mr. Adams's administration.

In the autumn of 1799 and the winter of 1799-1800, the interesting and vital question was presented to the American nation:—Will you sustain this administration and these measures, and thus rivet chains upon yourselves and your posterity? Or will you calmly, but firmly and in union, resort to the constitutional remedy (the ballot-boxes) for relief from wrongs and oppressions which, if permitted to endure, must terminate in the horrors of intestine war? Here was a question of principle; and, it is believed, a question which was to decide the character of the government. Each party felt that it was a mighty struggle, decisive of its future political influence, if not of its existence.

The elections in the state of New-York were held in the month of April. In the year 1799 the federalists had a majority in the city of more than nine hundred. During the summer, it was universally conceded that on the state of New-York the presidential election would depend, and that the result in the city would decide the fate of the state. That this opinion was as universal as it was true, cannot be more distinctly exhibited than by the following extract of a letter from Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Madison, dated 4th March, 1800.

"In New-York all depends on the success of the city election, which is of twelve members, and of course makes a difference of twenty-four, which is sufficient to make the two houses, joined together, republican in their vote. * * * * * * Upon the whole, I consider it as rather more doubtful than the last election (1796), in which I was not deceived in more than a vote or two. * * * * * * In any event, we may say, that if the city election of New-York is in favour of the republican ticket, the issue will be republican; if the federal ticket for the city of New-York prevails, the probabilities will be in favour of a federal issue, because it would then require a republican vote both from New-Jersey and Pennsylvania to preponderate against New-York, on which we could not count with any confidence."

Reference has been made to the conflicting factions of which the democratic party was now composed. The Clinton section, the Livingston section, and the Burr section. The first and last were apparently the same, but not so in reality. Colonel Burr's commanding talents had acquired for him an influence in the ranks of the democratic party in other states, which created some jealousy in the Clinton family, the younger and collateral branches of which were extremely hostile to him. The ambition of Burr, sustained by a daring spirit and unconquerable perseverance, awakened the apprehensions of Governor George Clinton lest he should be supplanted. The governor was a man of great sagacity and shrewdness. But these two sections, or, perhaps, more properly, the heads of them, united in their opposition to the Livingstons.

During the winter of 1800, the efforts of Colonel Burr to bring about a concert in action of these discordant materials were unceasing. With his own personal friends he had no difficulty, for it was ever one of his characteristics to secure inviolable the attachment of his friends. They were of the most ardent and devoted kind. Confiding in his patriotism and judgment, and feeling that he was incapable of deceiving them, they seemed willing, at all times and under all circumstances, to hazard their lives and fortunes in his support. They were generally young men of gallant bearing and disinterested views. No sordid calculations were made by them. No mercenary considerations influenced their conduct. They beheld in Colonel Burr a patriot hero of the revolution, who had commingled with their fathers in the battle-field, and who had perilled every thing in his country's cause. Such were his friends, and such their zeal in his behalf. It was here that Colonel Burr was all-powerful, for he possessed, in a pre-eminent degree, the art of fascinating the youthful. But with all this tact and talent, he was credulous and easily deceived. He therefore often became the dupe of the most worthless and unprincipled.

Mr. Burr held frequent private meetings with his most intimate and confidential friends. At all these meetings it is believed the success of the democratic party was the only question under consideration. No local or personal interests were permitted to be discussed. The triumph of the party, as a whole, was the great object. By his adherents, it was deemed indispensable that he should be a member of the legislature to be chosen in April, which body was to appoint the presidential electors. While, on the other hand, it was considered not less necessary that he should be free to act at the polls in the city of New-York during the election. How was this to be effected? After much conference and deliberation it was resolved that he should be elected from Orange county, if the arrangement could be made, and the execution of the plan was intrusted principally to Peter Townsend, Esquire, of Chester, who, with the aid of other influential friends, accomplished it.

The next question was, Of whom shall the assembly ticket for the city be composed? On the suggestion of Colonel Burr, the names of certain distinguished individuals, venerable in years, and respected for their services, for months before the election were put in circulation as candidates; and, among others, Governor George Clinton and General Horatio Gates. At length the nominating committees were chosen; but so general had been the conversations as to suitable candidates, that very little diversity of opinion prevailed in the formation of the ticket.

The following persons were nominated: George Clinton, Horatio Gates,
Samuel Osgood, Henry Rutgers, Elias Nexsen, Thomas Storm, George
Warner, Philip I. Arcularius, James Hunt, Ezekiel Robins, Brockholst
Livingston, and John Swartwout.

In this ticket the three sections of the democratic, but at this election designated the republican party, are fully represented. Governor Clinton at the head of one section, Brockholst Livingston representing another, and General Gates, well known to be the personal and political friend of Colonel Burr. This ticket being nominated by the committee, the difficulty was to procure their consent to stand as candidates. A majority of them had no expectation of success. They considered the contest as a forlorn hope, and shrank from being set up as targets to be shot at. Governor Clinton, General Gates, Brockholst Livingston, and others, had repeatedly declared their fixed determination not to permit their names to be used.

A sub-committee was appointed to wait upon the candidates, and obtain permission to present their names for approval to a general meeting of citizens to be convened for that purpose. The sub-committee consisted of Aaron Burr, David Gelston, John Swartwout, John Mills, and Matthew L. Davis. After various communications and much persuasion, nine of the candidates consented, some of them conditionally. But Governor Clinton, General Gates, and Brockholst Livingston were for a time immoveable. At length Colonel Burr induced Judge Livingston to agree that he would serve, if Governor Clinton and General Gates consented to serve. The sub-committee next waited upon General Gates, and Colonel Burr appealed to him in the most mild and persuasive language. After much importunity he yielded, provided Governor Clinton was also a candidate.

No terms can give a correct idea of the scenes between Governor Clinton and the sub-committee, for they had an interview with him on three different days. The last was at the house of Colonel Burr, where Mr. Clinton met the committee by appointment. He never did consent to stand, but pledged himself to Colonel Burr and the committee that he would publish nothing in the newspapers, reserving to himself the right (which he subsequently exercised) of stating in conversation that his name was used without his authority or permission. Thus it is evident, that but for the matchless perseverance of Colonel Burr, the ticket, as it stood, never could have been formed, and, when formed, would have been broken up, and the republican party discomfited and beaten.

An imperfect sketch of the scene at the house of Colonel Burr was published in the year 1802, in a pamphlet under the signature of Aristides. The following is extracted from it. The note of reference here given is also extracted. Its correctness was never publicly denied by either of the gentlemen named. There exists no longer any reason for concealment on the subject; and it is therefore now admitted that this note was written from memorandums made at the time by the author of this volume.

EXTRACT,

"Governor Clinton, however, remained unmoved by the most earnest solicitations; and, with matchless firmness, resisted the arguments of Mr. Burr, who forcibly asserted that it was a right inherent in the community to command the services of an individual when the nature of public exigences seemed to require it. He was inflexible to the last, and then was nominated and elected without a distinct expression of his approbation. Justice, however, induces me to acknowledge, that the reasons he assigned for the reluctance with which he acted were plausible and potent.

"He explicitly declared that he had long entertained an unfavourable opinion of Mr. Jefferson's talents as a statesman and his firmness as a republican. That he conceived him an accommodating trimmer, who would change with times, and bend to circumstances for the purposes of personal promotion. Impressed with these sentiments, he could not, with propriety, he said, acquiesce in the elevation of a man destitute of the qualifications essential to the good administration of the government; and added other expressions too vulgar to be here repeated. 'But,' said he, with energy, 'if you, Mr. Burr, was the candidate for the presidential chair, I would act with pleasure and with vigour.'"

It is so notorious that these were Governor Clinton's sentiments, that it is scarcely necessary to produce authority to prove it. To remove, however, every doubt in the reader's mind, I will refer him to Mr. David Gelston, Mr. John Mills, Mr. John Swartwout, or Mr. Matthew L. Davis, in whose presence these sentiments, and many others more disrespectful, if possible, were uttered. It was at the house of Mr. Burr, who, anticipating the evil consequences that at that critical moment would result from such conduct in Governor Clinton, insisted, before he left the house, that he should promise his friends to desist from using such language previous to or during the election. This was very reluctantly complied with on the part of Mr. Clinton.

"Notwithstanding this, they were continually reiterated by his son, who publicly and loudly animadverted upon the character of Mr. Jefferson with the most vulgar severity. Similar sentiments were certainly entertained by all Governor Clinton's connexions, as their conduct during the election clearly evinced. Mr. Dewitt Clinton, through the whole contest, never appeared at the poll, but observed the most shameful indfference and inactivity."

The nomination of a ticket having been made and approved at a public meeting over which Anthony Lispenard presided, its effect upon both parties was tremendous. The character and standing of the candidates seemed a presage of victory. It elated, and gave life and vigour to the republicans, while it paralyzed and depressed the federalists.

Never before or since has a ticket been presented to the citizens of New-York composed of men combining such talents, patriotism, experience, and public services, as the republican assembly ticket for the year 1800.

Those who possess a knowledge of the character of Colonel Burr know what were his qualifications for execution. The plan of the campaign having been opened, it only remained to be executed. In the performance of this duty, all Mr. Burr's industry, perseverance, and energy were called into operation. Nor were the federal party idle or inactive. They possessed wealth and patronage. Led on to the contest by their talented chieftain, General Hamilton, whose influence in their ranks was unbounded, they made a desperate but ineffectual resistance to the assaults upon their political citadel. If defeated here, their power was gone, and the administration of the government lost. Both General Hamilton and Colonel Burr exerted themselves personally at the polls during the three days of election. They repeatedly addressed the people, and did all that men could do. They frequently met at the same polls, and argued, in the presence of large assemblages, the debatable questions. Their deportment towards each other and towards their opponents was such as comported with the dignity of two of the most accomplished and courtly gentlemen of the age in which they lived.

The polls of the election opened on the morning of the 29th of April, and finally closed at sunset on the 1st of May. Immediately after, the inspectors commenced counting and canvassing the ballots. Sufficient progress was made during the night to render it, in a great measure, certain that the republican ticket had succeeded; and on the 2d of May this result was announced, the average majority being about 490. All doubt as to the presidential vote of the state of New-York was now removed, unless the federal party, in their expiring agonies, could devise some plan by which the will of the people, thus clearly expressed, should be defeated. Such apprehensions were entertained, and, it was soon discovered, not entertained without good reason.

In both branches of the legislature elected in 1799 the federalists had a majority. The time of service of the members would expire on the 1st of July, 1800. After the nomination of the republican assembly ticket, but previous to the election in April, 1800, it was suspected that certain federalists had in contemplation a project to render the city election null and void if the republicans succeeded. When the polls were closed, therefore, discreet and intelligent men were placed at them to guard, if it should be found necessary, the inspectors from committing, inadvertently, any errors, either in canvassing or making their returns. Every movement, subsequently, of leading federal gentlemen was narrowly and cautiously watched. The result of the election was announced on the 2d of May. On the 3d of May, in the evening, a select and confidential federal caucus was held. On the 4th a letter was written to William Duane, editor of the Aurora, stating that such a caucus had been held the preceding night, and that it was determined by the caucus to solicit Governor Jay to convene the existing legislature forthwith, for the purpose of changing the mode of choosing electors for president, and placing it in the hands of the people by districts. The effect of such a measure would have been to neutralize the State of New-York, and, as the result finally proved, would have secured to the federal party their president and vice-president. This letter was published in the Aurora of the 6th of May, and called forth the denunciations of those federal papers whose conductors were not in the secret. The author of the letter was assailed as a Jacobin calumniator, and the whole story was pronounced a vile fabrication. One of the New-York city papers reprinted the letter, and thus closes its commentary on it:—"Where is the American who will not detest the author of this infamous lie? If there is a man to be found who will sanction this publication, he is worse than the worst of Jacobins!"

What effect, if any, was produced by this immediate exposure of the caucus proceedings, it is not necessary now to inquire. It is sufficient to say that the development was, in all its parts, literally correct, and the subject is here introduced for the twofold purpose of showing, first, the vigilance, promptitude, and arrangement of the republican party of that day; and, second, the means to which certain desperate federalists were willing to resort for the purpose of retaining power. That the representations contained in the publication of the Aurora were strictly true, is now matter of recorded history.

In the life of John Jay, vol. i., p. 412, the letter addressed to the governor on this subject is published. It bears date one day after the publication in the Aurora, but before the paper reached the city of New-York. The author of the work, after some preliminary remarks, Says—"These details will explain the proposal made in the following letter, which was received by the governor from one of the most distinguished federalists in the United States." [1]

TO JOHN JAY.

New-York May 7, 1800.

DEAR SIR,

You have been informed of the loss of our election in this city. It is also known that we have been unfortunate throughout Long Island and in Westchester. According to the returns hitherto, it is too probable that we lose our senator for this district.

The moral certainty, therefore, is, that there will be an anti-federal majority in the ensuing legislature; and the very high probability is, that this will bring Jefferson into the chief magistracy, unless it be prevented by the measure which I shall now submit to your consideration; namely, the immediate calling together of the existing legislature.

I am aware that there are weighty objections to the measure; but the reasons for it appear to me to outweigh the objections; and, in times like these in which we live, it will not do to be over scrupulous. It is easy to sacrifice the substantial interests of society by a strict adherence to ordinary rules.

In observing this I shall not be supposed to mean that any thing ought to be done which integrity will forbid; but merely that the scruples of delicacy and propriety, as relative to a common course of things, ought to yield to the extraordinary nature of the crisis. They ought not to hinder the taking of a legal and constitutional step to prevent an atheist in religion and a fanatic in politics from getting possession of the helm of state.

You, sir, know in a great degree the anti-federal party; but I fear you do not know them as well as I do. 'Tis a composition, indeed, of very incongruous materials, but all tending to mischief—some of them to the overthrow of the government, by stripping it of its due energies; others of them to a revolution after the manner of Bonaparte. I speak from indubitable facts, not from conjectures and inferences. In proportion as the true character of the party is understood, is the force of the considerations which urge to every effort to disappoint it; and it seems to me that there is a very solemn obligation to employ the means in our power.

The calling of the legislature will have for object the choosing of electors by the people in districts; this (as Pennsylvania will do nothing) will ensure a majority of votes in the United States for a federal candidate. The measure will not fail to be approved by all the federal party, while it will, no doubt, be condemned by the opposite. As to its intrinsic nature, it is justified by unequivocal reasons of public safety.

The reasonable part of the world will, I believe, approve it. They will see it as a proceeding out of the common course, but warranted by the particular nature of the crisis and the great cause of social order.

If done, the motive ought to be frankly avowed. In your communication to the legislature, they ought to be told that temporary circumstances had rendered it probable that, without their interposition, the executive authority of the general government would be transferred to hands hostile to the system heretofore pursued with so much success, and dangerous to the peace, happiness, and order of the country. That under this impression, from facts convincing to your own mind, you had thought it your duty to give the existing legislature an opportunity of deliberating whether it would not be proper to interpose, and endeavour to prevent so great an evil, by referring the choice of electors to the people distributed into districts.

In weighing this suggestion, you will doubtless bear in mind that popular governments must certainly be overturned; and, while they endure, prove engines of mischief, if one party will call to its aid all the resources which vice can give, and if the other (however pressing the emergency) confines itself within all the ordinary forms of delicacy and decorum.

The legislature can be brought together in three weeks, so that there will be full time for the object; but none ought to be lost.

Think well, my dear sir, of this proposition; appreciate the extreme danger of the crisis; and I am unusually mistaken in my view of the matter if you do not see it right and expedient to adopt the measure.

Respectfully and affectionately yours.

Mr. Jay's biographer adds—"On this letter is the following endorsement in the governor's hand, Proposing a measure for party purposes which I think it would not become me to adopt."

Footnotes:

1. As there were but few of "the most distinguished federalists in the United States" residing at that time in the city of New-York, the intelligent reader will form his own conclusions as to the source from whence it emanated.

CHAPTER V.

During the summer of 1800 General Hamilton prepared for the press his celebrated pamphlet, entitled—"A letter from Alexander Hamilton, concerning the public conduct and character of John Adams, Esq., president of the United States." It was the design of the author of this pamphlet that it should be privately printed, and circulated in South Carolina only a few days before the election, for the purpose of preventing Mr. Adams from getting the vote of South Carolina, but securing it to Mr. Pinckney, who was the federal candidate for the vice-presidency. The consequence would have been to place Mr. Pinckney's electoral vote higher than Mr. Adams's, and thus, if the federal party succeeded, Mr. Pinckney would have been elected president and Mr. Adams vice-president. Colonel Burr ascertained the contents of this pamphlet, and that it was in the press. Its immediate publication, he knew, must distract the federal party, and thus promote the republican cause in those states where the elections had not yet taken place. Arrangements were accordingly made for a copy, as soon as the printing of it was completed; and when obtained, John Swartwout, Robert Swartwout, and Matthew L. Davis, by appointment, met Colonel Burr at his own house. The pamphlet was read, and extracts made for the press. Mr. Davis was charged with forwarding these extracts to William Duane, editor of the Aurora, and to Charles Holt, editor of the Bee, printed in New-London, which was accordingly done, and the extracts immediately published. [1]

The effect of this sudden and unexpected explosion was such as might have been anticipated. It rent the federal party in twain. The publication, from time to time, of extracts, and the excitement which was produced throughout the country by them, at length compelled Mr. Hamilton to authorize the publication of the entire pamphlet; and accordingly, in October, as the electors were to be chosen in November, it was advertised for sale in the Daily Gazette. The editor of the paper explained that it was not the intention of General Hamilton to give publicity to this letter at the time it was made public; but that extracts from it by some unknown means had found their way to the public, and therefore the whole was now given.

Further evidence of the vigilance and efficiency of Colonel Burr in promoting the revolution of 1800 is deemed unnecessary. It is most solemnly believed that the overthrow of the federal party at that time would not have been accomplished but through his zeal, sagacity, and industry. His friends, therefore, have ascribed to him, and not without some foundation, the election of Mr. Jefferson to the presidency.

Governor Jay having refused to comply with the wishes of "one of the most distinguished federalists in the United States," as proposing a measure for party purposes which he (Governor Jay) thought it would not become him to adopt, the legislature did not convene until the fourth day of November, 1800, and on the sixth they proceeded to the choice of electors for president and vice-president. The republican ticket prevailed. It was composed of the following, persons:—

Isaac Ledyard, of Queen's County.

Anthony Lispenard, of New-York.

P. Van Courtlandt, of Westchester

James Burt, of Orange.

Gilbert Livingston, of Dutchess.

Thomas Jenkins, of Columbia.

[continued list of Republican electors]

Peter Van Ness, of Columbia.

Robert Ellis, of Saratoga.

John Woodworth, of Rensellaer.

J. Van Rensellaer, of Albany.

Jacob Eacker, of Montgomery, and

William Floyd, of Suffolk.

The vote stood:—

Republican. Federal.
In the Senate 18 24 In the Assembly 64 39

Thus, on joint ballot, the republican majority was nineteen; and consequently, as the city of New-York elected twelve members, if the federalists had succeeded in the city, they would have had, in joint ballott, a majority of from six to ten.

As a part of the history of this election, the following letter and extracts from letters are here inserted.

THOMAS JEFFERSON TO AARON BURR.

Washington, December 15, 1800.

"DEAR SIR,

Although we have not official information of the votes for president and vice-president, and cannot have until the first week in February, yet the state of the votes is given on such evidence as satisfies both parties that the two republican candidates stand highest. From South Carolina we have not even heard of the actual vote, but we have learned who were appointed electors, and with sufficient certainty how they would vote. It is said they would withdraw from yourself one vote. It has also been said that a General Smith, of Tennessee, had declared that he would give his second vote to Mr. Gallatin, not from any indisposition towards you, but extreme reverence to the character of Mr. Gallatin. It is also surmised that the vote of Georgia will not be entire. Yet nobody pretends to know these things of a certainty, and we know enough to be certain that what it is surmised will be withheld, will still leave you four or five votes at least above Mr. Adams. However, it was badly managed not to have arranged with certainty what seems to have been left to hazard. It was the more material, because I understand several high-flying federalists have expressed their hope that the two republican tickets may be equal, and their determination in that case to prevent a choice by the House of Representatives (which they are strong enough to do), and let the government devolve on a president of the Senate. Decency required that I should be so entirely passive during the late contest, that I never once asked whether arrangements had been made to prevent so many from dropping votes intentionally as might frustrate half the republican wish; nor did I doubt, till lately, that such had been made.

"While I must congratulate you, my dear sir, on the issue of this contest, because it is more honourable, and, doubtless, more grateful to you than any station within the competence of the chief magistrate, yet, for myself, and for the substantial service of the public, I feel most sensibly the loss we sustain of your aid in our new administration. It leaves a chasm in my arrangements which cannot be adequately filled up. I had endeavoured to compose an administration whose talents, integrity, names, and dispositions should at once inspire unbounded confidence in the public mind, and ensure a perfect harmony in the conduct of the public business. I lose you from the list, and am not sure of all the others. Should the gentlemen who possess the public confidence decline taking a part in their affairs, and force us to take persons unknown to the people, the evil genius of this country may realize his avowal that 'he will beat down the administration.' The return of Mr. Van Benthuysen, one of your electors, furnishes me a confidential opportunity of writing this much to you, which I should not have ventured through the postoffice at this prying season. We shall, of course, see you before the fourth of March. Accept my respectful and affectionate salutations."

The letter is, in a great measure, incomprehensible. It indicates nothing but Mr. Jefferson's extreme terror and apprehension lest he should be disappointed in his anticipated elevation to the presidency. It displays the tact of the ostrich, and the sincerity of a refined Jesuit. What does Mr. Jefferson mean by the declaration that he had formed a cabinet, of which Mr. Burr was to be a member? What when he says—"I lose you from the list?' Can any man believe that Mr. Jefferson expected to be elected president, but that Colonel Burr would be defeated; and that, acting upon such a state of facts, he had already selected the members of his administration, and that Mr. Burr was one of them? The supposition is absurd; but, without such a supposition, what becomes of the truth of Mr. Jefferson's declaration when he says—"I feel most sensibly the loss we sustain of your aid in our new administration. It leaves a chasm in my arrangements which cannot be adequately filled up?" If this letter is carefully read and analyzed, its object may be comprehended. It was written a few weeks before the balloting was to take place in Congress. Mr. Jefferson expresses doubt as to the vote Mr. Burr will receive, but considers it certain that he will have "four or five votes at least above Mr. Adams." Four days after this letter he writes in a very different tone to a friend.

MR. JEFFERSON TO MR. MADISON.

"Washington, December 19, 1800.

"DEAR SIR,

"Mrs. Brown's departure for Virginia enables me to write confidentially what I would not have ventured by the post at this prying season. The election in South Carolina has, in some measure, decided the great contest. Though, as yet, we do not know the actual votes of Tennessee, Kentucky, and Vermont, yet we believe the votes to be, on the whole, Jefferson, 73; Burr, 73; Adams, 65; Pinckney, 64. Rhode Island withdrew one from Pinckney. There is a possibility that Tennessee may withdraw one from Burr, and Burr writes that there may be one vote in Vermont for Jefferson. But I hold the latter impossible, and the former not probable; and that there will be an absolute parity between the two republican candidates. This has produced great dismay and gloom on the republican gentlemen here, and exultation in the federalists, who openly declare they will prevent an election, and will name a president of the Senate pro tem. by what, they say, would only be a stretch of the constitution. The prospect of preventing this is as follows. Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Vermont, Pennsylvania, and New-York can be counted on for their vote in the House of Representatives, and it is thought, by some, that BAER of Maryland and LINN of New-Jersey will come over."

The preceding extract shows that Mr. Jefferson entertained no doubt "that there would be an absolute parity between the two republican candidates," notwithstanding his doubting remarks on that subject to Colonel Burr. Hopes were also entertained "that Mr. Baer of Maryland and Linn of New-Jersey would come over." Reference will hereafter be made to these two states. The result of the electoral vote was as Mr. Jefferson anticipated. Seventy-three republican and sixty-five federal.

Although the ballots for president and vice-president had not been examined officially, yet it was well known that there was a tie between Mr. Jefferson and Colonel Burr.

On the 5th of February, 1801, Mr. Bayard, in the House of Representatives, offered a resolution declaring that, in case of a tie, the house would continue to ballot until a choice of president was made. It was referred to a select committee, and, on the 10th, it, with other rules to govern the house during the balloting, was adopted. The Senate passed a resolution that the ballots should be opened with closed doors. William H. Wells, of Delaware, of the Senate, and John Nicholas, of Virginia, and John Rutledge, of South Carolina, of the House of Representatives, were appointed tellers.

On the 11th of February the ballots were opened. During the performance of this ceremony a most extraordinary incident occurred. As it is known to but few now living, and never been publicly spoken of, it has been deemed proper to record it here, as a part of the history of that exciting contest.

The Aurora of the 16th of February, 1801, remarks, that "the tellers declared that there was some informality in the votes of Georgia; but, believing them to be true votes, reported them as such." No explanation of the nature of this informality was given; nor is it known that any has ever been given since. Had it been announced at the time, there can be no doubt it would have proved fatal to the election of Mr. Jefferson. Whether the interest of our country would or would not have been thereby promoted, is not a question for discussion here.

By the Constitution of the United States at that time it was provided, Art. 2, sect. 1, "The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each, which list they shall sign, and certify, and transmit, sealed, to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the president, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose, by ballot, one of them for president; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said house shall, in like manner, choose the president. But, in choosing the president, the votes shall betaken by states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice."

From the above extract it will be seen that the Constitution is imperative as to the form and manner in which the electoral returns are to be made. The ceremony of opening was performed in the presence of the two houses. The package of a state having been opened by the vice-president, it was handed by him to the tellers. Mr. Jefferson was the presiding officer. On opening the package endorsed Georgia votes, it was discovered to be totally irregular. The statement now about to be given is derived from an honourable gentleman, a member of Congress from the state of New-York during the administration of Mr. Jefferson, and yet living in this state. He says that Mr. Wells (a teller on the part of the Senate) informed him that the envelope was blank; that the return of the votes was not authenticated by the signatures of the electors, or any of them, either on the outside or the inside of the envelope, or in any other manner; that it merely stated in the inside that the votes of Georgia were, for Thomas Jefferson _four, and for Aaron Burr four, without the signature of any person whatsoever. Mr. Wells added, that he was very undecided as to the proper course to be pursued by the tellers. It was, however, suggested by one of them that the paper should be handed to the presiding officer, without any statement from the tellers except that the return was informal; that he consented to this arrangement under the firm conviction that Mr. Jefferson would announce the nature of the informality from the chair; but, to his utmost surprise, he (Mr. Jefferson) rapidly declared that the votes of Georgia were four for Thomas Jefferson and four for Aaron Burr, without noticing their informality, and in a hurried manner put them aside, and then broke the seals and handed to the tellers the package from the next state. Mr. Wells observed, that as soon as Mr. Jefferson looked at the paper purporting to contain a statement of the electoral vote of the state of Georgia, his countenance changed, but that the decision and promptitude with which he acted on that occasion convinced him of that which he (a federalist) and his party had always doubted, that is to say, Mr. Jefferson's decision of character, at least when his own interest was at hazard. Mr. Wells further stated, that if the votes of Georgia had not been thus counted, as it would have brought all the candidates into the house, Mr. Pinckney among the number, Mr. Jefferson could not have been elected president.

The same honourable member of Congress further stated, that some few years after receiving the above information from Mr. Wells, he became intimately acquainted with John Nicholas, who was one of the tellers referred to, and who had removed from Virginia into the western part of the State of New-York. Mr. Nicholas gave to the honourable member the same statement in substance, not knowing that it had been previously derived from Mr. Wells. Mr. Nicholas was a warm personal and political friend of Mr. Jefferson, and declared that he never felt so astounded in his life as when he discovered the irregularity. He claimed some credit for the adroit manner in which he had managed Mr. Rutledge, so far as to obtain his consent to hand the paper to Mr. Jefferson without public explanation from the tellers, and which was effected by a conciliatory appeal to the magnanimity of the member from South Carolina.

The whole number of electoral votes given at the election in 1800 was one hundred and thirty-eight: necessary to a choice, seventy. Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Burr had each, according to the return made, seventy-three. Georgia gave _four _votes. If that number had been deducted from Jefferson and Burr, as illegally returned, of which there is no doubt, they would have had only sixty-nine votes each; consequently they would not have had, in the language of the Constitution, "a majority of the whole number of electors appointed," and the candidates out of which a choice of president must be made would have been Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Burr, Mr. Adams, and Mr. Pinckney. The federal members would then have said to the republicans, We will unite with you in the choice of either of the gentlemen presented to the house except Mr. Jefferson; and if the government is to be brought to a termination by our failure to elect a president, the responsibility will be on you. And is it to be believed, that in such a case the doubtful members who were sighing for office, if any such there were, would have rejected the suggestion in toto?

The balloting continued from the 11th until the 17th of February inclusive. Nine states were necessary to a choice. On the first ballot Mr. Jefferson had eight, Mr. Burr six, and two states were divided. At every ballot the same result was announced, until the thirty-sixth ballot, which was given on the 17th of February, when Mr. Jefferson was declared duly elected, ten states having voted for him.

On the first ballot Mr. Jefferson received New-York, New-Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Georgia, and
Tennessee—eight.

Mr. Burr received New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, Delaware, and South Carolina —six.

Divided, Vermont and Maryland—two.

On the final ballot Mr. Jefferson received New-York, New-Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Georgia, Tennessee,
Maryland (four votes and four blanks), Vermont (one vote and
one blank)—ten.

Mr. Burr received New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and
Connecticut—four.

Delaware blank, South Carolina no vote.

During the balloting one hundred and six members of the House of Representatives were present. Of this number fifty-one, on the first ballot, voted for Mr. Jefferson; and on no subsequent vote was that number increased. The election was effected by the states of Maryland and Vermont giving their vote, instead of remaining equally divided, and thus having no vote; and that change was produced in Maryland by Mr. Craick, Mr. Dennis, Mr. Baer, and Mr. Chew Thomas voting blank, and Mr. Lewis R. Morris, of Vermont, in like manner voting blank, leaving Mr. Matthew Lyon the sole representative of the state.

Previous to the balloting, Mr. Burr addressed to General S. Smith, of Baltimore, a member of the House of Representatives, the following letter. It will be seen by the date, that as soon as Colonel Burr supposed that there was a probability of a tie, he constituted General Smith his proxy to declare his sentiments.

EXTRACT.

"New-York, 16th December, 1800.

"It is highly improbable that I shall have an equal number of votes with Mr. Jefferson; but, if such should be the result, every man who knows me ought to know that I would utterly disclaim all competition. Be assured that the federal party can entertain no wish for such an exchange. As to my friends, they would dishonour my views and insult my feelings by a suspicion that I would submit to be instrumental in counteracting the wishes and the expectations of the United States. And I now constitute you my proxy to declare these sentiments if the occasion should require." [2]

Baltimore, February 28, 1801.

Sir—Many of the citizens of Baltimore, who have just now heard of your arrival among them, beg leave to congratulate you and themselves upon the success of the late election of President and Vice-president of the United States. They, in a particular manner, appreciate that patriotism which disclaimed competition for the presidential chair with that other eminent character who has finally been called to it—as setting a just value upon the will of the people.

By order of the meeting.

THOMAS McELDERRY.

To Aaron Burr, Vice-president elect of the United States of America.

Footnotes:

1. Mr. Tucker, in his life of Jefferson, ascribes the defeat of the federal party in South Carolina to General Hamilton's pamphlet. Its premature publication, no doubt, contributed largely to produce this result.

2. The effect of this letter upon public opinion may be judged of by the following, among other testimonials which might be inserted.

CHAPTER VI.

This contest in Congress produced, almost immediately, strong feelings of dissatisfaction between some of the friends of Mr. Jefferson and Colonel Burr. Jealousies and distrust had previously existed. Mr. Jefferson was anxious that Mr. Madison should be his successor in office. The Clinton and Livingston families were prepared to unite in a crusade against Colonel Burr; the chieftains of each section hoping to fill the station from which he was to be expelled. General Hamilton was in favour of the election of Mr. Jefferson, as opposed to Colonel Burr. The result afforded him a triumph, and be was prepared, when opportunity should present, to prostrate his late successful opponent. Such was the state of parties, and such the feelings of leading and distinguished partisans, when Colonel Burr entered upon the vice-presidency, on the fourth of March, 1801. He was hemmed in on every side by political adversaries, ready for the onset so soon as it should be deemed expedient to make it. Every movement, every expression at the convivial board or in the social circle, and every action, was carefully watched and noted for future use, if, by the exercise of ingenuity and misrepresentation, such expression or action could be so tortured as to operate injuriously to him. These several sections, each acting within its own sphere, impelled by conflicting motives, were untiring in their efforts to accomplish the great object—the ruin of the vice-president. They combined wealth, talents, and government patronage.

The following short extracts from letters, written as early as 1794 and 1795, will show what were the wishes of Mr. Jefferson (so far as any reliance can be placed on professions) in relation to Mr. Madison.

THOMAS JEFFERSON TO JAMES MADISON.

"Monticello, December 28, 1794.

"DEAR SIR,

"I do not see in the minds of those with whom I converse a greater affliction than the fear of your retirement; [1] but this must not be, unless to a more splendid and more efficacious post. [2]

There I should rejoice to see you; I hope I may say, I shall rejoice to see you. I have long had much in my mind to say to you on that subject; but double delicacies have kept me silent. I ought, perhaps, to say, while I would not give up my own retirement for the empire of the universe, how I can justify wishing one, whose happiness I have so much at heart as yours, to take the front of the battle which is fighting for my security."

THOMAS JEFFERSON TO JAMES MADISON.

"Monticello, April 27, 1795.

"DEAR SIR,

"In mine, to which yours of March the twenty-third was an answer, I expressed my hope of the only change of position I ever wished to see you make, and I expressed it with entire sincerity, because there is not another person in the United States who, being placed at the helm of our affairs, my mind would be so completely at rest for the fortune of our political bark. The wish, too, was pure, and unmixed with any thing respecting myself personally. * * * * * *

"If these general considerations were sufficient to ground a firm resolution never to permit myself to think of the office (president), or be thought of for it, the special ones which have supervened on my retirement still more insuperably bar the door to it. My health is entirely broken down within the last eight months; my age requires that I should place my affairs in a clear state; these are sound, if taken care of, but capable of considerable dangers if longer neglected; and, above all things, the delights I feel in the society of my family, and in the agricultural pursuits in which I am so eagerly engaged. The little spice of ambition which I had in my younger days has long since evaporated, and I set still less store by a posthumous than present name."

It is a remarkable fact, that, previous to the balloting in Congress, all parties and sections of parties concurred in the opinion that the election would finally be determined, as it was, by New-York, New-Jersey, and Maryland. These three states would render the election of Colonel Burr certain; two of them could elect Mr. Jefferson. The vote, of New-York was to be decided by Theodorus Bailey, of Dutchess county, and Edward Livingston, of the city of New-York; the vote of New-Jersey by Mr. Linn, and the vote of Maryland by Mr. Dent or Mr. Baer.

In the Commercial Advertiser of the thirteenth of February, 1801, a paper opposed to the election of Colonel Burr, there is published an extract of a letter from a member of Congress, dated Washington, February 10, which states that, upon the second ballot, it is expected that New-York, New-Jersey, and Maryland will vote for Mr. Burr.

On the sixth of February, 1801, a leading and influential republican member of Congress writes to his correspondent a letter, from which the following is extracted:—

"I have not time to answer your letter as fully as I could wish, as it would have been my desire to communicate to you not only facts, but some of the reasons which have induced us to adopt the steps we have heretofore taken. But, at all events, it is important that you should have an immediate knowledge of the present situation of affairs.

"It is reduced to moral certainty, so far as any reliance can be placed on the solemn determinations of men, that either Mr. Jefferson will be chosen, or that there will be no choice made. The republican majorities of eight states (including Linn [3] of New-Jersey, and the New-York representation, [4] the republican half of Maryland, including Mr. Dent, [5] and Lyon of Vermont, are pledged to persevere in voting for Mr. Jefferson to the end, be the consequence what it will."

Colonel Burr, soon after his election, gave his enemies an opportunity to cavil. It would be impossible to enter into all the details connected with this subject; but the principal charges which were made against the vice-president, and assigned as reasons for opposing his renomination, will be briefly presented. The replies to or explanations of them, by the parties implicated, will also be given.

Late in November, 1801, when Mr. Burr was on his way to Washington to take his seat in Senate as vice-president, he was addressed by certain citizens of Baltimore, on which occasion he remarked, "Time will not allow me to return you a written answer, but I must be permitted to state my disapprobation of the mode of expressing public sentiment by addresses." This gave offence to some, and, by the artful and designing, was misrepresented. Mr. Burr, during the years 1798 and 1799, had beheld, with mortification and disgust, the adulatory, if not sycophantic addresses presented to President Adams. This reproof, therefore, of his friends, evinced his natural independence of character as well as the purest republican notions.

In the month of January, 1802, a bill to repeal what was termed by the republicans the federal midnight judiciary act, was pending before the Senate. On the 27th of January, a motion was made to refer the bill to a committee for the purpose of amendment. On this motion the votes were, ayes, 14; noes, 14. The vice-president, Colonel Burr, was in the chair. He said—"I am for the affirmative, because I never can resist the reference of a measure where the Senate is so nicely balanced, and when the object is to effect amendment that may accommodate it to the opinions of a large majority, and particularly when I can believe that gentlemen are sincere in wishing a reference for this purpose. Should it, however, at any time appear that delay only is intended, my conduct will be different."

This decision afforded the enemies of Colonel Burr an opportunity to break ground more openly against him. He was now charged with aiding the federal party in their efforts to embarrass the administration, and with the design of defeating the wishes of the American people. As yet, the charge of intriguing and negotiating with the federalists to obtain the presidency in opposition to Mr. Jefferson had not been made. The allies had not yet sufficiently poisoned the public mind against the vice-president, nor had they subsidized the requisite number of presses for carrying on the work of destruction. While the grand assault was meditating, and these feints were carrying on against the vice-president, he was constantly receiving approbatory letters from intelligent and well-informed citizens, many of whom cowered beneath the storm when, in the height of its fury, it burst upon the victim. From among a number the following are selected:—

FROM A. J. DALLAS.

Philadelphia, 3d February, 1802.[6]

DEAR SIR,

On the judiciary question, I wrote my sentiments to Mr. Wilson Nicholas early in the session. I am sorry our friends have taken so peremptory a position, as the very circumstance of having taken it will render it difficult to move them. I cannot concur with them in the policy or expediency of the measure. The business of the court will not allow me to give my reasons in detail, but you shall have my brief.

1. There never was a case in which a party could be more justified in expressing their resentment, on account of the manner of passing the act; the manner of organizing the courts; the nature of the opposition to the repeal, denying its constitutionality, and menacing a civil war.

2. The repeal would be constitutional, from a review of the principles, and terms of the constitution itself; of the peculiar situation of the country ; its growing population ; its extending prospects; its increasing wants, pursuits, and refinements, &c.; of the analogy to the Judiciary Institution of England, where independent of the legislature is not within the policy or provision of the statutes relative to the commissions of the judges; of the analogy to the Judiciary Institutions of the sister states, which have all been subject to legislative interference occasionally. In Pennsylvania particularly, the constitution declares that the judges shall hold their commissions during good behaviour; yet it expressly authorizes the legislature to abolish the Court of Common Pleas, &c.; and of the precedents in the existing act of Congress, which is an exercise of the power sub modo.

3. But notwithstanding the indignation I feel, in common with our friends, at the manner of passing the Circuit Court act; and notwithstanding my perfect conviction that Congress has the power of repealing the act, I think the repeal would be impolitic and inexpedient. If it would be impolitic acting on party principles, it would be inexpedient of course; but I mean, also, that it would be inexpedient on account of the use that Pennsylvania (and I presume the same as to other states) has derived from the institution:

1st. It is impolitic.

The republicans are not agreed on the constitutionality of the repeal. The people at large have imbibed strong prejudices on the subject of judicial independence. The repeal would be ascribed to party animosity; and if future amendments should be made, it would be considered as a personal proceeding, merely to remove the present judges: the hazard of loss in public opinion is greater than the hope of gain. There is a mass of the community that will not be fermented by the leaven of party passions. By persons of this description, the motive and effect will be strictly analyzed and purified. The mere resuscitation of the old system will either expose the administration of justice to inconceivable embarrassments, or demonstrate the motive to be abstractedly a party one, by calling for an immediate reform. The clamour of the federalists will at least have a reasonable foundation.

2. It is inexpedient.

The mere repeal will reinstate a system which every man of common sense and candour must deprecate. It will entirely destroy institutions susceptible of being modelled into a form economical as well as useful. It will deprive some states of tribunals which have been found highly advantageous, to the despatch of business. I allude particularly to Pennsylvania. In this state justice, as far as respects our state courts, is in a state of dissolution, from the excess of business and the parsimony of the legislature.

With this view of the subject you will perceive that I think—First, There ought not to be a total repeal. Second, There ought to be amendments.

If, however, a repeal should take place, I am clearly of opinion that it would be unjustifiable to make any provision for the ex-judges. On this point and on the introduction of amendments I will, if you desire it, amplify by a future post.

The zealous republicans are exciting some intemperance here, in opposition to a memorial from our bar, which, you will perceive, is confined to the operation of the law in this state as a matter of fact, and not to any controversy of a constitutional or political nature.

I shall be anxious to hear from you as often as you can spare a moment, and particularly while the judiciary bill is pending.

Yours, with great regard,

A. J. DALLAS.

FROM NATHANIEL NILES.

February 17, 1802.

DEAR SIR,

Permit me to thank you most sincerely for the vote you gave in favour of Mr. Dayton's motion to refer the judiciary bill to a select committee; not because I am by any means satisfied it is not best that bill should pass, but because I earnestly desire that republicanism should on every occasion display the spirit of conciliation, as far as can be done without the destruction of principle. I am every day more and more satisfied that the cause is more endangered by the want of such displays than by every thing besides. The fate of parties in and about Congress will ultimately be determined by the great body of the well informed in the middle walks of life. It is happy, in some respects, that these are generally so far from the scene of action as to be tolerably free from the blinding influence of those passions which the scene itself is calculated to excite. They wish for every thing that tends to convince the great public that republicanism, instead of being hostile, is friendly to moderation and harmony. Shall we not do well to mark with great care and precision the sunken rocks and shoals on which self-denominated federalism has dashed itself to pieces? Among these I would enumerate their too eager and violent pursuit of their object. Had they been patient and accommodating, the eyes of the public would have been still hoodwinked, until habit, gradually acquired, would have rendered an expensive monarchy the most agreeable government. But, thank Heaven, they, by overacting, exposed their own feelings and designs. Will not the same pertinacity and precipitation endanger the better—the opposite cause? It is a prevalent idea among us middling people, that a good government must be a moderate one; and we are exceedingly apt to judge of the spirit of the government from the spirit of our rulers. Every thing non-conciliating bears in its very front strong symptoms of a tyrannical spirit.

I am, sir, the more gratified by your moderation because (though I am ashamed to avow it) I have heard you was too impetuous. Pardon my mistake; and suffer me to entreat you to encourage a steady pursuit of republican measures in that way which will convince the bystanders that the actors are uniformly and irresistibly urged to pursue them by cool conviction, resulting from a candid, extensive, and philanthropic survey of the great object. Passion and caprice very illy become so awfully sublime an object as that for which well-informed republicans contend.

With sentiments of respect, your obedient servant,

NATHANIEL NILES.

FROM A. J. DALLAS.

Philadelphia, 3d April, 1802.

DEAR SIR,

The judiciary storm has passed away for the present. I perceive, however, that an effort is making to improve the old system without increasing the number of judges; and we are once more unanimous at the bar of Philadelphia in rejoicing that Paterson, and not Chase, presides in our circuit. I had begun an outline of courts and jurisdictions agreeably to your wish; but I lost the hope of its being adopted when finished, so I abandoned the labour. Perhaps it may be worth while to renew the scheme, with a view to a future session.

There are some rumours of jealousy and dissatisfaction prevailing among the republican leaders, in the executive as well as the legislative departments of the federal as well as of our state government. It will be disgraceful, indeed, if the rumours axe true. Very sincerely yours,

A. J. DALLAS.

Such were the sentiments and views of many of the most pure and intelligent of the republican party in relation to a repeal of the judiciary act of 1800. The preceding letters express the opinions entertained by thousands who were opposed to federal men and federal measures, but who wanted time for reflection; and yet, when Colonel Burr voted to recommit the repealing bill for the purpose of ascertaining whether it could not be rendered more satisfactory, the conspirators cried aloud, Crucify him—crucify him.

The plot now began to thicken. During the year 1801, a Scotchman by the name of Wood was employed to write "A History of John Adams's Administration." Ward & Barlas, booksellers in New-York, were the proprietors of the copyright, and printed 1250 copies. William Duane, editor of the Aurora, furnished the author a portion of his materials, and became the agent to negotiate with a London bookseller for the publication of an edition in England. In the summer or autumn of 1801 Colonel Burr was informed of the progress of the work, and procured a copy before it was ready for publication. On examining it, he came to the conclusion that it was calculated to do the republican party more injury than good. It abounded with misrepresentations, errors, and libels. Mr. Burr, through a friend, agreed to pay a stipulated sum for the suppression of the work, under the most solemn assurance that no copy or copies would be permitted to go into the hands of any third person, but that the whole edition should be delivered to the agent who was to pay the money. Before the time of payment arrived, it was ascertained that a copy or copies had been parted with, and would not be returned. The contract was, therefore, never carried into effect. Pending this negotiation, Mr. Duane, through Wood or Ward & Barlas, was made acquainted with the arrangements which were in progress. Cheetham, the editor of the American Citizen, was also informed of what was doing. This was considered a most favourable opportunity for assailing the vice-president, and charging him with the design of suppressing the History of John Adams's Administration for the purpose of keeping the people in ignorance of the wrong doings of the federal party. Although the assailants had a full view of the whole ground, yet the attack was commenced by innuendoes, indicating ignorance of the true state of facts. The charge operated most injuriously upon the republican character of Colonel Burr. The injury was irreparable, and the attacks continued with unexampled malignity.

This brief statement, it is hoped, will be found sufficiently explicit to be intelligible. And now for the conduct of Mr. Duane on the occasion. His object, and the object of his employers, was accomplished; but whether a short development of the whole case will or will not add to his fame, the reader must determine.

On or about the 27th of February, 1802, the editor of the Aurora, in his paper, states that a curious fact has lately been brought to light in New-York; that Wood had completed his engagement with Ward & Barlas to furnish a history of John Adams's Administration, and that 1250 copies were printed, but suppressed at the desire of some person. Mr. Duane then animadverts with harshness, and expresses a wish to get a clew to the names of the person or persons who suppressed the work.

On the 31st of May, 1802, the Aurora states that the American Citizen and the Evening Post have commenced a warfare, of which Mr. Burr is the object; that the principal matter of charge is the suppression of Wood's History of John Adams's Administration; and then adds—"We are fully possessed of one side of the subject, and have perused the suppressed book attentively."

On the 12th of July, 1802, the Aurora says—"So far as it relates to Mr. Burr, my opinions have been uniform and reiterated to his particular friends, that if the motives for the suppression of the book were not satisfactorily explained to the public, his standing with the republican interest was gone."

During the period between February and July, 1802, the Aurora reprinted the slanders of Cheetham against Mr. Burr in relation to the suppressed book, and continued, from time to time, his own attacks upon the vice-president. While thus publicly giving currency to these calumnies, would it be believed (if asserted) that Mr. Duane was privately writing Colonel Burr, and approving of his conduct in suppressing the work? One of his letters on this subject is deemed sufficient to a right understanding of the case. It will now be given without comment. * * * * *

FROM WILLIAM DUANE.

Thursday, April 15, 1802.

DEAR SIR,

I think it fortunate that the pamphlet of Mr. Wood has not yet been published, and that it would be much more so if it were not ever to see the light. It has disappointed my expectations of finding in it at least some useful reflections and reasonings, however little novelty there might be in the facts. But, even in the narration of facts, I find numerous errors, and not a few misrepresentations of things notorious to every man who has attended with understanding to the course of public affairs. There is in it a something, too, of a character very different from what was represented to me; the adoption of the story of Hamilton [7] and Lafayette, if it is not the effect of an indifference to accuracy, or a coldness in pursuit of truth, is something much worse, and at least is suspicious: there is more of the same kind of matter, and less attention to the influence and views of such characters, than the subject required. I consider it, upon the whole, as a hasty, crude, and inconsistent production, calculated rather to produce evil than the least good—as it would be attributed to the republicans, with all its faults and inconsistencies, and a credit assumed from it as a party confession of merit, in a particular character, which is not founded, at least in the way stated in the pamphlet. Were some parts of it omitted, and false statements rectified, it might not do any harm; and perhaps it might be found advisable to adopt some plan of that kind, making a careful record of the omissions to insert any future misrepresentations, and a like record of such additions or alterations. This might be very easily done by printing the pages anew which contain the exceptionable parts, and, if necessary, substituting reflections or anecdotes, founded in fact, in their places. This might be done at a small expense. The thing, thus corrected, published; and, if any effort should be made to misrepresent, credit would be derived even by the defence, and the exposure of the motives for suppressing the misstatements.

This I have thought proper to write you, and I hope will, in its object and motives, find with you an excuse for doing so.

I am, with respect, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM DUANE.

Footnotes:

1. Mr. Madison was then a member of Congress.

2. President of the United States.

3. Appointed by Mr. Jefferson supervisor of internal revenue for the state of New-Jersey.

4. Edward Livingston and Theodorus Bailey; the former appointed United States district attorney for the district of New-York; the latter subsequently appointed postmaster of the city of New-York, and removed from the country, a distance of nearly one hundred miles, to take charge of the office. Cheetham, editor of the American Citizen, some time after Mr. Livingston's appointment, in referring to him, says—"Should Mr. Burr's confidential friend ever become dangerous, we will show what he has been and what he is."

5. Appointed United States marshal for the Potomac district of Maryland.

6. This letter is dated seven days after Mr. Burr's casting vote in the Senate.

7. The story here referred to is thus related by Wood in his history: "In the year 1780, he (Hamilton) was promoted to the rank of colonel, and at the siege of Yorktown commanded the attack on one of the redoubts, the capture of which decided the fate of Lord Cornwallis and his army. The conduct of Mr. Hamilton on this occasion was truly honourable, and, in the history of his life, ought to weigh against several of those scars that have since stained his character. Previous to the attack, the Marquis de Lafayette proposed to General Washington to put to death all the British troops that should be found in the redoubts, as a retaliation for several acts of barbarity committed by the royal army. The steady and nervous mind of Washington, which was ever known to yield to the virtuous prejudice of compassion, gave his assent to the bloody order. But Mr. Hamilton (the tenderness of whose feelings has led him into error), after the redoubts were subdued, took the conquered under his protection, and proved to his enemies that Americans know how to fight, but not to murder." [General Hamilton, in a letter referring to this same story, says—"Positively and unequivocally, I declare that no such or similar order, or any intimation or hint resembling it, was ever by me received or understood to have been given."

CHAPTER VII.

Colonel Burr's silence under these reiterated attacks, with such means of defence as his enemies knew that he possessed, encouraged and imboldened them to make other and more daring assaults. He was now charged, in general terms, with intriguing for the presidency, in opposition to Mr. Jefferson; with endeavouring to obtain federal electoral votes, and thus to defeat Mr. Jefferson and promote his own elevation; with having entered into terms and conditions with federal members of Congress in the winter of 1800; and with having committed himself to, that party, in the event of success through their instrumentality. These slanders were countenanced and circulated in whispers by men high in authority, until the political integrity of Colonel Burr was so far ruined as to render any defence, on his part or on the part of his friends, useless and unavailing. The hireling press now boldly entered upon specific charges; naming the parties with whom Colonel Burr or his friends had negotiated, and the agents whom the vice-president had employed to effect his purposes. These details were given in a manner so circumstantial, as, by their audacity, seemingly to command confidence. The slanders were circulated with industry and rapidity, while the contradictions rarely met the public eye, except through the medium of a federal press, which publication, with the already prejudiced republican, was construed as evidence of the truth of the charge. The principal instances of specific cases will now be presented as briefly as practicable.

The presidential electors of the state of New-Jersey were federal. Dr. Samuel S. Smith, president of Princeton College, was an elector. The Hon. Jno. B. Prevost, son of Mrs. Burr by her first husband, was married to the daughter of Dr. Smith. This circumstance rendered plausible a story invented and propagated by the calumniators of Colonel Burr. They boldly charged that "Dr. Smith, of New-Jersey, was secretly to have voted for Mr. Burr, and thus made him President of the United States." To this charge Dr. Smith replied as follows :—

TO THE EDITOR OF THE EVENING POST.

Princeton, July 29, 1802.

SIR,

In your paper of Monday, July 26, under the article entitled A View of the Political Conduct of Aaron Burr, Esq., by the author of the Narrative, I observe some very gross misrepresentations, which I conceive it to be a duty that I owe to Mr. Burr, the New-Jersey electors, and myself, to declare to be absolutely false. Mr. Burr never visited me on the subject of the late election for president and vice-president—Mr. Burr never conversed with me a single second on the subject of that election, either before or since the event. No project or plan of the kind mentioned in that paper was proposed or hinted at among the electors of New-Jersey. I am assured that Mr. Burr held no intrigue with them on that occasion, either collectively or individually. They were men above intrigue; and I do not know that he was disposed to use it. At their meeting, they unanimously declared that a fair and manly vote, according to their sentiments, was the only conduct which was worthy of their own characters or of their cause.

"SAMUEL. S. SMITH."

It was next charged that Colonel Burr had sent, at his own expense, special agents to different states, previous to the choice of electors, with the view of influencing their selection, and to promote his own elevation to the exclusion of Mr. Jefferson. The agents named were Mr. Abraham Bishop, of New-Haven, and Mr. Timothy Green, of New-York. It was asserted that Mr. Bishop was Mr. Burr's agent at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, during the session of the legislature that appointed the presidential electors.

In August, 1802, Mr. Bishop published a full and explicit refutation of the charge. He denied that Mr. Burr sent him to Lancaster, or that he went there for any purposes personally or politically regarding that gentleman. The publication of Mr. Bishop is not readily to be found; but he is still living, and subsequently was appointed by Mr. Jefferson collector of the port of New-Haven.

In relation to Mr. Green, it was alleged that he was sent to Columbia, South Carolina, for similar purposes, and that he "corresponded with the vice-president on the subject of the then approaching election, under cover to John Swartwout." The replies of Mr. Green and Mr. Swartwout were as follows:—

"New-York, October 11, 1802,

"MESSRS. DENNISTON AND CHEETHAM,

"In the American Citizen of this day you have made a publication, to which you have affixed your names. In this you have stated, 1st, That Timothy Green, of this city, was despatched as an agent to Columbia, the seat of government of the state of South Carolina, by the vice-president. 2dly, That he was the eulogist and intercessor for the vice-president. 3dly, That he sent the vice-president despatches regularly, addressed to Mr. John Swartwout, of this city, under cover.

"Now, as you have been most egregiously imposed upon by some disorganizing person, it is your duty and mine that the public be immediately furnished with both what were and what were not my inducements and motives in making a journey in November, 1800, to Columbia, and of my conduct while there. For this purpose you will please to insert in your paper of to-morrow the following corrections to your statement:—

"1st, I aver that I never went on any message of a political nature to Columbia, in South Carolina, or to any other place for the vice-president or any other person; neither was I ever requested or desired by the vice- president or by any other person to go to Columbia, in South Carolina, or any other place, on any political or electioneering mission, of any name or nature whatsoever. On the contrary, my journey to Columbia, in South Carolina, in the year of our Lord 1800, and my engagements until my return in 1801, was wholly unsolicited by any person (except my debtors in South Carolina), and were solely of a commercial nature, and for which I had been preparing eight months before.

"2dly, That I never wrote a letter to the vice-president of a political nature; neither did I write him any information relative to the presidential election in South Carolina, neither did I ever enclose a letter, directed to the vice-president, in a letter or cover directed to Mr. John Swartwout.

"3dly, That my letters to Mr. Swartwout while in South Carolina were unsolicited, and written solely with the motive to relieve the minds of my friends from the anxiety necessarily attendant on a state of suspense, while an important event is hourly expected to take place.

"4thly, That I never was in the habit of eulogizing public men, neither did I vary from my usual manners while in South Carolina. I had no occasion to intercede for the election of Colonel Burr: all the fear I had while there was lest a compromise should take place, as the political parties were nearly balanced in the state legislature. This I did, as far as in my power, conscientiously endeavour to prevent; knowing that, if union and good faith were not inviolably preserved among the constitutional republicans, our past, present, and future exertions would be unavailing.

"TIMOTHY GREEN."

FOR THE AMERICAN CITIZEN.

"New-York, October 13, 1802.

"MESSRS. DENNISTON AND CHEETHAM,

"In your seventh letter addressed to Aaron Burr, Esq., Vice-president of the United States, published in the American Citizen of the 11th instant, I notice the following paragraph, viz.:—

"Meantime, Sir, you had your eye on South Carolina; you despatched an agent, Mr. Timothy Green, of this city, to Columbia, the seat of government of that state. It was questionable whether South Carolina would give you a single vote. At that period you were scarcely known in the state. Mr. Green was at Columbia at least two months. He, was your eulogist; your intercessor; he sent you despatches regularly; they were addressed to Mr. John Swartwout, of this city, under cover, and by him communicated to you.

"You will please to inform the public, through the medium of your paper, that the above paragraph, so far as relates to my receiving letters under cover, or communications from Timothy Green for Aaron Burr, is utterly destitute of truth.

"JOHN SWARTWOUT."

In a pamphlet entitled "A View of Aaron Burr's Political Conduct," it was charged that "Mr. Burr, while in the city of New-York, carried on a negotiation with the heads of the federal party at Washington with a view to his election as President of the United States. A person was authorized by them to confer with him on the subject, who accordingly did so. Mr. Burr assented to the propositions of the negotiator, and referred him to his confidential friend to complete the negotiation. Mr. Burr stated that, after the first vote taken in the House of Representatives, New-York and Tennessee would give in to the federalists."

To this Colonel Burr replied, in a letter to Governor Bloomfield, of
New-Jersey, under date September 21, 1802:—

"You are at liberty to declare from me that all those charges and insinuations which aver or intimate that I advised or countenanced the opposition made to Mr. Jefferson pending the late election and balloting for president; that I proposed or agreed to any terms with the federal party; that I assented to be held up in opposition to him, or attempted to withdraw from him the vote or support of any man, whether in or out of Congress; THAT ALL SUCH ASSERTIONS AND INTIMATIONS ARE FALSE AND GROUNDLESS."

In the pamphlet already referred to, and various newspaper publications, it was alleged that General Hamilton had personal knowledge of Colonel Burr's negotiations with the federalists. On the 13th of October, 1802, the editor of the New-York Evening Post (William Coleman) states that he is authorized to say that General Hamilton, at a dinner at Edward Livingston's, declared that he had no personal knowledge of any negotiation in reference to the presidency between Colonel Burr and any person whatever.

It will be recollected that Colonel Burr, in his letter to Governor Bloomfield, denied the charge of "having proposed or agreed to any terms with the federal party." The person named as being the agent of the federalists, with authority to confer with Colonel Burr, was David A. Ogden, Esq., of the city of New-York, who was intimately connected with General Hamilton in professional business. Dr. Peter Irving was at that time the proprietor and editor of a highly respectable daily journal (Morning Chronicle) published in the city of New-York. The facts in relation to this charge are developed in the following letters.

P. IRVING TO DANIEL A. OGDEN.

"New-York, November 24, 1802.

"SIR,

"Though I have not the pleasure of a personal acquaintance with you, I flatter myself that the contents of this letter will preclude the necessity of an apology for addressing you.

"It has been asserted in various publications that Mr. Burr, during the late election for president and vice-president, entered into negotiations and agreed to terms with the federal party, or with certain individuals of that party, with a view to advance himself to the office of president to the exclusion of Mr. Jefferson. Mr. Burr, in a letter to Governor Bloomfield, dated the 21st of September last, declared that all such allegations were false and groundless; and the charges have been renewed in more recent publications, which point to you by name as the person through whom such negotiations were carried on and terms concluded. It has now become interesting to a great portion of the community to be informed how far these assertions and charges have been authorized by you, or are warranted by your knowledge of facts.

"Having received frequent anonymous communications for the Morning Chronicle relative to these matters, and being unwilling to occupy the paper with vague and unsubstantial conjectures or remarks on a subject of such importance, I am induced to apply directly to yourself as an authentic source of information. I do this with the more confidence, from a persuasion that you can have no wish to suffer false reports to circulate under the authority of your name for mere party purposes; and that, in the actual posture of things, you cannot be averse to declare publicly and explicitly your agency, if any, in the business. I take the liberty, therefore, of requesting your written declaration to the points above stated, together with any circumstances you may be pleased to communicate tending to establish the truth or falsehood of the charges in question.

"I have the honour to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

P. IRVING."

DAVID A. OGDEN TO P. IRVING.

New-York, November 24, 1802.

"SIR,

"Though I did not conceive it to be incumbent upon me, or in itself proper to notice a publication in a newspaper in which my name was used without my permission or knowledge, yet I have no objection to reply to an inquiry which comes in the shape of that contained in your letter, and from a person of your standing in society.

"I declare that my journey to the city of Washington, in the year 1800, was purely on private business, and without any understanding or concert whatever with Colonel Burr, whom I met at the stage-office on his way to Trenton, not having had before the least intimation of such a meeting; and that I was not then or at any time charged by him with any commission or errand of a political nature. In the course of our journey, no political conversation took place but of a general nature and in the presence of the passengers.

"When about to return from the city of Washington, two or three members of Congress, of the federal party, spoke to me about their views as to the election of president, desiring me to converse with Colonel Burr on the subject, and to ascertain whether he would enter into terms. On my return to New-York I called on Colonel Burr, and communicated the above to him. He explicitly declined the explanation, and did neither propose nor agree to any terms. I had no other interview or communication with him on the subject; and so little was I satisfied with this, that in a letter which I soon afterward wrote to a member of Congress, and which was the only one I wrote, I dissuaded from giving support to Colonel Burr, and advised rather to acquiesce in the election of Mr. Jefferson, as the less dangerous man of the two to that cause with which I believed the public interest to be inseparably connected.

"There are no facts within my knowledge tending to establish the truth of the charges specified in your letter.

"With due respect, I am, sir, your obedient servant,

"DAVID A. OGDEN.

"DR. P. IRVING."

It was then boldly asserted that Edward Livingston was "the confidential friend" to whom Mr. Ogden was referred "to complete the negotiation;" whereupon Mr. Burr made a call upon Mr. Livingston, to which the following reply was given:—

"SIR,

"In consequence of certain insinuations lately circulated, I think it proper to declare that you did not, in any verbal or written communication to me, during the late presidential election, express any sentiment inconsistent with those contained in your letter to General Smith, [1] which was published, or evincing any desire that the vote of the state should be transferred from Mr. Jefferson to yourself.

"I am, very respectfully, your most obedient servant,

(Signed) "EDWARD LIVINGSTON.

"The Vice-president of the United States."

In the hope of giving some support to these, calumnies, Mr. William S. Pennington, of New-Jersey, addressed a letter to the editors of the American Citizen, in which he asserted that General John Swartwout had written to Robert Williams, of Poughkeepsie, pending the election, recommending or countenancing the support of Mr. Burr for president to the exclusion of Mr. Jefferson. To this General Swartwout replied:—

TO THE PUBLIC.

"The false colouring given by the relation of one William S. Pennington, in a letter to Denniston & Cheetham, which appeared in the American Citizen of the 22d inst., and their subsequent malicious remarks, oblige me once more to ask pardon for obtruding myself on the public attention.

"I declare, on my honour, that I did not at any time advise the election of Mr. Burr as president of the United States to the exclusion of Mr. Jefferson; nor did I ever write to any person or persons to that effect; and I hereby authorize Mr. Robert Williams to publish any letter or letters he may have received from me on the subject of the late presidential election. I am induced to contradict the base slanders of those exclusive patriots by a regard to truth only, and not from a conviction that it would have been either dishonourable to me, or disadvantageous to the country or the republican party, to have promoted the election of Mr. Burr to the presidential chair.

"JOHN SWARTWOUT.

"New-York, January 23."

The principal specifications, intended as explanatory of the general charge against Colonel Burr of intriguing for the presidency, have now been given. The replies of the parties implicated accompany them. A whole generation has passed away since these scenes occurred, and yet the time has not arrived when they can be calmly reviewed with impartiality and free from prejudice. They may serve, however, as beacon-lights for those who are now figuring or may hereafter figure on the great political theatre of our country. Through life, Colonel Burr committed an error, if he did not display a weakness, in permitting his reputation to be assailed, without contradiction, in cases where it was perfectly defensible. His enemies took advantage of the sullen silence which he was known to preserve in regard to newspaper attacks. Under these attacks he fell from the proud eminence he once enjoyed to a condition more mortifying and more prostrate than any distinguished man has ever experienced in the United States.

Different individuals, to gratify different feelings, have ascribed this unprecedented fall to different causes. But one who is not altogether ignorant of the springs of human actions; whose partialities and prejudices are mellowed by more than threescore years of experience; who has carefully and laboriously, in this case, examined cause and effect, hesitates not in declaring that, from the moment Aaron Burr was elected vice-president, his doom was unalterably decided, if that decision could be accomplished by a combination of wealth, of talent, of government patronage, of favouritism and proscription, inflamed by the worst passions, and nurtured by the hope of gratifying a sordid ambition. The contest in Congress fixed his fate. Subsequent events were only consequences resulting from antecedent acts.

In the progress of this work no desire has been evinced, none is felt to screen Colonel Burr from censure where it is merited. But the man who can read, unmoved, the evidence which has already been presented of the injustice done him in the charge of having intrigued and negotiated with the federal party for the presidency, must possess more of philosophic than of generous or magnanimous feelings. It would seem that the task of recording the presidential contest in Congress, in the spring of 1801, was now brought to a close. But not so. There yet remains another and imposing view to be presented. Whatever may have been the wishes of Colonel Burr, it is certain that they were so far under his own control as to prevent him from entering into any negotiation, bargain, or intrigue to obtain the presidency. There is not the slightest evidence of any such attempt on his part, while there is strong, if not conclusive proof to the contrary. Can as much be said in favor of his great competitor on that occasion? This is the view that remains to be taken. But, before presenting the testimony in the case, some explanation is necessary as to the manner in which it was first obtained and subsequently made public.

In the year 1804, a suit was instituted by Colonel Burr against James Cheetham, editor of the American Citizen, for a libel, in charging him with intriguing for the presidency. This suit was commenced by Mr. Burr with reluctance, and only to gratify personal friends. It progressed tardily, impediments having been thrown in the way of bringing it to trial by the defendant, and probably the cause not sufficiently pressed by the complainant. In 1805 or 1806, some persons who were really desirous of ascertaining not only the truth or falsity of the charge, but whether there was any foundation for it, determined on having a wager-suit placed at issue on the records of the court, and then take out a commission to examine witnesses. Accordingly, the names of James Gillespie, plaintiff, and Abraham Smith, defendant, were used. The latter at the time being a clerk in the store of Matthew L. Davis, then in the mercantile business, trading under the firm of Strong & Davis.

It was universally believed, that if there were two men in Congress that could unfold the whole negotiation if any had taken place, those two men were James A. Bayard, of Delaware, and Samuel Smith, of Baltimore. The former, a federal gentleman of high standing, the sole representative of a state in the Congress of 1800, and thus possessing, at any moment, the power of deciding the contest in favour of Mr. Jefferson. The latter, a political and personal friend of Mr. Jefferson, and the very individual whom Colonel Burr had previously selected as his proxy to declare his sentiments, in case there was a tie between Mr. Jefferson and himself. A commission was accordingly taken out, and, on the 3d of April, 1806, Mr. Bayard and Mr. Smith were examined. No use, however, was made of these depositions until December, 1830, being a period of nearly twenty-five years.

On the publication of Mr. Jefferson's writings, the sons of the late James A. Bayard felt that the memory of their father had been wrongfully and unjustly assailed in two paragraphs in the fourth volume of this work. The first of these paragraphs, on the 28th of January, 1830, was read in the United States Senate by the Hon. Mr. Clayton, of Delaware, General Samuel Smith and Edward Livingston both being members of the Senate and present. He read the following:

"February 12, 1801. Edward Livingston tells me that Bayard applied to-day or last night to General Samuel Smith, and represented to him the expediency of coming over to the states who vote for Burr; that there was nothing in the way of appointment which he might not command, and particularly mentioned the secretaryship of the navy. Smith asked him if he was authorized to make the offer. He said he was authorized. Smith told this to Livingston and W. C. Nicholas, who confirms it to me," &c.

Mr. Clayton then called upon the senator from Maryland (Mr. Smith) and the senator from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) to disprove the statement here made by Mr. Jefferson.

Mr. Smith, of Maryland, rose and said "that he had read the paragraph before he came here to-day, and was, therefore, aware of its import. He had not the most distant recollection that Mr. Bayard had ever made such a proposition to him. Mr. Bayard, said he, and myself, though politically opposed, were intimate personal friends, and he was an honourable man. Of all men, Mr. Bayard would have been the last to make such a proposition to any man; and I am confident that he had too much respect for me to have made it under any circumstances. I never received from any man any such proposition."

Mr. Livingston, of Louisiana, said, "that as to the precise question which had been put to him by the senator from Delaware, he must say, that having taxed his recollection as far as it could go on so remote a transaction, he had no remembrance of it."

The sons of the late Mr. Bayard, not yet being satisfied as to the other paragraph, resolved on an investigation of the subject, and with this view one of them wrote the following letter. [2]

FROM RICHARD H. BAYARD.

Wilmington, March 8, 1830.

SIR,

In the fourth volume of Mr. Jefferson's Writings, lately published by his grandson, page 521, under the head of a note made April 15, 1806, occurs the following paragraph, after the detail of a conversation held with you about a month previously:—

"I did not commit these things to writing at the time, but I do now, because, in a suit between him and Cheetham, he has had a deposition of Mr. Bayard taken which seems to have no relation to the suit, nor to any other object than to calumniate me. Bayard pretends to have addressed to me, during the pending of the presidential election in February, 1801, through General Samuel Smith, certain conditions on which my election might be obtained; and that General Smith, after conversing with me, gave answers from me. This is absolutely false. No proposition of any kind was ever made to me on that occasion by General Smith, or any answer authorized by me. And this fact General Smith affirms at this moment."

Mr. Jefferson supposes this deposition to have been made in your suit against Cheetham. I have some reason to think he is mistaken as to the precise case in which it was made. However this may be, I am anxious to procure a copy of it, as returned with the commission under which it was taken.

If I may not be considered as trespassing too far on your time and attention, will you permit me to ask whether the deposition referred to by Mr. Jefferson is still in existence? In what case it was taken? And whether a copy of it can be procured?

I have the honour to be, respectfully,

Your obedient servant,

RICHARD H. BAYARD.

TO RICHARD H. BAYARD.

New-York, March 10, 1830.

SIR,

I have this day received your letter of the 8th inst., containing an extract from the fourth volume of the writings of Mr. Jefferson. I have not seen that book, and, on inquiry, do not learn that there is a copy in this city.

The suit referred to is not that of Cheetham, but one instituted, without my agency or knowledge, on a wager. The title not now recollected. A commission to take testimony was transmitted to me, then at Washington, and several depositions thereupon taken; copies of all of which may, no doubt, be found among the papers of the late Mr. Bayard.

A gentleman well informed of these matters is now at Albany, where I expect to meet him about the 20th inst., when it may be in my power to give you further satisfaction on the subject of your letter.

I pray in the mean time to be informed whether you are a son of the late Mr. Bayard. Or how, if at all related to him. And what use it is proposed to make of the communications you may receive. Permit me to add, it will at all times afford me great pleasure to gratify the family of Mr. Bayard on this or on any other occasion.

I have the honour to be, very respectfully,

A. BURR.

TO MATTHEW L. DAVIS.

New-York, March 15, 1830.

SIR,

I enclose you copies of a letter from Mr. Richard H. Bayard, with my answer, and have only to inquire whether I may refer to you to answer this letter of Mr. Bayard; your memory being better than mine, and I not having the depositions in question, or any copies thereof at this moment at my command. If you should write, please to enclose your letter to me. I think it was you who got up that suit. Pray give me the title and date.

I expect to be in Albany early next week. In your answer to this, let me know where to find you. God speed you.

A. BURR.

FROM MATTHEW L. DAVIS.

Albany, March 18, 1830.

SIR,

The irregularity of the mails has prevented my receiving your letter of the 15th inst., with its enclosures, until this day.

I have read Mr. Bayard's letter to you under date of the 8th inst. All the circumstances connected with the subject to which it refers are within my recollection; but, absent as I am from my papers, I am unwilling to speak with great confidence in relation to events which have occurred nearly thirty years since.

The deposition of Mr. Bayard, to which I presume Mr. Jefferson alludes in his memorandum of the 15th of April, 1806, was taken, as you remark, in the case of a wager. The title of the cause I do not now recollect; but Abraham Smith, a clerk in my store, was one of the parties, and I think the period was during the winter of 1805. It may have been a year later.

In that deposition Mr. Bayard states that a negotiation in regard to the pending election between Mr. Jefferson and Colonel Burr, in February, 1801, was entered into with Mr. Jefferson, through Mr. Nicholas, of Virginia, and General Samuel Smith, of Maryland; and that Mr. Jefferson did agree to certain stipulations or conditions therein specified. It is proper for me to add, that to both Robert G. Harper and General Smith the same interrogatories were propounded that were answered by Mr. Bayard, and that the testimony (if my memory is correct) of Mr. Bayard was, in every material point, sustained by both these gentlemen. These examinations were made under a commission issued out of the Supreme Court of our state.

Several copies of these depositions were made from the originals, and I have reason to believe that one copy of them was in the possession of Mr. Bayard or Mr. Harper, and another in the possession of Stephen R. Bradley, Esq., of Vermont. They were read by different gentlemen; among them, I think, was General John P. Van Ness, of Washington city, and Rundolph Bunner, Esq., late a member of Congress from this state, who, I have no doubt, can and would, if asked, detail their contents. I should suppose that General Smith would not only recollect the occurrences in February, 1801, but the contents also of the deposition to which he has sworn.

During the contest I was the advocate of Mr. Jefferson's election, and corresponded with different members of Congress; among the number were Edward Livingston and Albert Gallatin, Esquires. The letters I then received enumerated not only the doubtful states, but the doubtful men of both parties which were in Congress. These letters have been carefully preserved.

It is due to the character of the late Mr. Bayard to remark, that, so far as the circumstances have come to my knowledge, there was nothing in the transaction calculated in the slightest degree to impeach his fidelity to his party or his honour. The object of the negotiation was not to aggrandize or to elevate himself or his friends, but to secure and perpetuate certain cardinal points of federal policy.

I have not seen the works of Mr. Jefferson, but I will obtain and examine them with care and attention. The history of the times to which these memorandums and documents relate are enveloped in thick darkness. Whether the period has yet arrived when an effort should be made to dispel that darkness is problematical. The means, however, do exist of proving, to the satisfaction of the most skeptical, what are the facts in the case; and, consequently, of doing full justice to all the parties concerned; and that duty, however unpleasant, shall, at a proper crisis, be fairly, impartially, and fearlessly performed.

At my advanced age I do not wish to be drawn into newspaper controversies; nor can I be induced, prematurely, to make any publication on the subject alluded to in this letter. At the same time, you are at liberty to communicate the whole or any part of its contents to Mr. Bayard, in the expectation that it will be used discreetly.

Respectfully, your friend,

M. L. DAVIS.

GENERAL SAMUEL SMITH TO RICHARD H. BAYARD AND JAMES A. BAYARD.

Washington, April 3, 1830.

GENTLEMEN,

Ill health, and disinclination to go back to circumstances which happened thirty years past, has prevented an earlier answer to your letter. In the extract you have sent me from Mr. Jefferson's writings, it is said—"Bayard" (alluding to his deposition) "pretends to have addressed to me, during the pending of the presidential election in February, 1801, through General Smith, certain conditions on which my election might be obtained, and that General Smith, after conversing with me, gave answer for me. This is absolutely false. No proposition of any kind ever was made to me on that occasion by General Smith, or any answer authorized by me; and the fact General Smith affirms at this moment"—to wit, 15th of April, 1806. Yes, gentlemen, it was (I believe) on that day I put into the hands of Mr. Jefferson a press copy of my deposition in the case of Cheetham, [3] in which I perfectly recollect that I deny having ever received from Mr. Jefferson any proposition of any kind to be made by me to Mr. Bayard or any other person. Not, perhaps, in those words, but in detail to that effect; or having ever communicated any proposition of the kind as from Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Bayard.

My experience in life has shown that few men take advice unless it comports with their own views. I will, however, recommend that you let well enough alone. Your father was a bitter, most bitter enemy of Mr. Jefferson; his enmity was known to all, and, I presume, to Mr. Jefferson; it was therefore very natural for him to conclude that the suit of Cheetham had been got up for the express purpose of obtaining the oath of your father with the view of injuring him, and that your father had advised such a course. My recollection of what passed on the occasion is as strong as if it had happened yesterday. I will give you a detail in as few words as possible.

Two or three days before the election was terminated, a member, who I suppose had been deputed by the federal party, called on me to converse on the subject. I held little conversation with him. Your father then called on me, and said that he was anxious to put an end to the controversy; that, in case of dissolution, Delaware never could expect to obtain her present advantages; that, if satisfied on certain points, he would terminate the contest. He then went on to state those points: they were three or four. I can now remember only three, to wit—the funding system, the navy, and the retaining or dismissal of federalists then in office. I answered promptly that I could satisfy him fully on two of the points (which two I do not now recollect), for that I had had frequent conversations with him on them, and I stated what I understood and believed to be his opinions, and what I thought would be his rule of conduct; with which explanation your father expressed his entire satisfaction, and on the third requested that I would inform myself.

I lodged with Mr. Jefferson, and that night had a conversation with him, without his having the remotest idea of my object. Mr. Jefferson was a gentleman of extreme frankness with his friends; he conversed freely and frankly with them on all subjects, and gave his opinions without reserve. Some of them thought that he did so too freely. Satisfied with his opinion on the third point, I communicated to your father the next day—that, from the conversation that I had had with Mr. Jefferson, I was satisfied in my own mind that his conduct on that point would be so and so. But I certainly never did tell your father that I had any authority from Mr. Jefferson to communicate any thing to him or to any other person.

During the session of Congress of 1805-6, your father told me that a little lawyer in Delaware had (he supposed at the instance of Colonel Burr) endeavoured to get from him a deposition touching a conversation with me; that he had refused it; that Burr had, however, trumped up a suit for the sole purpose of coercing his deposition and mine, and said that a commission to take testimony was now in the city, and that he apprized me that I might be prepared. I asked him what he would state in his deposition. He answered similar to the quotation you have sent. I told him instantly that I had communicated to him my own opinion, [4] derived from conversation with Mr. Jefferson, and not one word from him to your father; and that my testimony would, as to that point, be in direct hostility. He then said, the little fellow will have our testimony by some means or other, and I will give mine. I answered that I would also. A few nights afterward Colonel Burr called on me. I told him that I had written my deposition, and would have a fair copy made of it. He said, trust it to me, and I will get Mr. ——- to copy it. I did so, and, on his returning it to me, I found words not mine interpolated in the copy. I struck out those words, had it copied again, and, to prevent all plea of false copying, I had a press copy taken of it. When I appeared before the commission, I found a deposition attached to that of your father, and asked how they came by that. They answered that it had been sent to them. I requested them to take it off; that I had the deposition in my hand to which alone I would swear; they did so, and my deposition was attached. The next day (I think) I called, and told Mr. Jefferson what had passed, read to him the press copy, and asked him if he recollected having given to me the opinions I had detailed. He answered that he did not, but it might be so, for that they were opinions he held and expressed to many of his friends, and as probably to me as any other, and then said that he would wish to have a copy. I told him that I had no use for it; he might, and I gave him the press copy.

You have now a tolerable full view of the case, and will see that no possible censure can attach to Mr. Jefferson; that a diversity of opinion will arise from publication as to your father's credibility or mine, and that both may suffer in the Public estimation. I will conclude that, during my long life, I have scarcely ever known an instance of newspaper publication between A. and B. that some obloquy did not attach to both parties.

I am, gentlemen, with respect,

Your obedient servant,

S. SMITH.

FROM RICHARD H. BAYARD.

Wilmington, Delaware, April 22, 1830.

SIR,

I have just received your letter of the 10th ult., in answer to mine of the 8th, the reason of which delay is to be found in the fact of your having directed it to Wilmington, North Carolina. It was accordingly conveyed to that place, and was returned and received by me this morning.

I reply to your inquiries that I am the eldest son of the late James
A. Bayard, and that the object which I have in view is the vindication
of his character from the aspersion contained in the passage in Mr.
Jefferson's writings, a copy of which I sent you.

It is true that among my father's papers I have found rough copies of the deposition made in your suit against Cheetham, as well as of that made in the wager case. Together with the first-named deposition there is also a copy of the interrogatories; but, in the latter case, simply a rough copy of the deposition, without title, or any memorandum of the names of the parties. You will perceive at once the necessity of accompanying the deposition in the wager case with its title and a copy of the interrogatories, in order to show, in the first place, Mr. Jefferson's error in the statement of the case, and, secondly, to refute his assertion that the deposition had "nothing to do with the suit, or with any other object than to calumniate him."

The subsequent part of his statement will be met by the deposition itself, by reference to concomitant circumstances, and such corroborating testimony as time has spared. Being anxious to avoid all room for cavil, by publishing the depositions as returned with the respective commissions, lest, perchance, there should be some slight verbal inaccuracies, I applied to you, believing it was in your power to give the information necessary to enable me to procure certified copies of the record.

You have thus, Sir, an entire exposition of my motives for addressing you my letter of the 8th ult.; and, in conformity with the sentiment you are so good as to express in the conclusion of your letter, I doubt not you will furnish me with such information as you possess on the subject.

I wrote some time since to Mr. Edward N. Rogers, of your city, to procure for me copies of my father's and General Samuel Smith's depositions in both cases. He informs me, by his letter of the 17th inst., that the depositions in your suit against Cheetham are not to be found in the office; that the case went off by default, and he supposes they were never filed. At all events, the clerk cannot now find them.

You will probably be able to state what became of them, and whether copies can be procured. I will ask of you, therefore, the favour to communicate to him information on this point, as well as the name of the wager case, that he may be enabled to comply with my request, with the execution of which he has been so kind as to charge himself.

I have the honour to be, respectfully,

Your obedient servant,

RICHARD H. BAYARD.

Footnotes:

1. See Ch. V.

2. It is considered proper to state here that the correspondence which follows is published without the privity or consent of either of the Mr. Bayards. It is found among the papers of Colonel Burr, and is intimately connected with a history of the transaction.

3. The suit was James Gillespie vs. Abraham Smith. See deposition.

4. Will the reader examine the deposition, especially what relates to Mr. McLean and Mr. Latimer?

CHAPTER VIII.

The necessary information having been given to Mr. Bayard to enable him to procure the depositions of his father and General Smith, they were accordingly obtained from Mr. Bradley, of Vermont. Before presenting them, it may not be improper to give the letters of two members of Congress, one of which enters somewhat into a history of the case, and both of which negatives, in the most positive manner, any attempt of Colonel Burr, or any person acting in his behalf, to negotiate, bargain, or intrigue with the federal party for the office of president.

WILLIAM COOPER TO THOMAS MORRIS. [1]

Washington, February 10, 1801.

DEAR SIR,

We have this day locked ourselves up by a rule to proceed to choose a president before we adjourn. * * * * * * * We shall run Burr perseveringly. You shall hear of the result instantly after the fact is ascertained. A little good management would have secured our object on the first vote, but now it is too late for any operations to be gone into, except that of adhering to Burr, and leave the consequences to those who have heretofore been his friends. If we succeed, a faithful support must, on our part, be given to his administration, which, I hope, will be wise and energetic.

Your friend,

W. COOPER.

WILLIAM COOPER TO THOMAS MORRIS.

February 13, 1801.

DEAR SIR,

We have postponed, until to-morrow 11 o'clock, the voting for president. All stand firm. Jefferson eight—Burr six—divided two. Had Burr done any thing for himself, he would long ere this have been president. If a majority would answer, he would have it on every vote.

FROM JAMES A. BAYARD TO ALEXANDER HAMILTON.

Washington, January 7, 1801.

DEAR SIR,

I have been but a few days in this city; but, since my arrival, have had the pleasure to receive the letter which you did me the honour to write on the 27th ult. I am fully sensible of the great importance of the subject to which it relates, and am, therefore, extremely obliged by the information you have been so good as to communicate.

* * * * *

It is considered that at least, in the first instance, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, New-Jersey, and New-York will vote for Mr. Jefferson. It is probable that Maryland and Vermont will be divided. It is therefore counted, that upon the first ballot it would be possible to give to Mr. Burr six votes. It is calculated, however, and strongly insisted by some gentlemen, that a persevering opposition to Mr. Jefferson would bring over New-York, New-Jersey, and Maryland. What is the probability relative to New-York?—your means enable you to form the most correct opinion. As to New-Jersey and Maryland, it would depend on Mr. Linn of the former and Mr. Dent of the latter state.

I assure you, sir, there appears to be a strong inclination in a majority of the federal party to support Mr. Burr. The current has already acquired considerable force, and is manifestly increasing. The vote which the representation of a state enables me to give would decide the question in favour of Mr. Jefferson. At present I am by no means decided as to the object of preference. If the federal party should take up Mr. Burr, I ought certainly to be impressed with the most undoubting conviction before I separated myself from them. I cannot, however, deny that there are strong considerations which give a preference to Mr. Jefferson. The subject admits of many and very doubtful views; and, before I resolve on the part I shall take, I will await the approach of the crisis, which may probably bring with it circumstances decisive of the event.

The federal party meet on Friday for the purpose of forming a resolution as to their line of conduct. I have not the least doubt of their agreeing to support Colonel Burr. Their determination will not bind me; for though it might cost me a painful struggle to disappoint the views and wishes of many gentlemen with whom I have been accustomed to act, yet the magnitude of the subject forbids the sacrifice of a strong conviction.

I cannot answer for the coherence of my letter, as I have undertaken to write to you from the chamber of representatives, with an attention divided by the debate which occupies the house. I have not considered myself at liberty to show your letter to any one, though I think it would be serviceable, if you could trust my discretion in the communication of it.

With great consideration,

Your obedient servant,

JAMES A. BAYARD.

GEORGE BAER TO RICHARD H. BAYARD.

Frederick, April 19, 1830

SIR,

In compliance with your request, I now communicate to you my recollections of the events of the presidential election by the House of Representatives in 1801. There has been no period of our political history more misunderstood and more grossly misrepresented. The course adopted by the federal party was one of principle, and not of faction; and I think the present a suitable occasion for explaining the views and motives at least of those gentlemen who, having it in their power to decide the election at any moment, were induced to protract it for a time, but ultimately to withdraw their opposition to Mr. Jefferson.

I have no hesitation in saying that the facts stated in the deposition of your father, the late James A. Bayard, so far as they came to my knowledge, are substantially correct; and although nearly thirty years have elapsed since that eventful period, my recollection is vivid as to the principal circumstances, which, from the part I was called upon to act, were deeply graven on my memory. As soon as it was generally known that the two democratic candidates, Jefferson and Burr, had the highest and an equal number of votes, and that the election would consequently devolve on the House of Representatives, Mr. Dent, who had hitherto acted with the federal party, declared his intention to vote for Mr. Jefferson, in consequence of which determination the vote of Maryland was divided.

It was soon ascertained that there were six individuals, the vote of any one of whom could at any moment decide the election. These were, your father, the late James A. Bayard, who held the vote of the state of Delaware; General Morris, of Vermont, who held the divided vote of that state; and Mr. Craik, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Dennis, and myself, who held the divided vote of Maryland. Much anxiety was shown by the friends of Mr. Jefferson, and much ingenuity used to discover the line of conduct which would be pursued by them. Deeply impressed with the responsibility which attached to their peculiar situation, and conscious that the American people looked to them for a president, they could not rashly determine either to surrender their constitutional discretion, or disappoint the expectations of their fellow-citizens.

Your father, Mr. Craik, and myself having compared ideas upon the subject, and finding that we entertained the same views and opinions, resolved to act together, and accordingly entered into a solemn and mutual pledge that we would in the first instance yield to the wishes of the great majority of the party with whom we acted, and vote for Mr. Burr, but that no consideration should induce us to protract the contest beyond a reasonable period for the purpose of ascertaining whether he could be elected. We determined that a president should be chosen, but were willing thus far to defer to the opinions of our political friends, whose preference of Mr. Burr was founded upon a belief that he was less hostile to federal men and federal measures than Mr. Jefferson. General Morris and Mr. Dennis concurred in this arrangement.

The views by which the federal party were governed were these:—They held that the Constitution had vested in the House of Representatives a high discretion in a case like the present, to be exercised for the benefit of the nation; and that, in the execution of this delegated power, an honest and unbiased judgment was the measure of their responsibility. They were less certain of the hostility of Mr. Burr to federal policy than of that of Mr. Jefferson, which was known and decided. Mr. Jefferson had identified himself with, and was at the head of the party in Congress who had opposed every measure deemed necessary by the federalists for putting the country in a posture of defence; such as fortifying the harbours and seaports, establishing manufactories of arms; erecting arsenals, and filling them with arms and ammunition; erecting a navy for the defence of commerce, &c. His speculative opinions were known to be hostile to the independence of the judiciary, to the financial system of the country, and to internal improvements. All these matters the federalists believed to be intimately blended with the prosperity of the nation, and they deprecated, therefore, the elevation of a man to the head of the government whose hostility to them was open and avowed. It was feared, too, from his prejudices against the party which supported them, that he would dismiss all public officers who differed with him in sentiment, without regard to their qualifications and honesty, but on the ground only of political character. The House of Representatives adopted certain resolutions for their government during the election, one of which was that there should be no adjournment till it was decided.

On the 11th February, 1801, being the day appointed by law for counting the votes of the electoral colleges, the House of Representatives proceeded in a body to the Senate chamber, where the vice-president, in view of both houses of Congress, opened the certificates of the electors of the different states; and, as the votes were read, the tellers on the part of each house counted and took lists of them, which, being compared and delivered to him, he announced to both houses the state of the votes; which was, for Thomas Jefferson 73 votes, for Aaron Burr 73 votes, for John Adams 65 votes, for Charles Pinckney 64 votes, for John Jay one vote; and then declared that the greatest number and majority of votes being equal, the choice had devolved on the House of Representatives. The members of the house then withdrew to their own chamber, and proceeded to ballot for a president. On the first ballot it was found that Thomas Jefferson had the votes of eight states, Aaron Burr of six states, and that two were divided. As there were sixteen states, and a majority was necessary to determine the election, Mr. Jefferson wanted the vote of one state. Thus the result which had been anticipated was realized.

The balloting continued throughout that day and the following night, at short intervals, with the same result, the 26th ballot being taken at 8 o'clock on the morning of the 12th of February. The balloting continued with the same result from day to day till the 17th of February, without any adjournment of the house. On the previous day (February 16), a consultation was held by the gentlemen I have mentioned, when, being satisfied that Mr. Burr could not be elected, as no change had taken place in his favour, and there was no evidence of any effort on the part of himself or his personal friends to procure his election, it was resolved to abandon the contest. This determination was made known to the federal members generally, and excited some discontent among the violent of the party, who thought it better to go without a president than to elect Mr. Jefferson. A general meeting, however, of the federal members was called, and the subject explained, when it was admitted that Mr. Burr could not be elected. A few individuals persisted in their resolution not to vote for Mr. Jefferson, but the great majority wished the election terminated and a president chosen. Having also received assurances from a source on which we placed reliance that our wishes with regard to certain points of federal policy in which we felt a deep interest would be observed in case Mr. Jefferson was elected, the opposition of Vermont, Delaware, and Maryland was withdrawn, and on the 36th ballot your father, the late James A. Bayard, put in a blank ballot, myself and my colleagues did the same, and General Morris absented himself. The South Carolina federalists also put in blank ballots. Thus terminated that memorable contest.

Previous to and pending the election, rumours were industriously circulated, and letters written to different parts of the country, charging the federalists with the design to prevent the election of a president, and to usurp the government by an act of legislative power. Great anxiety and apprehensions were created in the minds of all, and of none more than the federalists generally, who were not apprized of the determination of those gentlemen who held the power, and were resolved to terminate the contest when the proper period arrived. But neither these rumours, nor the excitement produced by them, nor the threats made by their opponents to resist by force such a measure, had the least influence on the conduct of those gentlemen. They knew the power which they possessed, and were conscious of the uprightness of their views, and of the safety and constitutional character of the course they had adopted. I was privy to all the arrangements made, and attended all the meetings of the federal party when consulting on the course to be pursued in relation to the election; and I pledge my most solemn asseveration that no such measure was ever for a moment contemplated by that party; that no such proposition was ever made; and that, if it had ever been, it would not only have been discouraged, but instantly put down by those gentlemen who possessed the power, and were pledged to each other to elect a president before the close of the session.

I am respectfully, Sir,

Your most obedient servant,

GEORGE BAER.

INTERROGATORIES to be administered to James A. Bayard, Esq., of the state of Delaware, late a member of Congress for the United States from the said state of Delaware, a witness to be produced, sworn, and examined in a cause now depending in the Supreme Court of Judicature of the state of New-York, between Aaron Burr, plaintiff, and James Cheetham, defendant, on the part of the defendant.

1st. Do you know the parties, plaintiff and defendant, or either and which of them, and how long have you known them respectively?

2d. Were you a member of the House of Representatives, in Congress of the United States, from the state of Delaware, in the sessions holden in the months of January and February, in the year 1801?

3d. Was there not an equal number of votes for Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, as president and vice-president of the said United States, at the election for those officers in the December preceding, and did not the choice of a president consequently devolve on the said House of Representatives?

4th. Did not the said house ballot for the president several times before a choice was made? if so, how many times? Was not the frequency of balloting occasioned by an attempt on the part of several members of Congress to elect the said plaintiff, Aaron Burr, as president? Do you know who such members were? if so, what were their names?

5th. Do you know that any measures were suggested or pursued by any person or persons to secure the election of Aaron Burr to the presidency? if so, who were such person or persons? Did he, the said Aaron Burr, know thereof? Were there any letter or letters written communicating such an intention? if so, were such letter or letters forwarded to him through the postoffice by any person, and who? Has he not informed you, or have you not understood (and if so, how?) that he was apprized that an attempt would be made to secure his election?

6th. Did he or any other person (and if so, who?) ever communicate to you, by writing or otherwise, or to any other person or persons to your knowledge, that any measure had been suggested or would be pursued to secure his election? When were these communications made?

7th. Had not some of the federal members of Congress a meeting at Washington, in the month of December, 1800, or of January or of February, 1801, at which it was determined to support Aaron Burr for the presidency? Or if there were any meeting or meetings to your knowledge, in respect to the ensuing election for a president of the United States in the said House of Representatives, what was advised or concluded upon, to the best of your remembrance or belief? Was not David A. Ogden, of the city of New-York, attorney at law, authorized or requested by you, or some other member or members of Congress, or some other person, and who in particular, to call upon the plaintiff and inquire of him—

1st. What conduct he would pursue in respect to certain cardinal points of federal policy?

2d. What co-operation or aid the plaintiff could or would afford towards securing his own election to the presidency? or if you or some other person did not authorize or request the said David A. Ogden to make such communication to the plaintiff in exact terms, what, in substance, was such authority or request? Do you know, or were you informed by the said David A. Ogden or otherwise, that he or any other person had made the said communication to the plaintiff, or the same in substance? Do you know, or have you been informed (and if so, how?) that the plaintiff declared, as to the first question, it would not be expedient to enter into explanations, or words to that effect? That, as to the second question, New-York and Tennessee would vote for him on a second ballot, and New-Jersey might be induced to do the same, or words to that effect? Did you ever communicate with the plaintiff, or he with you, on the subject? Do you know any person who did communicate with him? and if so, what did he say?

Did you not receive a letter or letters from Alexander Hamilton, of New-York, and late Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, now deceased, in the month of January or February, 1801, or at some other time, and when, respecting the election of a president of the United States? Did he not communicate to you that the said David A. Ogden had been requested to see the plaintiff for the purposes aforesaid? And what in particular were the contents of such letters or letter, or communication? Do you know that any, and if so, what measures were suggested or pursued to secure the election of said plaintiff as president; and did the said plaintiff know, or was he informed thereof, or what did he know, or of what was he informed? Had you any reason or reasons to believe that any of the states would relinquish Thomas Jefferson and vote for Aaron Burr as president in the said election in the said House of Representatives, or that the said Aaron Burr calculated on such relinquishment? If so, which state or states, and what was the reason or reasons of such belief?

8th. Do you know any matter, circumstance, or thing which can be material to the defendant in this cause? If yea, set the same forth fully and particularly.

Interrogatory on the part of the plaintiff.—Do you know of any matter or thing that may be beneficial to the plaintiff on the trial of this cause? If so, declare the same fully and at length, in the same manner as if you had been particularly interrogated thereto.

Miller & Van Wyck, Attorneys for Defendant.

Approved, March 6, 1805.

B. Livingston.

The deposition of James A. Bayard, sworn and examined on the twenty —— day of ——, in the year of our Lord 1805, at Wilmington, in the state of Delaware, by virtue of a commission issuing out of the Supreme Court of Judicature of the state of New-York, to John Vaughan, —— or any two of them, directed for the examination of the said James A. Bayard, in a cause there depending between Aaron Burr, plaintiff, and James Cheetham, defendant, on the part and behalf of the defendant.

1st. To the first interrogatory this deponent answers and says, As a member of the House of Representatives, I paid a visit of ceremony to the plaintiff on the fourth of March, in the year 1801, and was introduced to him. I had no acquaintance with him before that period. I had no knowledge of the defendant but what was derived from his general reputation before the last session of Congress, when a personal acquaintance commenced upon my becoming a member of the Senate.

2d. To the second interrogatory, this deponent saith, I was.

3d. To the third interrogatory this deponent saith, There was an equality of electoral votes for Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Burr, and the choice of one of them did, of consequence, devolve on the House of Representatives.

4th. To the fourth interrogatory this deponent saith, The house resolved into states, balloted for a president a number of times, the exact number is not at present in my recollection, before a choice was made. The frequency of balloting was occasioned by the preference given by the federal side of the house to Mr. Burr. With the exception of Mr. Huger, of South Carolina, I recollect no federal member who did not concur in the general course of balloting for Mr. Burr. I cannot name each member. The federal members at that time composed a majority of the house, though not of the states. Their names can be ascertained by the journals of the House of Representatives.

5th. To the fifth interrogatory this deponent saith, I know of no measures but those of argument and persuasion which were used to secure the election of Mr. Burr to the presidency. Several gentlemen of the federal party doubted the practicability of electing Mr. Burr, and the policy of attempting it. Before the election came on there were several meetings of the party to consider the subject. It was frequently debated, and most of the gentlemen who had adopted a decided opinion in favour of his election employed their influence and address to convince those who doubted of the propriety of the measure. I cannot tell whether Mr. Burr was acquainted with what passed at our meetings. But I neither knew nor heard of any letter being written to him on the subject. He never informed me, nor have I reason to believe, further than inference, from the open professions and public course pursued by the federal party, that he was apprized that an attempt would be made to secure his election.

6th. To the sixth interrogatory the deponent saith, Mr. Burr, or any person on his behalf, never did communicate to me in writing or otherwise, or to any other persons of which I have any knowledge, that any measures had been suggested or would be pursued to secure his election. Preceding the day of the election, in the course of the session, the federal members of Congress had a number of general meetings, the professed and sole purpose of which was to consider the propriety of giving their support to the election of Mr. Burr. The general sentiment of the party was strongly in his favour. Mr. Huger, I think, could not be brought to vote for him. Mr. Craik and Mr. Baer, of Maryland, and myself, were those who acquiesced with the greatest difficulty and hesitation. I did not believe Mr. Burr could be elected, and thought it vain to make the attempt; but I was chiefly influenced by the current of public sentiment, which I thought it neither safe nor politic to counteract. It was, however, determined by the party, without consulting Mr. Burr, to make the experiment whether he could be elected. Mr. Ogden never was authorized or requested by me, nor any member of the house to my knowledge, to call upon Mr. Burr, and to make any propositions to him of any kind or nature. I remember Mr. Ogden's being at Washington while the election was depending. I spent one or two evenings in his company at Stiller's hotel, in small parties, and we recalled an acquaintance of very early life, which had been suspended by a separation of eighteen or twenty years. I spent not a moment with Mr. Ogden in private. It was reported that he was an agent for Mr. Burr, or it was understood that he was in possession of declarations of Mr. Burr that he would serve as president if elected. I never questioned him on the subject. Although I considered Mr. Burr personally better qualified to fill the office of president than Mr. Jefferson, yet, for a reason above suggested, I felt no anxiety for his election, and I presumed if Mr. Ogden came on any errand from Mr. Burr, or was desirous of making any disclosures relative to his election, he would do it without any application from me. But Mr. Ogden or any other person never did make any communication to me from Mr. Burr, nor do I remember having any conversation with him relative to the election. I never had any communication, directly or indirectly, with Mr. Burr in relation to his election to the presidency. I was one of those who thought from the beginning that the election of Mr. Burr was not practicable. The sentiment was frequently and openly expressed. I remember it was generally said by those who wished a perseverance in the opposition to Mr. Jefferson, that several democratic states were more disposed to vote for Mr. Burr than for Mr. Jefferson; that, out of complaisance to the known intention of the party, they would vote a decent length of time for Mr. Jefferson, and, as soon as they could excuse themselves by the imperious situation of affairs, would give their votes for Mr. Burr, the man they really preferred. The states relied upon for this change were New-York, New-Jersey, Vermont, and Tennessee. I never, however, understood that any assurance to this effect came from Mr. Burr. Early in the election it was reported that Mr. Edward Livingston, the representative of the city of New-York, was the confidential agent for Mr. Burr, and that Mr. Burr had committed himself entirely to the discretion of Mr. Livingston, having agreed to adopt all his acts. I took an occasion to sound Mr. Livingston on the subject, and intimated that, having it in my power to terminate the contest, I should do so, unless he could give me some assurance that we might calculate upon a change in the votes of some of the members of his party. Mr. Livingston stated that he felt no great concern as to the event of the election, but he disclaimed any agency from Mr. Burr, or any connexion with him on the subject, and any knowledge of Mr. Burr's designing to co-operate in support of his election.

7th. The deponent, answering that part of the seventh interrogatory which relates to letters received from the late Alexander Hamilton, says, I did receive, in the course of the winter of 1801, several letters from General Hamilton on the subject of the election, but the name of David A. Ogden is not mentioned in any of them. The general design and effect of these letters was to persuade me to vote for Mr. Jefferson, and not for Mr. Burr. The letters contain very strong reasons; and a very earnest opinion against the election of Mr. Burr. In answer to the residue of the same interrogatory, the deponent saith, I repeat that I know of no means used to promote the election of Mr. Burr but persuasion. I am wholly ignorant of what the plaintiff was apprized of in relation to the election, as I had no communication with him directly or indirectly; and as to the expectation of a change of votes from Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Burr, I never knew a better ground for it than the opinions and calculations of a number of members.

8th. In answer to the eighth interrogatory the deponent saith, I know of nothing which, in my opinion, can be of service to the defendant in the cause.

To the interrogatory on the part of the plaintiff the deponent answers, Having yielded, with Messrs. Craik and Baer, of Maryland, to the strong desire of the great body of the party with whom we usually acted, and agreed to vote for Mr. Burr, and those gentlemen and myself being governed by the same views and motives, we pledged ourselves to each other to pursue the same line of conduct and act together. We felt that some concession was due to the judgment of the great majority of our political friends who differed with us in opinion, but we determined that no consideration should make us lose sight for a moment of the necessity of a president being chosen. We therefore resolved, that as soon as it was fairly ascertained that Mr. Burr could not be elected, to give our votes to Mr. Jefferson. General Morris, of Vermont, shortly after acceded to this arrangement. The result of the ballot of the states had uniformly been eight states for Mr. Jefferson, six for Mr. Burr, and two divided. Mr. Jefferson wanted the vote of one state only; those three gentlemen belonged to the divided states; I held the vote of the state of Delaware; it was therefore in the power of either of us to terminate the election. These gentlemen, knowing the strong interest of my state to have a president, and knowing the sincerity of my determination to make one, left it to me to fix the time when the opposition should cease, and to make terms, if any could be accomplished, with the friends of Mr. Jefferson. I took pains to disclose this state of things in such a manner that it might be known to the friends of Mr. Burr, and to those gentlemen who were believed to be most disposed to change their votes in his favour. I repeatedly stated to many gentlemen with whom I was acting that it was a vain thing to protract the election, as it had become manifest that Mr. Burr would not assist us, and as we could do nothing without his aid. I expected, under these circumstances, if there were any latent engines at work in Mr. Burr's favour, the plan of operations would be disclosed to me; but, although I had the power, and threatened to terminate the election, I had not even an intimation from any friend of Mr. Burr's that it would be desirable to them to protract it. I never did discover that Mr. Burr used the least influence to promote the object we had in view. And being completely persuaded that Mr. Burr would not co-operate with us, I determined to end the contest by voting for Mr. Jefferson. I publicly announced the intention, which I designed to carry into effect the next day. In the morning of the day there was a general meeting of the party, where it was generally admitted Mr. Burr could not be elected; but some thought it was better to persist in our vote, and to go without a president rather than to elect Mr. Jefferson. The greater number, however, wished the election terminated, and a president made; and in the course of the day the manner was settled, which was afterward adopted, to end the business.

Mr. Burr probably might have put an end sooner to the election by coming forward and declaring that he would not serve if chosen; but I have no reason to believe, and never did think that he interfered, even to the point of personal influence, to obstruct the election of Mr. Jefferson or to promote his own.

Interrogatories to be administered to witnesses to be produced, sworn, and examined in a certain cause now depending and at issue in the Supreme Court of Judicature of the people of the state of New-York, wherein James Gillespie is plaintiff, and Abraham Smith defendant, on the behalf of the defendant.

1st. Do you or do you not know Thomas Jefferson, president of the United States? If yea, declare the same, together with the time when you first became acquainted with him.

2d. Was you a member of the House of Representatives of the United States, at Washington, in the session of 1800 and 1801? If yea, state the time particularly.

3d. Do you or do you not know that in the years 1800 and 1801, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr had each an equal number of votes given by the electors for president and vice-president of the United States, and that consequently the right of electing a president devolved upon the House of Representatives of the United States? State your knowledge herein particularly.

4th. Do you or do you not know, or have you heard so that you believe, of any negotiations, bargains, or agreements, in the year 1800 or 1801, after the said equality became known and before the choice of the president, by or on behalf of any person, and whom, with the parties called federal or republican, or either of them, or with any individual or individuals, and whom, of either of the said parties, relative to the office of president of the United States? If yea, declare the particulars thereof, and the reasons of such your belief.

5th. Do you or do you not know Aaron Burr, late vice-president of the United States? If yea, declare the same, with the time when your acquaintance commenced.

6th. Do you know, or have you heard so that you believe, of any negotiations, bargains, or agreements in the year 1800 or 1801, by or on behalf of the said Aaron Burr, or by or on behalf of any other person, and whom, with the parties called federal or republican, or either of them, or with any individual, and whom, of the said parties, relative to the office of president of the United States? If yea, declare the same, with all the particulars thereof, and the reasons of such your belief.

7th. Did you receive any letters from the said Aaron Burr after the said equality of votes was known and before the final choice of a president? If yea, what was the tenour of such letter? Did the conduct of the said Aaron Burr correspond with the declarations contained in the said letter? Declare your knowledge and belief, together with the grounds and reasons thereof.

Deposition of the Honourable James A. Bayard, a witness produced, sworn, and examined in a cause depending in the Supreme Court of the state of New-York, between James Gillespie, plaintiff, and Abraham Smith, defendant, on the part of the plaintiff, follows.

To the first interrogatory deponent answers and says, I do not know either the plaintiff or defendant.

To the second interrogatory he answers and says, I was personally acquainted with Thomas Jefferson before he became president of the United States, the precise length of time I do not recollect. The acquaintance did not extend beyond the common salutation upon meeting, and accidental conversation upon such meetings.

To the third interrogatory he answers and says, I was a member of the House of Representatives of the United States, during the fifth, sixth, and seventh Congresses, from the 3d of March, 1797, to the 3d of May, 1803.

To the fourth interrogatory he answers and says, The electoral votes for Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr for president of the United States were equal, and that the choice of one of them as president did devolve on the House of Representatives.

To the fifth interrogatory he answers and says, I presume this interrogatory points to an occurrence which took place before the choice of president was made, and after the balloting had continued for several days, of which I have often publicly spoken. My memory enables me to state the transaction in substance correctly, but not to be answerable for the precise words which were used upon the occasion. Messrs. Baer and Craik, members of the House of Representatives from Maryland, and General Morris, a member of the house from Vermont, and myself, having the power to determine the votes of the states from similarity of views and opinions during the pendency of the election, made an agreement to vote together. We foresaw that a crisis was approaching which might probably force us to separate in our votes from the party with whom we usually acted. We were determined to make a president, and the period of Mr. Adams's administration was rapidly approaching.

In determining to recede from the opposition to Mr. Jefferson, it occurred to us that probably, instead of being obliged to surrender at discretion, we might obtain terms of capitulation. The gentlemen whose names I have mentioned authorized me to declare their concurrence with me upon the best terms that could be procured. The vote of either of us was sufficient to decide the choice. With a view to the end mentioned, I applied to Mr. John Nicholas, a member of the house from Virginia, who was a particular friend of Mr. Jefferson. I stated to Mr. Nicholas that if certain points of the future administration could be understood and arranged with Mr. Jefferson, I was authorized to say that three states would withdraw from an opposition to his election. He asked me what those points were: I answered, First, sir, the support of the public credit; secondly, the maintenance of the naval system; and, lastly, that subordinate public officers employed only in the execution of details established by law shall not be removed from office on the ground of their political character, nor without complaint against their conduct. I explained myself that I considered it not only reasonable, but necessary, that offices of high discretion and confidence should be filled by men of Mr. Jefferson's choice. I exemplified by mentioning, on the one hand, the offices of the secretaries of state, treasury, foreign ministers, &c., and, on the other, the collectors of ports, &c. Mr. Nicholas answered me that he considered the points as very reasonable; that he was satisfied that they corresponded with the views and intentions of Mr. Jefferson, and knew him well. That he was acquainted with most of the gentlemen who would probably be about him and enjoying his confidence in case he became president, and that, if I would be satisfied with his assurance, he could solemnly declare it as his opinion that Mr. Jefferson, in his administration, would not depart from the points I had proposed. I replied to Mr. Nicholas that I had not the least doubt of the sincerity of his declaration, and that his opinion was perfectly correct; but that I wanted an engagement, and that, if the points could in any form be understood as conceded by Mr. Jefferson, the election should be ended; and proposed to him to consult Mr. Jefferson. This he declined, and said he could do no more than give me the assurance of his own opinion as to the sentiments and designs of Mr. Jefferson and his friends. I told him that was not sufficient—that we should not surrender without better terms. Upon this we separated; and I shortly after met with General Smith, to whom I unfolded myself in the same manner that I had done to Mr. Nicholas. In explaining myself to him in relation to the nature of the offices alluded to, I mentioned the offices of George Latimer, [2] collector of the port of Philadelphia, and Allen M'Lane, collector of Wilmington. General Smith gave me the same assurances as to the observance by Mr. Jefferson of the points which I had stated which Mr. Nicholas had done. I told him I should not be satisfied or agree to yield till I had the assurance of Mr. Jefferson himself; but that, if he would consult Mr. Jefferson, and bring the assurance from him, the election should be ended. The general made no difficulty in consulting Mr. Jefferson, and proposed giving me his answer the next morning. The next day, upon our meeting, General Smith informed me that he had seen Mr. Jefferson, and stated to him the points mentioned, and was authorized by him to say that they corresponded with his views and intentions, and that we might confide in him accordingly. The opposition of Vermont, Maryland, and Delaware was immediately withdrawn, and Mr. Jefferson was made president by the votes of ten states.

To the sixth interrogatory the deponent answers and says, I was introduced to Mr. Burr the day of Mr. Jefferson's inauguration as president. I had no acquaintance with him before, and very little afterward, till the last winter of his vice-presidency, when I became a member of the Senate of the United States.

To the seventh interrogatory the deponent answers and says, I do not know, nor did I ever believe, from any information I received, that Mr. Burr entered into any negotiation or agreement with any member of either party in relation to the presidential election which depended before the House of Representatives.

To the eighth interrogotary the deponent answers and says, Upon the subject of this interrogatory I can express only a loose opinion, founded upon the conjectures at the time of what could be effected by Mr. Burr by mortgaging the patronage of the executive. I can only say, generally, that I did believe at the time that he had the means of making himself president. But this opinion has no other ground than conjecture, derived from a knowledge of means which existed, and, if applied, their probable operation on individual characters. In answer to the last part of the interrogatory, deponent says, I know of nothing of which Mr. Burr was apprized which related to the election.

(Signed) J. A. Bayard.

District of Columbia, Washington.

The deposition of the Honourable James A. Bayard, consisting of six pages, was taken and sworn to before us, this 3d day of April, A. D. 1806.

STEPHEN R. BRADLEY.

GEORGE LOGAN.

Deposition of the Honourable Samuel Smith, Senator of the United States for the state of Maryland, a witness produced, sworn, and examined in a cause depending in the Supreme Court of the state of New-York, between James Gillespie, plaintiff, and Abraham Smith, defendant, on the part and behalf of the defendant, as follows:

1st. I knew Thomas Jefferson some years previous to 1800; the precise time when our acquaintance commenced I do not recollect.

2d and 3d. I was a member of the House of Representatives of the United States in 1800 and 1801, and know that Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr had an equal number of the votes given by the electors of president and vice-president of the United States.

4th. Presuming that this question may have reference to conversations (for I know of no bargains or agreements) which took place at the time of the balloting, I will relate those which I well recollect to have had with three gentlemen, separately, of the federal party. On the Wednesday preceding the termination of the election, Colonel Josiah Parker asked a conversation with me in private. He said that many gentlemen were desirous of putting an end to the election; that they only wanted to know what would be the conduct of Mr. Jefferson in case he should be elected president, particularly as it related to the public debt, to commerce, and the navy. I had heard Mr. Jefferson converse on all those subjects lately, and informed him what, I understood were the opinions of that gentleman. I lived in the house with Mr. Jefferson, and, that I might be certain that what I bad said was correct, I sought and had a conversation that evening with him on those points, and, I presume, though I do not precisely recollect, that I communicated to him the conversation which I had with Colonel Parker.

The next day General Dayton (a senator), after some jesting conversation, asked me to converse with him in private. We retired. He said that he, with some other gentlemen, wished to have a termination put to the pending election; but be wished to know what were the opinions or conversations of Mr. Jefferson respecting the navy, commerce, and the public debt. In answer, I said that I had last night had conversation with Mr. Jefferson on all those subjects; that be had told me that any opinion be should give at this time might be attributed to improper motives; that to me he had no hesitation in saying that, as to the public debt, he had been averse to the manner of funding it, but that he did not believe there was any man who respected his own character who would or could think of injuring its credit at this time; that, on commerce, he thought that a correct idea of his opinions on that subject might be derived from his writings, and particularly from his conduct while he was minister at Paris, when be thought he had evinced his attention to the commercial interest of his country; that he had not changed opinion, and still did consider the prosperity of our commerce as essential to the true interest of the nation; that on the navy he had fully expressed his opinions in his Notes on Virginia; that he adhered still to his ideas then given; that he believed our growing commerce would call for protection; that he had been averse to a too rapid increase of our navy; that he believed a navy must naturally grow out of our commerce, but thought prudence would advise its increase to progress with the increase of the nation, and that in this way he was friendly to the establishment. General Dayton appeared pleased with the conversation, and (I think) said, that if this conversation had taken place earlier, much trouble might have been saved, or words to that effect.

At the funeral of Mr. Jones (of Georgia) I walked with Mr. Bayard (of Delaware). The approaching election became the subject of conversation. I recollect no part of that conversation except his saying that he thought that a half hour's conversation between us might settle the business. That idea was not again repeated. On the day after I had held the conversation with General Dayton, I was asked by Mr. Bayard to go into the committee-room. He then stated that he had it in his power (and was so disposed) to terminate the election, but he wished information as to Mr. Jefferson's opinions on certain subjects, and mentioned, I think, the same three points already alluded to as asked by Colonel Parker and General Dayton, and received from me the same answer in substance (if not in words) that I have given to General Dayton. He added a fourth, to wit: What would be Mr. Jefferson's conduct as to the public officers? He said he did not mean confidential officers, but, by elucidating his question, he added, such as Mr. Latimer, of Philadelphia, and Mr. M'Lane, of Delaware. I answered, that I never had heard Mr. Jefferson say any thing on that subject. He requested that I would inquire, and inform him the next day. I did so. And the next day (Saturday) told him that Mr. Jefferson had said that he did not think that such officers ought to be dismissed on political grounds only, except in cases where they had made improper use of their offices to force the officers under them to vote contrary to their judgment. That, as to Mr. M'Lane, he had already been spoken to in his behalf by Major Eccleston, and, from the character given him by that gentleman, he considered him a meritorious officer; of course, that he would not be displaced, or ought not to be displaced. I further added, that Mr. Bayard might rest assured (or words to that effect) that Mr. Jefferson would conduct, as to those points, agreeably to the opinions I had stated as his. Mr. Bayard then said, We will give the vote on Monday; and then separated. Early in the election my colleague, Mr. Baer, told me that we should have a president; that they would not get up without electing one or the other of the gentlemen. Mr. Baer had voted against Mr. Jefferson until the final vote, when I believe he withdrew, or voted blank, but do not perfectly recollect.

5th. I became acquainted with Colonel Burr some time in the revolutionary war.

6th. I know of no agreement or bargain in the years 1800 and 1801 with any person or persons whatsoever respecting the office of president in behalf of Aaron Burr, nor have I any reason to believe that any such existed.

7th. I received a letter from Colonel Burr, dated, I believe, 16th December, 1800, in reply to one which I had just before written him. The letter of Colonel Burr is as follows:—

"It is highly improbable that I shall have an equal number of votes with Mr. Jefferson; but, if such should be the result, every man who knows me ought to know that I would utterly disclaim all competition. Be assured that the federal party can entertain no wish for such an exchange. As to my friends, they would dishonour my views and insult my feelings by a suspicion that I would submit to be instrumental in counteracting the wishes and expectations of the people of the United States. And I now constitute you my proxy to declare these sentiments if the occasion shall require."

I have not now that letter by me, nor any other letter from him to refer to; the preceding is taken from a printed copy, which corresponds with my recollection, and which I believe to be correct. My correspondence with him continued till the close of the election. In none of his letters to me, or to any other person that I saw, was there any thing that contradicted the sentiments contained in that letter.

(Signed) S. SMITH.

City of Washington, in the District of Columbia.

The deposition of the Honourable Samuel Smith, written upon five pages, was duly taken and sworn to before us, two of the commissioners named in the annexed commission, at the capitol in the said city of Washington, on the fifteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and six, and of the independence of the United States the thirtieth.

(Signed) GEORGE LOGAN.

DAVID STONE.

Footnotes:

1. Judge Cooper, of Cooperstown, state of New-York.

2. During the year 1802 unsuccessful efforts were made by the democracy of Philadelphia to have Mr. Latimer removed from the office of collector. The federal party complained of the number of removals which had already been made. The Aurora of June 29, 1802, referring to this subject, says—"We can tell them (the federalists) that the most lucrative office under the government of the United States in this commonwealth, the emoluments of which amount to triple the salary of the governor of this commonwealth, is now held by _George Latimer, collector of the customs;" and on the 29th September, he adds, "Let any man of candour say if Latimer ought not long since to have been discharged from his office." Mr. Duane had not then read the depositions of Messrs. Bayard and Smith, and perhaps was ignorant of the arrangements by virtue of which this gentleman and Mr. M'Lane, of Delaware, were retained in office.

CHAPTER IX.

A history of the presidential contest in Congress in the spring of 1801, with an account of some of the circumstances which preceded and followed it, has now been presented. It afforded the enemies of Colonel Burr an opportunity to lay a foundation deep and broad, from which to assail him with the battering-rams of detraction, falsehood, and calumny. From that day until the period when he was driven into exile from the land of his fathers, he was pursued with an intolerance relentless as the grave. The assailants of his reputation and their more wicked employers felt and knew the wrongs they had done. Self-abased with reflecting on the motives which had impelled them to action, their zeal for his ruin became more fiery, and they faltered at no means, however dishonourable, to effect their object. The power of the press is great. But, painful as the remark is, it is nevertheless true—the power of the press to do evil is much greater than to do good. The power of the press is too often irresistible when conducted by unprincipled and corrupt men, pampered by the smiles and the patronage of those filling high places. A stronger illustration of this remark cannot be found in history than the case of Aaron Burr from 1801 to 1804. At the height of his popularity, influence, and glory in the commencement of 1801, before the close of 1804 he was suspected—contemned—derided, and prostrated; and this mighty revolution in public opinion was effected without any wrong act or deed on the part of the vice-president.

The charge against him was that he had been faithless to the political party which had sustained him through life; that he had negotiated, bargained, or intrigued with the federalists to promote his own election to the exclusion of Mr. Jefferson. The public mind became poisoned; suspicions were engendered; his revilers were cherished; the few stout hearts that confided in his political integrity, and nobly clustered around him, were anathematized and proscribed. The mercenary, the selfish, and the timid united in the cry—down with him.

It has been seen, that whenever and wherever the charge was rendered tangible by specification, it was met and repelled. For a refutation of the general charge, Mr. Bayard's and Mr. Smith's testimony is sufficiently explicit. Concurring testimony could be piled upon pile; but, if there remains an individual in the community who will not be convinced by the evidence which has been produced, then that individual would not be convinced "though one were to rise from the dead" and bear testimony to the falsity of the charge.

The details in relation to the presidential contest of 1801 have occupied much time and space. This could not be avoided. It fixed the destiny of Colonel Burr. Besides, it forms a great epoch in the history of our country and its government, and has been but imperfectly understood.

Mr. Jefferson's malignity towards Colonel Burr never ceased but with his last breath. His writings abound with proof of that malignity, smothered, but rankling in his heart. Let the highminded man read the following extracts Mr. Jefferson, in a long and laboured letter to Colonel Burr, written uninvited, not in reply to one received, dated Philadelphia, 17th June, 1797, says—"The newspapers give so minutely what is passing in Congress, that nothing of detail can be wanting for your information. Perhaps, however, some general view of our situation and prospects since you left us may not be unacceptable. At any rate, it will give me an opportunity of recalling myself to your memory, and of EVIDENCING MY ESTEEM FOR YOU."

In his Ana, under date of the 26th of January, 1804, he says—, "I had never seen Colonel Burr till he came as a member of Senate. [1]

His conduct very soon inspired me with distrust. I habitually cautioned Mr. Madison against trusting him too much."

Thus, according to his own showing, while he was endeavouring "to recall himself to the memory" of Colonel Burr "and evidencing his esteem for him," he was "habitually cautioning Mr. Madison against trusting him too much."

Again. January 26, 1804, be says—"Colonel Burr, the vice-president, called on me in the evening, having previously asked an opportunity of conversing with me. He began by recapitulating summarily that he had come to New-York a stranger some years ago; that he found the country in possession of two rich families (the Livingstons and Clintons); that his pursuits were not political, and he meddled not," &c.

Now who that knows the history of Colonel Burr's life will believe one sentence or one word of this statement? In the year 1778, Colonel Burr was in command on the lines in Westchester. In July of that year he was appointed by General Washington to receive from the commissioners for conspiracies the suspected persons. He remained at this post during the winter of 1778-79. Ill health compelled him, in March, 1779, to resign. In the autumn of 1780 he commenced the study of law with Judge Paterson, of New-Jersey, where he remained until the spring of 1781, when be removed to Orange county, in the state of New-York, and continued the study of law. In 1782 he was licensed by the Supreme Court of the state of New-York as counsellor and attorney, and immediately commenced practice in Albany. In July of that year he was married, then twenty-six years old. In April, 1783, through an agent, he hired a house in the city of New-York, and removed his family into it as soon as the British evacuated the city. In the spring of 1784, six months after his removal into the city, he was elected to represent it in the state legislature. [2]

In the face of these facts, to talk of his "having come to New York a stranger some years ago, and finding the state in possession of two rich families," &c. What absurdity! But, shrinking from these disgusting and revolting exposures, the reader, it is believed, will cheerfully turn to the perusal of those letters which again presents to his view Colonel Burr in the domestic and social scenes of life.

TO THEODOSIA.

Trenton, January 2, 1800.

The question—When shall we meet? is already answered; but I must now answer it anew, and for a more distant day; perhaps Wednesday, perhaps Thursday; but you will hear again. Your letters amuse me; your recovery rejoices me; your determination not to torment yourself is neither from philosophy nor spleen—it is mere words, and an attempt to deceive yourself, which may succeed for the moment; ergo, no determination; ergo, not founded on philosophy; ergo, not on resentment; ergo, neither. I have no doubt but chose is on the way; the journey cannot at this season be performed in thirty days.

My compliments to A. C. M., and am very much obliged to them. It is the most fatiguing thing imaginable for such crude tastes as those of Theodosia and A. B. You had better apologize. You are sick and I am absent. But you have not mentioned the day—neither that of the beauty's ball, for which I owe you much ill will, and therefore my next shall be to Natalie, to whom all good wishes.

A. BURR.

THEODOSIA.

Albany, January 29, 1800.

You must be weary of hearing that "I have not yet a line from you, and that John and Alexis are not arrived," but you must submit to hear often of what so often employs my thoughts.

Most of all, I amuse and torment myself by fancying your occupations, your thoughts, your attitudes at different hours in the day and night—generally I find you reading or studying; sometimes musing; now and then counting the time of my probable absence. In comes C. C.—a pleasant interruption, or a note from C. C., and then follows trouble and embarrassments, and sometimes scolding. They are always answered, however.

We have agreed that the cause of Le Guen shall come on next Tuesday. It will last the whole week. The week following I shall hope to leave this place; but I may be deceived, for the court may take a week to consider of the business, and I cannot leave the ground till the thing be determined.

Adieu, chere amiè,

AARON BURR.

TO THEODOSIA.

Albany, February 13, 1800.

Your letter by this day's mail, dated the 13th, and postmarked the 12th, is one of those hasty and unsatisfactory scraps which neither improve you nor amuse me. I pray you never to write to me with the mere motive of getting rid of the task. These performances always lead me to fear that all other tasks are performed in the same manner; but adieu to tasks and reproaches. I will endure your haste or your silence without a murmur. One is not always in the bumour to write, and one always writes as much as the humour prompts.

I am here sentinel over the interest of Le Guen, and cannot leave the post until the final decision be had, of which, at present, I form no conjecture as to the period; but I entertain no doubt of Le Guen's eventual success.

Among the letters forwarded by you is one recommending to me in very high terms a Mr. Irving, or Irwin, [3] from London; pray inquire who he is, and where to be found, and be able to inform me, on my return, if I should happen to return.

Mr. Eacker has offered his services to take a letter. You see that I cannot refrain from improving every occasion of assuring, you how very truly I am your faithful friend and affectionate father,

A. BURR.

TO THEODOSIA,

Albany, February 15, 1800.

This will be handed you by Mr. Brown, [4] secretary to General Hamilton. By the two preceding mails I had nothing from you; by that of this day I am again disappointed. I do indeed receive a very pleasant little letter, but I expected a volume. Would it be an intolerable labour, if, precisely at half past nine o'clock every evening, you should say, "I will now devote an hour to papa?" Or even half an hour. Your last letter, though not illy written, has evident marks of haste.

I agree entirely with your eulogium on our amiable friend; but one point you overlook. Her heart is as cold as marble, And you mistake the effusions of politeness, mingled with respect, for symptoms of tender emotions.

The argument of the cause of Le Guen is concluded. I fear that I must wait for the final decision of the court before I can leave Albany. To-morrow I go with John to Schenectady. I am more impatient to return than I can express.

A. BURR.

THEODOSIA.

Albany, March 5, 1800.

I had taken my passage for this day, and anticipated the pleasure of dining with you on Saturday. But—but—these buts—how they mar all the fine theories of life! But our friend Thomas Morris [5] has entreated in such terms that I would devote this day and night to certain subjects of the utmost moment to him, that I could not, without the appearance of unkindness, refuse. He would, I know, at any time, devote a week or month, on like occasion, to serve me. How, then, could I refuse him one day? I could not.

But, again, more buts. But after I had consented to give him a day, I sent to take passage for to-morrow, and lo! the stage is taken by the sheriff to transport criminals to the state prison. I should not be much gratified with this kind of association on the road, and thus I apprehend that my journey will be (must be) postponed until Friday, and my engagement to dine with you until Monday.

A. BURR.

TO JOSEPH ALSTON.

New-York, January 15, 1801.

MY DEAR SIR,

Your two letters have been received, and gave me great pleasure. We are about to begin our journey to Albany. I propose to remain there till the 10th of February; possibly till the 20th. If you should come northward, you will find a letter for you in the postoffice of this city.

The equality of Jefferson and Burr excites great speculation and much anxiety. I believe that all will be well, and that Jefferson will be our president. Your friend,

A. BURR.

THEODOSIA TO JOSEPH ALSTON.

Poughkeepsie, January 24, 1801.

Thus far have we advanced on this terrible journey, from which you predicted so many evils, Without meeting even with inconvenience. How strange that Mr. Alston should be wrong. Do not, however, pray for misfortunes to befall us that your character may be retrieved; it were useless, I assure you; although I am very sensible how anxious you must now be to inspire me with all due respect and reverence, I should prefer to feel it in any other way.

We shall go from hence to Albany in a sleigh, and hope to arrive on Sunday evening, that we may be settled on Thursday. Adieu. Health and happiness.

THEODOSIA.

TO MRS. THEODOSIA B. ALSTON.

Albany, February 17, 1801.

I have heard that you reached Fishkill on Sunday, and thence conclude that you got home on Monday night. When in Philadelphia, send a note to Charles Biddle, inquiring, &c., and to inform him that you are going South. He will call and see you, being one of your great admirers. Desire Doctor Edwards to give Mr. Alston a line to Cesar Rodney, of Wilmington, a very respectable young man. He will introduce you to the venerable Dickenson, who, knowing my great respect for him (which you will also take care to let him know), will be pleased to see Mr. Alston and you on that footing. At Baltimore, either call immediately on Mrs. Smith, or let her know of your arrival. You are to wait in Baltimore until I overtake you, which will be on the 28th at the latest. Adieu.

A. BURR.

TO THEODOSIA.

Washington, March 8, 1801.

Your little letter from Alexandria assured me of your safety, and for a moment consoled me for your absence. The only solid consolation is the belief that you will be happy, and the certainty that we shall often meet.

I am to be detained here yet a week. Immediately on my return to New-York I shall prepare for a tour to Georgetown or to Charleston; probably a water passage.

I.B. Prevost has been hurrying off Senat and Natalie; but for his interposition they would have relied wholly on me, and I had already proposed that they should go with the chancellor some time in the summer or autumn, which would have been then or never, as I had pleased; but he (I.B.P.) has advised otherwise, and strongly urged their immediate departure. I think I shall be able to prevent it.

Would Mr. Alston be willing to go as secretary to Chancellor
Livingston? I beg his immediate answer.

Adieu, ma chere amie.

A. BURR.

TO THEODOSIA.

Washington, March 11, 1830.

By the time the enclosed shall reach Mr. Alston, it will have travelled about three thousand miles. It will certainly deserve a kind reception. I leave mine open for your perusal; the other appears to be from Miss Burr.

Your Dumfries letter was received yesterday. To pass a day in Dumfries is what you could not at any time very much desire; but to pass one there against your will, and a rainy day too, was indeed enough to try your tempers.

On Sunday, the 15th, I commence my journey to New York; there I shall not arrive till the 25th. Nothing but matrimony will prevent my voyage to Charleston and Georgetown; and even so great an event shall only postpone, but not defeat the project I am sorry, however, to add that I have no expectations or decided views on this subject. I mean Hymen.

It gives me very great pleasure to hear that Colonel W. Hampton is become, in some sort, your neighbour, by having purchased a plantation within fifteen or twenty miles (as is said) of Georgetown. Write me if this be so.

I have written to Frederick [6] as you commanded; that I might not err in expressing your ideas, I enclosed to him your letter. You have no warmer friend on earth; no one who would so readily hazard his life to serve you. It always seemed to me that you did not know his value.

Certain parts of your letter I cannot answer. Let us think of the expected meeting, and not of the present separation. God bless thee ever.

A. BURR.

TO THEODOSIA.

New-York, Match 29, 1801.

On Wednesday, the 18th, I left the great city. At the Susquehannah the wind was rude; the river, swollen by recent rains, was rapid. The ferrymen pronounced it to be impossible to pass with horses, and unsafe to attempt it. By the logic of money and brandy I persuaded them to attempt it. We embarked; the wind was, indeed, too mighty for us, and we drove on the rocks; but the boat did not bilge or fill, as in all reason it ought to have done. I left Alexis and Harry to work out their way; got my precious carcass transported in a skiff, and went on in a stage to pass a day with "thee and thou." I was received by the father with parental affection—but of "thee." How charming, how enviable is this equanimity, if real. There is one invaluable attainment in the education of this sect; one which you and I never thought of: it is "tacere." How particularly desirable this in a wife.

At Philadelphia I saw many—many, who inquired after you with great interest—sans doubte. Among others I saw B., lovely and interesting; but adieu to that. It cannot, must not, will not be; and the next time I meet B., which will be in a few days, I will frankly say so.

I approached home as I would approach the sepulchre of all my friends. Dreary, solitary, comfortless. It was no longer home. Natalie and ma bonne amie have been with me most of the time since my return (about twenty-four hours past). My letters from Washington broke up that cursed plan of J. B. P.; they do not go in the parliamentaire; they do not know when they go; and, in short, they rely wholly on me, so that thing is all right.

The elegant and accomplished Mrs. Edward Livingston died about ten days ago. Mrs. Allen is in town; she is in better health than for years past. As to my dear self, I am preparing with all imaginable zeal for a voyage to Charleston. One obstacle interposes; that you can conjecture. That removed, and I shall be off in forty-eight hours. I hope to be at sea by the 20th of April; but, alas! perhaps not. In eight days you shall know more of this.

Your letters have been received as far as Halifax. We conclude that you got home on the 16th. It has been snowing here this whole day most vehemently. You are blessed with "gentler skies." May all other blessings unite.

A. BURR.

TO THEODOSIA.

New-York, April 15, 1801.

Your letters of the 24th and 25th March, received yesterday, give me the first advice of your safe arrival at Clifton. The cordial and affectionate reception which you have met consoles me, as far as any thing can console me, for your absence.

My last will have advised you of the alteration in the plans of Natalie. Of all this she will write you; but I must say a word of my own plans. The ship South Carolina is now in port, and will sail on Monday next. I wish to take passage in her; but a thousand concerns of business and obstacles of various kinds appear to oppose. I shall combat them all with the zeal which my ardent wishes for the voyage inspire; yet I dare hardly hope to succeed. You shall hear again by the mail of Saturday.

Your female friends here complain of your silence; particularly Miss
C., and, I am sure, elle a raison.

The reasons which you and your husband give against the voyage to France concur with my judgment. You can go a few years hence more respectably, more agreeably. Adieu, chere enfalit.

A. BURR.

TO JOSEPH ALSTON.

New-York, April 27, 1801.

Our election commences to-morrow, and will be open for three days. The republican members of assembly for this city will be carried by a greater majority than last year, unless some fraud be practised at the polls. The corporation have bad the indecent hardiness to appoint known and warm federalists (and no others) to be inspectors of the election in every ward. Hamilton works day and night with the most intemperate and outrageous zeal, but I think wholly without effect.

If any reliance may be placed on our information from the country, Clinton will be elected by a large majority. The best evidence of dispassionate opinion on this subject is, that bets are two to one in his favour, and that the friends of Van Rensellaer wager with reluctance with such odds.

A. BURR.

TO THEODOSIA.

New-York, April 29, 1901.

This morning will sail the brig Echo, the only vessel in harbour destined for South Carolina. I do not go in her. With unspeakable regret, therefore, the projected visit is abandoned—wholly and absolutely abandoned. The pain of my own disappointment leaves me no room for any sympathy with yours. There is one insurmountable obstacle, which I leave you to conjecture. If that were removed, it would yet, for other reasons, be barely possible for me to go at this time. But enough of disappointment; let us talk of indemnifications.

On the 5th of June I must be at the city of Washington, After the 12th I shall be at leisure, and will meet you anywhere. Write me of your projects, and address me at that place. How can Mr. Alston, consistently with his views of business, leave the state for five or six months, as you have proposed, for your Northern tour?

Of the voyage to France I have written to you both about a fortnight ago. I heartily applaud your judgment, and the motives which have influenced it. You may by-and-by go in a manner much more satisfactory.

How very oddly your letters travel. That of the 30th March arrived on the 15th, instant; and yesterday, those of the 6th and 13th by the same mail. To solve this phenomenon, I am led to believe that they have moved with a velocity proportioned to the spirit which was infused in them by the writer. Thus, the first crawled with a torpor corresponding with its character. It reminded me of the letter of a French lady, which I have shown you as a model of elegance. "Mon cher mari, je vous ecris parceque je n'ai rien a faire: je finis parceque je n'az rien a dire." This was, indeed, the substance of yours; but, being spread over a whole page, the laconic beauty was lost, and the inanity only remained. The second, a grave, decent performance, marched with becoming gravity, and performed the Journey in two-and-twenty days; but the third, replete with sprightliness and beauty, burst from the thraldom of dulness, and made a transit unparalleled in the history of the country.

You will find in this theory some incentive to the exertion of genius; and I entertain no doubt but that, ere long, your letters will be sped with the rapidity of a ray of light.

We have laughed at your horse negro, and have been very much amused by the other charming little details. Thus letters should be written.

By this vessel I send two dozen pairs of long coloured kid gloves, and half a dozen pretty little short ones, pour monter a cheval. They are directed to your husband. I wish you would often give me orders, that I may have the pleasure of doing something for you or your amiable family.

I had like to have forgotten to say a word in reply to your inquiries of matrimony, which would seem to indicate that I have no plan on the subject. Such is the fact. You are or were my projector in this line. If perchance I should have one, it will be executed before you will hear of the design. Yet I ought not to conceal that I have had a most amiable overture from a lady "who is always employed in something useful." She was, you know, a few months past, engaged to another; that other is suspended, if not quite dismissed. If I should meet her, and she should challenge me, I should probably strike at once. She is not of that cast, yet a preference to rank only is not very flattering to vanity; a remark which may remind you of "Le moi."

Adieu, chere enfante.

AARON BURR.

TO THEODOSIA.

New-York, May 26, 1801.

Another parlementaire is preparing in this port, and ma bonne amie and Natalie are again preparing to sail; but you may rest assured that they will not go. Their preparations are evidently mere form, and they are ready to yield to gentle persuasion. Yet you must not delay your voyage hither, to aid, if necessary.

But, for a reason much more weighty, you must hasten—il faut. I want your counsel and your exertions in an important negotiation, actually commenced, but not advancing, and which will probably be stationary until your arrival; more probably it may, however, in the mean time, retrograde. Quite a new subject.

Who should present himself a few days ago but A. Burr Reeve. He has come, with the consent of his father, to pass some weeks with me—more astonishment. I have put him in the hands of Natalie. She will find it a hard job, but she has entered on the duty with great zeal and confident hopes of complete success.

By the time this can reach you, you will be ready to embark for New-York. You will find me in Broadway. Richmond Hill will remain vacant till your arrival. Adieu.

A. BURR.

TO THEODOSIA.

New-York, August 20, 1801.

Mr. Astor, if he should not meet you to deliver this letter, will send it after you. Yet I dare not trust to such hazards the letters which I have received for Mr. Alston and you, I persevere, therefore, in the determination to retain them.

I was so very solicitous that you should see Niagara, that I was constantly filled with apprehension lest something might prevent it. Your letter of the 29th of July relieves me. You had actually seen it. Your determination to visit Brandt gives me great pleasure, particularly as I have lately received a very friendly letter from him, in which he recapitulates your hospitality to him in ancient days, and makes very kind inquiries respecting you; all this before he could have entertained the remotest idea of seeing you in his own kingdom.

Natalie and M. Senat have been for some weeks past at Trenton ; they are now on their return, and will be here to-morrow. Vanderlyn, of whom I said something in my last, will immediately set about her picture. They (Natalie and Senat) are to go with the chancellor about the last of September.

Wheeler will be here in a few days. Hampton is actually married to a charming young girl—so General M'Pherson tells me. I forget her name. Mr. Ewing is appointed consul to London, and has sailed. Mrs. Allen is still at Elizabethtown. Adieu.

A. BURR.

TO THOMAS MORRIS.

New-York, September 18, 1801.

Mr. Vanderlyn, the young painter from Esopus, who went about six years ago to Paris, has recently returned, having improved his time and talents in a manner that does very great honour to himself, his friends, and his country; proposing to return to France in the spring, he wishes to take with him some American views, and for this purpose be is now on his way through your Country to Niagara. I beg your advice and protection. He is a perfect stranger to the roads, the country, and the customs of the people, and, in short, knows nothing but what immediately concerns painting. From some samples which he has left here, he is pronounced to be the first painter that now is or ever has been in America. Your affectionate friend,

A. BURR.

FROM P. BUTLER

Philadelphia, September 19, 1801.

DEAR SIR,

I was yesterday afternoon favoured with your friendly letter of the 16th. On the subject of removal from office, it appears to my finite judgment that it should be done sparingly, and only where it was absolutely necessary. It is true, that the appointments during the latter part of Mr. Washington's administration, and the whole of Mr. Adams's, were partial. It will, I think, be prudent not to follow their examples. Every man removed adds twenty enemies to republicanism and the present administration, while it gives us not one new friend; for that man whose patriotism depended on his getting a place for himself or connexion, is neither worth attending to nor keeping right. You must be sensible that a general assault from one end of the line to the other will be made on the present administration. It is, therefore, highly incumbent to be moderate, though firm, to prove to the great body of the landed interest, the true support of good government, that the present administration are the friends of an equal, mild, economic, and just government. We may expect the political vessel to be assailed by waves, but we must steer an even straightforward course—united as friends in the same fate.

Your observation respecting the political state of South Carolina is more flattering to me than I merit. My offering for senator is out of the question; but I am not, neither shall I be inactive on that occasion. I shall always feel happy in meeting you anywhere.

You will shortly see a statement of the Carolina election in print, by a gentleman who was present. I was not present, though I believe I know the facts. The thing will not be passed over without notice. Circumstantial facts are collecting. I regret that my two letters from Carolina at that time did not get to your hand. Your friend,

P. BUTLER.

TO, JOSEPH ALSTON.

Albany, October 15, 1801.

Our Convention [7] met on Tuesday the 13th, and will probably continue in session five or six days longer. I shall forthwith return to New-York, beyond which I have no plan for the month of November, except, negatively, that it will not be in my power to visit South Carolina till spring.

On the road I passed half an hour with Mrs. L., late Mary A. She appeared most sincerely glad to see me. She is still beautiful; something ennuyed with the monotony of a country life; talked of you with the warmest affection. It is really a fraud on society to keep that woman perpetually buried in woods and solitude.

I am extremely solicitous to know how you get on. Pray make easy journeys, and be not too impatient to get forward. Never ride after dark, unless in case of unavoidable necessity, and then on horseback. What a volume of parental advice. God bless you both.

A. BURR.

TO THEODOSIA

New-York, November 3, 1801.

It is very kind indeed to write me so often. Your last is from Petersburgh. "Like gods," forsooth; why, you travel like—; that, however, was a very pretty allusion. I have repeated it a dozen times and more. Your other letters also contain now and then a spark of Promethean fire: a spark, mind ye; don't be vain.

And so—has returned sans femme; just now arrived. He saw you and spoke to you, which rendered him doubly welcome to A. B.

You made two, perhaps more conquests on your Northern tour—King Brandt and the stage-driver; both of whom have been profuse in their eulogies. Brandt has written me two letters on the subject. It would have been quite in style if he had scalped your husband and made you Queen of the Mohawks.

Bartow, &c., are well. Mrs. Allen better. Mrs. Brockbolst Livingston dead. Mrs. Van Ness has this day a son. Thus, you see, the rotation is preserved, and the balance kept up.

There are no swaar apples this year; some others you shall have, and "a set of cheap chimney ornaments." I have not asked the price, but not exceeding eight hundred dollars! Did you take away "The man of Nature?" I proposed to have sent that with some others to L. N., but you have thus marred the project.

Since I began this letter I am summoned to leave town two hours before daylight to-morrow morning, to return next day, when I shall know definitely the result of the sale, which, indeed, is the object of the journey. On my return I passed a day with M. A. Monsieur is cold, formal, monotonous, repulsive. Gods! what a mansion is that bosom for the sensitive heart of poor M. Lovely victim! I wish she would break her pretty little neck. Yet, on second thought, would it not be better that he break his? He is often absent days and weeks. She has not seen the smoke of a city in five years; but this is dull. I had something more cheerful to say; this, however, came first, and would have place. And here am I, at midnight, talking such stuff to bagatelle, and twenty unanswered letters of vast importance before me! Get to bed, you hussy.

A. BURR.

November 5.

This letter was nicely sealed up and laid on my table; late last night I returned from the country, and found the letter just where I left it. Very surprising! This was so like my dear self, that I laughed and opened it, to add that Richmond Hill will probably be sold within ten days for one hundred and forty thousand dollars, which, though not half the worth, is enough and more.

A. BURR.

TO THEODOSIA.

New-York, November 9, 1801.

This fine day brings me your two letters from Raleigh and Fayetteville, 28th and 30th of October. It is quite consoling to find that you will have taken the precaution to inquire the state of health before you venture your precious carcass into Charleston. A fever would certainly mistake you for strangers, and snap at two such plump, ruddy animals as you were when you left New-York.

You shall have apples, and nuts, and a cook, and lucerne seed. As to femme de chambre, I cannot speak with certainty. I have put in motion the whole French republic on the occasion. Mrs. Kemble's friend cannot be found. Most probably Madame S. has tortured into Gamble some name which has not a letter of Kemble or Gamble in it.

Natalie sailed the Thursday after you left town, and she is probably now in Havre with her mother. A letter received from Madame d'Lage [8] since Natalie sailed, advises us that she is there waiting for her, which is indeed most fortunate, and relieves me from a small portion of the anxiety which I suffer for that charming girl. Yet, alas! there is room for too much. I expect to see her here within a year.

Anna wonders you do not write to her. It never occurred to her that she had not written to you: so she is now occupied, and you may soon expect at least twenty pages from her indefatigable pen. I am going to see Board. There is an ancient story of a man who once gave life and spirit to marble (you may read it in the form of a drama in Rousseau). Why may not this be done again? The sale of Richmond Hill goes on, and will, I believe, be completed within eight days. The price and the terms are agreed; some little under works retard the conclusion.

Adieu, my dear Theodosia.

A. BURR.

TO JOSEPH ALSTON

New-York, November 15, 1801.

I send the enclosed newspaper merely on account of the proceedings of the Rhode Island legislature. They are on the second page. That, in New-England, men should be found hardy enough to oppose, in public speeches, the recommendation of a thanksgiving sanctioned by the usage of one hundred and fifty years; that this opposition should prevail, and the recommendation be rejected by a large majority of a House of Assembly, are events the most extraordinary which the present generation hath beheld.

It has been announced in your gazettes that I am to visit Charleston this month. Nothing is more true than that my warmest wishes have urged me to verify this expectation; but it is equally certain that I shall do no such thing. When I expressed the hope of seeing your state previously to the session of Congress, I did not know that I was chosen a member of the Convention by the county of Orange, much less could I foresee that I should be president of that Convention; and no individual suspected that fifteen days would have been consumed in accomplishing the business of six hours. These circumstances ought to redeem my character, in this instance, at least, from the charge of versatility or caprice, Vale.

A. BURR.

FROM THOMAS JEFFERSON.

Washington, November 18, 1801.

DEAR SIR,

Your favour of the 10th has been received, as have been those also of September 4th and 23d, in due time. These letters, all relating to office, fall within the general rule which even the very first week of my being engaged in the administration obliged me to establish, to wit, that of not answering letters on office specifically, but leaving the answer to be found in what is done or not done on them. You will readily conceive into what scrapes one would get by saying no, either with or without reasons; by using a softer language, which might excite false hopes, or by saying yes prematurely; and, to take away all offence from this silent answer, it is necessary to adhere to it in every case rigidly, as well with bosom friends as strangers.

Captain Sterret is arrived here from the Mediterranean. Congress will have a question as to all the Barbary powers of some difficulty. We have had under consideration Mr. Pusy's plans of fortification. They are scientifically done and expounded. He seems to prove that no works at either the Narrows or Governor's Island can stop a vessel; but to stop them at the Hook by a fort of eight thousand men, and protecting army of twenty-nine thousand, is beyond our present ideas of the scale of defence which we can adopt for all our seaport towns. His estimate of four millions of dollars, which experience teaches us to double always, in a case where the law allows, but (I believe) half a million ties our hands at once. We refer the case back to Governor Clinton, to select half a dozen persons of judgment, of American ideas, and to present such a plan, within our limits, as these shall agree on. In the mean time, the general subject will be laid before Congress. Accept assurances of my high respect and consideration.

THOMAS JEFFERSON.

TO THEODOSIA.

New-York, November 20, 1801.

It is several days since I wrote to you, and many more since I received a letter from you. That from Fayetteville is still the last.

"Gamble's" protegée could not be found. You will probably gain by the exchange. That whom I shall send you is a good, steady-looking animal, agée vingt trois. From appearance, she has been used to count her beads and work hard, and never thought of love or finery. The enclosed recommendation of Madame Dupont, the elder, will tell you more. You are in equal luck with a cook. I have had him on trial a fortnight, and he is the best I ever had in the house; for cakes, pastry, and jimcracks, far superior to Anthony. In short, he is too good for you, and I have a great mind not to send him; you will be for ever giving good dinners. He has something of the manner and phisiognomy of Wood, your teacher. M'lle la femme de chambre and Monsieur le Cuisinier are both pure French (not creole), and speak well the language. He will take with him a quantity of casseroles and other implements of his etat. They will be shipped off next week.

The sale of Richmond Hill is all off; blown up at the moment of counting the money, partly by whim and partly by accident; something else will be done to produce the effect. I go to Philadelphia in two or three days; but shall return, and not set off for Washington till near Christmas. Mrs. A.'s health is much improved. God bless thee.

A. BURR.

TO THEODOSIA.

Philadelphia, November 26, 1801.

Your letter of the 7th of November, from Yaahanee, is received at this place. Though I am in the house with Mr. and Mrs. Lowndes, and several other Carolinians, yet we are wholly ignorant of your position. No one ever heard of Yaahanee. I suspect it to be some Mohawk word, which T. B. A. has been pleased to retain and apply—a very pretty name, I acknowledge. Your reception has, indeed, been charming; it reads more like an extract from some romance than matter of fact happening in the nineteenth century within the United States. I will ride fifty miles out of my way to see that lady.

The great business, as you are pleased to call it, has brought me hither. Not merely to see the statue, nor have I yet seen it; but am in the way. It will be a heavy job, considering that B. is on the spot. To return to the business. It will go on; it must go on; it shall go on. It will be Christmas before I see the city of Washington. My lodgings are near the capitol, and next door to Law, who has removed since we were together at his house. Your cook and maid must be detained at New-York till my return, which will be in about eight days.

Your letter is pretty and lively, and indicates health, content, and cheerfulness, which is much better than if you had told me so, for then I should not have believed a word of it.

You have learned from the newspapers (which you never read) the death of Philip Hamilton. [9]

Shot in a duel with Eacker, the lawyer. Some dispute at a theatre, arising, as is said, out of politics. The story is variously related; will give you a concise summary of the facts, in fifteen sheets of paper, with comments, and moral and sentimental reflections. To this I take the liberty of referring you.

A. BURR.

TO THEODOSIA.

New-York, December 8, 1801.

By the ship Protectress you will receive all your things, together with cook and maid. To sail on the 14th. On the day of sailing I will write to you, enclosing the bills of lading.

Your interesting letter of the 23d is this day received. It brings me to the familiar acquaintance with your amiable circle, and admits me to your fireside more than any thing you have written. Mrs. Allen is here. Anna will, to all appearance, be married before spring to a merchant of the name of Pierpont. Catharine is astonished that she has not yet an answer to her letter. I have told her that she can by no possibility have one before Christmas. In your reading, I wish you would learn to read newspapers; not to become a partisan in politics, God forbid, but they contain the occurrences of the day, and furnish the standing topics of conversation. The reading of newspapers is a knack which you will acquire in six weeks, by reading, during that time, every thing. With the aid of a gazetteer and atlas, you must find every place that is spoken of. Pray, madam, do you know of what consist the "Republic of the Seven Islands?" Do you know the present boundaries of the French republic? Neither, in all probability. Then hunt them.

Now, one word of self. I came here on the 6th, and shall remain in New-York till near the 20th. Then to Washington. The business is in a prosperous way. My great love for the fine arts, especially sculpture, may detain me a week in Philadelphia. Adieu, ma belle.

A. BURR.

Footnotes:

1. Mr. Burr had left the Senate previous to the date of this memorandum.

2. This is not all. It has already been demonstrated, and the fact is notorious, that, from the year 1777 until after the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the Livingstons and Clintons were not acting in concert. The Livingstons were of the Schuyler party. Before the revolutionary war there were two great contending families in the state of New York; but they were the Van Rensellaers and the Delancies. The former espoused the whig cause, the latter the cause of the tories.

3. George W. Irwin, subsequently minister to the court of Spain.

4. Major General Jacob Brown, late of the United States army.

5. Former United States Marshal of the Southern District of the state of New-York, and son of that distinguished revolutionary financier, the Honourable Robert Morris.

6. Frederick Prevost, son of Mrs. Burr by her first husband.

7. A Convention to revise the Constitution of the State; of which Convention Colonel Burr was president.

8. The mother of Natalie.

9. Son of General Alexander Hamilton.

CHAPTER X.

TO JOSEPH ALSTON.

New-York, December 13, 1801.

Herewith is enclosed a duplicate of the bill of lading, specifying the articles shipped for you on board the Protectress—She sailed this afternoon. The president's message, of which a copy was sent you by this ship, will have reached you through other channels long before her arrival.

One idea contained in this message is much applauded by our ladies. They unite in the opinion that the "energies of the men ought to be principally employed in the multiplication of the human race," and in this they promise an ardent and active co-operation. Thus, then, is established the point of universal coincidence in political opinion, and thus is verified the prophetic dictum, "we are all republicans, we are all federalists." I hope the fair of your state will equally testify their applause of this sentiment; and I enjoin it on you to manifest your patriotism and your attachment to the administration by "exerting your energies" in the manner indicated.

"To kill is brutal, to create Divine."

I propose—now observe, this is not to be published—I propose early in the spring to take a ramble with you through your mountains. You had best say nothing of your project of a location in the hills until it shall be executed; for, if competition should arise before you shall be suited, it would increase the expense of an establishment. I am impatient to hear that you are settled and at work. Very affectionately,

A. BURR.

FROM DAVENPORT PHELPS.

New-York, December 15, 1801.

SIR,

The enclosed copy of a letter from Captain Brandt to Isaac Chapin, Esq., superintendent of Indian affairs in the state of New-York, comprising (I conceive) the plan by him committed to me, and to which he alludes in his letter to yourself, for introducing moral instruction among the Indians. This plan, agreeably to his request, was recommended by the superintendent, and, so far as it respects the ordination of a missionary, has been accomplished.

It yet remains, Sir, to provide means of support; and when the question respecting the instruction of their youth can be determined, by what means and in what manner this shall be effected.

I will, at present, only use the freedom to suggest whether it might not conduce to the furtherance and facilitating the above design to appropriate for their accommodation a suitable portion of land at or in the vicinity of Sandusky. Were the scattering tribes concentrated, and with them some of their countrymen and others as patterns of industry and morality, such circumstances must be highly favourable to attempts to bring them into the habits of civilization.

I am, with great respect,

DAVENPORT PHELPS.

FROM JOSEPH BRANDT.

Grand River, May 7, 1800.

SIR,

About three weeks since I received a message from Obeel to attend a council at Buffalo, where I expected the pleasure of seeing you. We attended and waited a few days; but the chiefs there not being ready to meet us, and we having business which required our attendance at this place, were under the necessity of coming away. Had I been so fortunate as to have met you there, it was my intention to have conversed with you upon a subject which I have long considered as most important and interesting to the present and future well being of the Indians, on both sides of the lakes and at large; namely, their situation in a moral point of view, and concerning measures proper to be taken in order that regular and stated religious instruction might be introduced among them.

You well know, Sir, the general state of the Indians residing on the Grand River, as well as in other parts. A considerable number of some of these nations have long since embraced Christianity, and the conversion of others must depend, under the influence of the Great Spirit, on the faithful labours of a resident minister, who might visit and instruct both here and elsewhere, as ways and doors might, from time to time, be opened for him.

The establishment and enlargement of civilization and Christianity among the natives must be most earnestly desired by all good men; and as religion and morality respect mankind at large, without any reference to the boundaries of civil governments, I flatter myself that you, sir, will approve what many of the chiefs here, with myself, are so greatly desirous of.

I have in view, as I have before suggested, the welfare of the Indians at large, being fully persuaded that nothing can so greatly contribute to their present and future happiness as their being brought into the habits of virtue and morality, which, I trust, may and will be gradually effected by instruction, if properly attended and enforced by example.

I well know the difficulty of finding a gentleman suitably qualified, and willing to devote his life to the work of a missionary among them; and especially one of talents and manners to render him agreeable in a degree highly to favour his usefulness. And, in order to satisfy myself in this respect, I have faithfully inquired and consulted, and am clearly of opinion that Mr. Davenport Phelps, who is recommended as a gentleman of virtue and respectable accomplishments, is the most suitable character for this office of any one within my knowledge. My long acquaintance with his family, and particular knowledge of him, as well as the Opinion and wishes of the most respectable characters among the white people in this vicinity, who earnestly wish, for themselves as well as for us, that he may be ordained a missionary, make me earnestly hope that you will officially recommend both the design and him to the right reverend bishops in the United States, or to some one of them, and to such other characters as you may think proper.

From the consideration that religion and politics are distinct subjects, we should not only be well satisfied to receive a missionary from a bishop in the United States, but, for various other reasons, would prefer one from thence. We shall be able here to do something considerable towards Mr. Phelps's support; and I doubt not but others, who have ability, will be disposed to assist in promoting so good a work. I will add no more than that I have great satisfaction in being confident of your friendly and influential exertions in this important affair, and that I am, with great sincerity, yours, &c.,

JOSEPH BRANDT.

TO THEODOSIA.

New-York, December 15, 1801,

Yesterday Mr. Phelps, mentioned in the enclosed, delivered to me two pairs of moccasins, directed—"From Captain Joseph Brandt to Mr. and Mrs. Alston." Your ship having sailed, I don't know how or when I shall forward them to you; but we will see. I send the original letter of Captain Brandt merely to show how an Indian can write. It is his own handwriting and composition. Upon this notice of his attention you should write him a letter of acknowledgment for his hospitality, &c., which you may enclose to me at Washington.

Dear little Anna is shortly to be married to a Mr. Pierpont, whom I do not personally know; but he is said to be rich and handsome—a young man of industry and credit as a merchant. I think it will do pretty well. E. has a lover—a man of consideration and property—measures six feet eight inches and a half, shoes off; but so very modest that they never will come to an explanation unless she shall begin. So no more at present from your loving father,

A. BURR.

FROM JUDGE WILLIAM P. VAN NESS.

New-York, January 2, 1802.

Since your departure the affair with Wood [1] has assumed a very singular aspect. When I told the printers that the negotiation was at an end unless they acceded to my proposition, it produced much agitation ; and yesterday they called to inform me that they had taken the opinion of good counsel on the subject; that their determination was not to publish, but to hold you liable for the expenses. Wood informs them that he acted merely as your agent; that all his proposals were in strict conformity to your directions.

Davis and Swartwout are of the opinion that we ought to get the work published in its present form, if possible:

1. Because our opponents say it unfolds the views of the federal party; that it exposes their principal men, &c., and therefore we wish to withhold it:

2. Because, if a new edition appears with the same facts and character, they will say it has been subsequently introduced:

3. Because, if it is brought out now, the attempt to check it will have a favourable tendency.

How far these ideas are correct, and what steps are best to take, you will now be able to determine, and instruct me accordingly. The truth is, that instead of being unwilling and reluctant to suppress, they dare not publish the work without indemnity. I am anxious to know your opinion on the subject, and hope to hear from you on Tuesday next.

W. P. Van Ness.

TO THEODOSIA.

Washington, January 12, 1802.

Just arrived at the city of Washington, this 12th day of January, A. D. 18O2. I have only time, before closing of the mail, "to send you these few lines, hoping they may find you in good health, as I am at this present time," &c.

A form of salutation to be found in a public letter of Julius Cesar, and in one of Cicero's familiar epistles.

Your letters which greet me here are of the 2d and 20th of December only; only two. Why, I expected to find a dozen, and some of them down to within three or four days of this date. Having a hundred letters before me unread, I must defer writing to you for the present. Adieu.

A. BURR

TO THEODOSIA.

Washington, January 16, 1802.

Your letter of the 20th December (the venison letter) is still the last, though the Carolinians here have so late as the 3d and 4th of January, of which I am a little jealous. It is quite unlucky that you have been out of Charleston when your things arrived. How cook and maid will dispose of themselves for the interim, I know not. Mighty meek and humble we are grown. You really expect to do the honours of your house equal to, &c. I know better. It will be one of the most cheerful and amiable houses in the United States. I am gratified that you do not start with splendour; to descend with dignity is rare.

Pray make no definitive arrangements against the mountains. My heart is set on running over them with Mr. Alston in the spring. Why may not Papa Alston be weaned as well as Papa Burr? My movements must depend on the adjournment of Congress. Some say we shall adjourn the middle of April, and some the middle of June. As yet, I know nothing of the matter; for, during the few days I have been here, I have been enveloped in ceremonies. I am pleasantly lodged near the capitol. Eustis opposite to me. Law and Iruko my nearest neighbours.

Good venison is not to be had at this season, and to send indifferent any thing (except a wife) from New-York would be treason. Yet, on this important subject, venison meaning, I have written to New-York. You need not expect it, for I repeat that the best cannot now be had.

You must walk a great deal. It is the only exercise you can take with safety and advantage, and, being in Charleston, I fear you will neglect it. I do entreat you to get a very stout pair of over shoes, or short boots, to draw on over your shoes. But shoes to come up to the ankle bone, with one button to keep them on, will be best; thick enough, however, to turn water. The weather has not yet required this precaution, but very soon it will, and I pray you to write me that you are so provided: without them you will not, cannot walk, and without exercise you will suffer in the month of May. To be at ease on this subject, you must learn to walk without your husband—alone—or, if you must be in form, with ten negroes at your heels. Your husband will often be occupied at the hours you would desire to walk, and you must not gener him: oh, never. Adieu.

A. BURR.

TO BARNABAS BIDWELL.

Washington, February 1, 1802.

DEAR SIR,

The newspapers will have shown the position of the bill now before the Senate for the repeal of the act of last session establishing a new judiciary system; and that the bill, when on its third reading, was, by the casting vote of the vice-president, referred to a select committee. This day notice has been given that a motion to discharge that committee will be made to-morrow. It should be noted that the arrival of Mr. Bradley has given a vote to the republican side; hence it may be presumed that the committee will be discharged, and that the bill will pass the Senate to-morrow, and that in the course of three weeks it will become a law. I state this, however, as mere conjecture.

The constitutional right and power of abolishing one judiciary system and establishing another cannot be doubted. The power thus to deprive judges of their offices and salaries must also be admitted; but whether it would be constitutionally moral, if I may use the expression, and, if so, whether it would be politic and expedient, are questions on which I could wish to be further advised. Your opinion on these points would be particularly acceptable.

With entire respect and esteem,

Your obedient servant,

A. BURR.

TO THEODOSIA.

Washington, January 22, 1802.

Still silent. Yet is 20th December the latest date which I have received from you; hence I infer that you have remained at Georgetown much longer than was intended. Five weeks without hearing from you! Intolerable. Now I think to repose myself in sullen silence for five weeks from this date. I know that the apples and nuts will bring you out again. Thus children are moved; but I also thought that a pretty little letter, even without bonbons, would have done the same. I have a very beautiful elegy on a lady whom you love better than any one in the world; even better, I suspect, than L. N., and I was about to send it, but I won't till I hear from you: a nice, handsome letter; none of your little white ink scrawls. They talk of adjourning. No; I won't tell you that either. I have nothing to say of myself, nor any thing to ask of you which has not been often asked. Tell me that Mari is happy, and I shall know that you are so. Adieu, my dear little negligent baggage. Yes; one question. Do you leave your cards T. B. A. or Joseph A.? What are L. N.'s? And one injunction repeated. Do not suffer a tooth to be drawn, or any operation to be performed on your teeth.

A. BURR.

TO JOSEPH ALSTON,

Washington, February 2 1802.

Your letter of the 10th of January was the first evidence of your existence which I had received for near a month preceding. I hope your wife is allowed the use of pen, ink, and paper. Her letter, three days later, has been also received. The successful "execution of your energies" is highly grateful to me. It seems probable that I shall pronounce, in person, on the merit of the workmanship somewhere about May day.

The repeal of the judicial system of 1801 engrosses the attention of both houses of Congress. The bill is yet before the Senate. You may have observed that some days ago it was referred to a special committee by the casting vote of the vice-president. Bradley having arrived two days ago, and the republicans having thus an additional vote, the committee was this day discharged, and it is highly probable that the bill will pass the Senate to-morrow. On this subject I hesitate, though it is not probable that my vote will be required. Of the constitutionality of repealing the law I have no doubt, but the equity and expediency of depriving the twenty-six judges of office and pay is not quite so obvious. Read the Constitution, and, having informed yourself of the out-door talk, write me how you view the thing.

It has for months past been asserted that Spain has ceded Louisiana and the Floridas to France; and it may, I believe, be assumed as a fact. How do you account for the apathy of the public on this subject? To me the arrangement appears to be pregnant with evil to the United States. I wish you to think of it, and endeavour to excite attention to it through the newspapers. If you publish any thing, send me the papers which may contain it.

Truxton is going out to the Mediterranean with three large and one small frigate. Apprehensions are entertained that our good ally, George III, does secretly instigate and aid the Barbary powers. We do not know that Tunis has declared war, but such an event will not surprise me.

I have not heard a syllable of any changes made or to be made in offices in your state, and, for reasons well known to you, I shall neither make an inquiry nor offer advice. C. Pinckney's nomination was confirmed by one vote. All the other nominations have been confirmed, mostly without opposition.

Theodosia writes me that the mountain plan is wholly abandoned for Sullivan's Island. I do not, however, as yet abandon it; and, if I can get hence early in April, I think of going direct to Columbia, there to establish myself till you shall both condescend to visit me.

When you shall be both settled in your own house, I crave a history of one day, in the manner of Swift's journal to Stella; or, as you do not like imitation, in your own manner. Vale.

A. BURR.

TO THEODOSIA. Washington, February 2, 1802.

I have just received a pretty little letter from C. C., all on nice, pretty figured paper, such as you love, and she talks a great deal about you; the substance of it is, that you are an ugly, little, lazy, stupid, good-for-nothing knurle, and that she is very sorry she ever wrote you a line. I can't vouch for the very words, but I think this is a fair abridgment of that part of her letter which concerns T. B. A. I wish you would teach half a dozen of your negroes to write; then you might lay on the sofa, and, if you could submit to the labour of thinking and dictating, the thing would go on.

We make a pleasant society here, so that one may get through the winter without ennui. I live at Mr. Law's, not nominally, but in fact. Mrs. Madison is distant one mile. Anna Payne [2] is a great belle. Miss Nicholson [3] ditto, but more retired; frequently, however, at Mrs. Law's. But pray, miss (madam), as to busts and statues, all the B.'s being out of the question, is there nothing in this line to be found in South Carolina? I suppose it never came into your head to think or inquire. Pray shake your little noddle, to give the brains, if any there be, a little action; but who can do two things at once? That's true. I forgive thee all thy sins, without any further penance than that which you have imposed on yourself. But write C. and poor little Anna, to congratulate her. Tell her what a fine fellow I learn her husband is. Mrs. Anna Constable Pierpont.

We have a perpetual summer here. I am weary of it, though, in truth, I care nothing about it. With you it must be burning hot.

The cook had only Peggy to aid him; but as Peggy is equal to about forty South Carolina Africans, he is very reasonable if he asks only thirty-five, and ought to be indulged. Your maid will make a miserable housekeeper, and be spoiled as femme de chambre, which last character is, I take it, the more important one. The poem or elegy is not sent, and is not forgotten. I am now going to smoke a segar and pray for you.

A. BURR

FROM CHARLES BIDDLE.

Philadelphia, February 3, 1802.

DEAR SIR,

I enclose you a letter for Commodore Truxton. Should he be gone to
Norfolk, please to forward it.

Every gentleman here, and, what I am sure you think of much more consequence, every lady, was much pleased with your vote on the judiciary bill. Those who do not think it unconstitutional to repeal the law are of opinion it would be very injurious to do it. Your friend,

CHARLES BIDDLE.

FROM COLONEL MARINUS WILLETT.

New-York, February 4, 1802.

DEAR SIR,

What a racket this vile judiciary law makes. It must be repealed; but how the judges, who have their appointment during good behaviour, are to be removed without making a breach in the constitution, is beyond my abilities to develop. It will not, however, be the first assault on that instrument; and, if two wrongs could make one right, this account might be squared. But that horrid law must, indeed it must, be repealed.

I have received your two favours, one dated the 28th of January, and the other without date. The effect of the abolition of the internal taxes on Mr. Osgood [4] gives me no concern. He has plenty of other business, and money enough without the income from his office.

God bless you; you have my prayers always; and who dare say they are not as good as a bishop's, or any member of a Presbyterian synod? Sometimes I think I'll turn Presbyterian, that I may have the benefit of their prayers not to outlive my useful days; an event I deprecate above all others, and this is a prayer I never heard in our church—I mean my church, which, you know, is the Episcopal. Most sincerely your friend,

M. WILLETT.

FROM JOHN M. TAYLOR. Philadelphia, February 5, 1802.

DEAR SIR,

I had the pleasure of writing you some days ago, since which there are petitions circulating through the city for a repeal of the judiciary system. My own opinion is that there is no necessity for such a measure, as the two houses of Congress have the subject before them, and their decision will be had ere the petitions can be sent forward, and I have no doubt it will be repealed.

I have reasoned with all those who thought you ought to have voted against it being referred to the committee of five, that your intention must have been to afford the opposite party time to discuss the subject fully, so that they might not say of you and your friends (as Governeur Morris has said) that they pertinaciously forced it on the then minority. I think it is better to give them time.

Yours, very respectfully,

JOHN M. TAYLOR.

FROM MRS. *******.

New-York, February 9, 1807.

At the sight of my writing you will exclaim—" She is unhappy, or she would not write to me." 'Tis not so, my dear friend; I am neither more nor less happy than when you left here. With every passing day I have resolved to inform you of my health, but from day to day it has been deferred, till I suppose my very existence is forgotten. Let me, then, awaken your recollection, by presenting to you the image of my thoughts, and retrace, however faintly, the impression I once flattered myself to have made on your memory.

Tell me how you do, and how you pass your time. Taking lessons of Wisdom from your Minerva? or flying after the Atalanta's of Virginia, more swift than their celebrated racers? or, more probably, poring over musty records; offering your time, your pleasures, your health, at the shrine of Fame; sacrificing your own good for that of the public; pursuing a chimera which ever has and ever will mock the grasp; for, however the end may be crowned with success, the motives will be questioned, and that justice which has been refused to a Regulus, a Brutus, a Publius, who can hope for?

I once admired for device a skyrocket, and for motto—Let me perish so I be exalted." I afterward changed my opinion, and preferred the glow-worm twinkling in a hedge. But I now reject them both. They strike for a moment, but neither of them are impressive; and it is thus, in changing, we pursue that something "which prompts, the eternal sigh," which never is, which never can be attained. These reflections arise continually on my reading the newspapers, where your actions are so freely canvassed and so illiberally censured. They often excite my wrath; but when I consider that my anger can no more check their calumnies than the splendour of your reputation be clouded by their impotent attempts, my indignation subsides, and I console myself by saying,

"Vain his attempt who strives to please them all."

Z.

TO THEODOSIA.

Washington, February 21, 1802.

Your letter of the 31st, accompanied by a note dated 1st February, came by the mail of yesterday. A few lines from Mr. Alston, received some days before, advised me of your journey to Clifton, and of the distressing occasion. My heart sinks within me when I think of that lovely and disconsolate woman. Your conduct was worthy of you and of my daughter. She must be restored to reason and to life, by being convinced that she has some motive for enduring existence. If no other can be shown, at least she can be persuaded that she is necessary to you. But I learn from your letter, though you say nothing of it, that although she feels with anguish, yet she will not sink into despondency. This testifies a mind of that dignity and firmness which you had taught me to expect.

Nothing could have been more fortunate than the revival of the project. It will divert the attention and summon up the spirits. You must not condemn; it would be better to cherish it. Enter into all the details. Transport yourselves to Europe, and there take a nearer view and more accurate estimate of the dangers and advantages. Let those who oppose it offer something in lieu. What! is she to wear out her youth and beauty, dissipate her talents, and exhaust her spirits without an object in life or a place in society? Without enjoyment, without distinction? These hints will make you think I may hereafter say more.

My life has no variety, and, of course, no incident. To my feelings your letters are the most important occurrence. I am blessed with three of them in three months. It did not use to be so. It would be no excessive encroachment on your precious time to give me an hour twice a week the evening preceding the post days. This I shall expect; and then, and after one more communication, to be presently mentioned, I will write definitely as to my spring projects.

It is of sculpture: a hint in your last indicates that you have something in view. Be pleased to give me name and description, in some mystical, sybillistical way, which, in case of robbery of mail, will not disclose too much. One letter may contain the name, and another the comment—"Car ou l'arreter?" is rather too mystical. I can make nothing of it, having studied it a full hour to no purpose.

I entreat that you will always enclose your letter in a blank sheet, on which is to be the seal and superscription. Health and blessings.

A. BURR.

TO THEODOSIA Washington, February 23, 1802.

On the 4th day of March next I propose to write you of certain matters and things of high import, heretofore touched, but not elucidated to the entire satisfaction of all the parties concerned, if, in the mean time, you shall be of good behaviour.

This, however, was not what I sat down to say, nor can I by any possible means recollect what it was; but, in truth, I had something to communicate or something to ask. I don't know which. That we have a great snow storm and cold weather (now) will be no news to you, for they will undoubtedly both be at Charleston long before this letter.

I project, as you may have understood, a journey southward at some time, yet nameless, during the current year (or century). Now, if my evil stars or good ones should, against my will and my judgment, take me through Norfolk, I am ruined and done; and there my journey will most infallibly end. That I had better be hanged or drowned, you will readily agree. The antidote or preventative is in your hands, or, if you please, head. The bust, slightly referred to in the letter of the 1st of February, has occupied some of my waking and sleeping moments. Be more particular, and especially the estimated value in dollars and cents; also, in what year or era manufactured, and the character and merit of the work, as it strikes your fancy, but with some minuteness. You know my rage for sculpture has cost me some money and led me into some bad bargains. Thank God, I have got rid of them all. If you will have Pet or Peet, Peter, Peter Yates, Peter Alston, Petrus Burr (or by every other name he may be known) taught to write a good hand, and make me a present of him, I will subscribe myself your very much obliged and humble servant,

A. BURR.

Footnotes:

1. The author of "A History of John Adams's Administration." This letter relates to the suppression of that book, which, although its publication was suspended for a time, was published according to the advice of General John Swartwout and M. L. Davis

2. Sister of Mrs. Madison.

3. Daughter of Commodore James Nicholson, and sister of Mrs. Gallatin.

4. Samuel Osgood, Commissioner of Internal Revenue

CHAPTER XII.

TO THEODOSIA.

Washington, February 22, 1802.

Never were orders obeyed with more promptitude and effect. It is not twelve hours since I desired (directed) you to write, and lo! a letter dated the 9th of February. And even "enclosed in a blank sheet of paper." A zealous manifestation of reciprocity is due to such respectful attention, and thus, in obedience to the high commands of T. B. A., I do most sincerely and devoutly execrate all the postboys and the legislatures of the two most noble states the Carolinas.

You women: it is so with you all. If one wishes to exhibit the best side, one must provoke you. Gratify your wishes and expectations, or, still worse, anticipate them, and it produces a lethargy. How have I laboured for three months, working and writing to please a certain lady: nothing comes but inanity and torpor. I provoke her, and behold the effusions of spirit and genius. Be assured that I shall not speedily relapse into the same error. Indeed, I knew all this before; but I thought it was only one's mistress that was to be thus managed—it is sex.

For certain reasons of state, neither the name nor the epitaph can yet be given ; nor can it now be said precisely when. The verses are allowed to be very beautiful. Those on the anniversary of the wedding were received (this day) in the presence of two poets and a poetess, who said handsome things of them. The ess being a maiden of thirty-five, drew a deep sigh.

Indeed, it is impossible to say, for I never before heard of such a thing as that any public body should "ajourn." They do commonly adjourn; and if, perchance, this should be what you mean, and you shall write me so, I will do my best to give you a categorical answer.

Natalie arrived at Orleans on the twenty-sixth day; meaning that she had twenty-six days' passage. She has written both from Orleans and Nantz. Her letters are full of good sense, of acute observation, of levity, of gravity, and affection. No news of her mother, Adieu,

A. BURR.

TO THEODOSIA.

Washington, February 26, 1802.

The arrival of your letter of the 14th justifies me in noticing you by this mail. Your newspapers of the same date, and also of the 15th, contain particulars of the races; but so technically expressed that I comprehend nothing of it. Your story is quite intelligible as far forth as it is legible. I am very glad that Papa Alston has won once. It is, I am told, the first time in his life. Where is Hampton all this while, that you say nothing of him? Already I have told you that on the 4th of March I shall say something of the adjournment, if, in the mean time, you behave well. I shall not go first to New-York. Send back your chairs. General Smith's carriage has just ran away with four ladies, viz.: Mrs. Smith, Miss Speare, Miss Smith, and Mrs. Law. Miss Smith was taken up dead, and brought home dead. After twenty-five minutes she began to show signs of life. In two hours she began to know those about her, and now (three hours) she is perfectly well; and having been stripped and thoroughly examined, it cannot be discovered that she has received the slightest injury, save being frightened to death, as before mentioned. Miss Speare came off unhurt. Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Law are much bruised. You will, I hope, understand that the horses ran off with the carriage, and not that the carriage, of its own mere motion, ran off with the ladies. Adieu.

A. BURR.

TO THEODOSIA.

Washington, February 27, 1802.

Last evening Eustis happened in my room while I was at Smith's (opposite); he saw the cover of your letter, and the few lines which it contains. He wrote what you will find enclosed, and left it on my table. His cure is radical; that which I recommend is temporary.

A dull, raw, misty, vile day. Mrs. Law confined to her bed, as I expected, but not dangerous. The Smiths doing pretty well.

The judiciary bill debating in the House of Representatives, being the last day of the second week devoted exclusively to that subject. It may and it may not be finished next week. When this shall be done with, we may be able to make some sort of calculation as to the duration of the session.

Your last letter is pleasant and cheerful. Careless, incorrect, slovenly, illegible. I dare not show a sentence of it even to Eustis. God mend you.

A. BURR.

TO THEODOSIA.

Washington, March 4, 1802.

You have supposed it to be from malice that I have not written you of the adjournment and of my intentions. The truth is, that I know little more of those matters than you do, and I have chosen rather to postpone it en badinant than to write you crude conjectures; yet I can do but little more at present.

I left New-York with a determination not to return till I should have seen you and Charleston, and I arranged my business for an absence of six months. I had hoped that the session of Congress would close by the 15th of March or the 1st of April. On my arrival here every one said so, and I had like to have written it to you; but appearances did not seem to justify the expectation of a short session. The business is hardly commenced, and I see no prospect of an adjournment until some time in May. This is a great embarrassment; and your project of remaining on the coast is another. I could, with pleasure, have passed the summer with you in the mountains; but the heat and dissipation of Sullivan's Island is not so inviting. All this, however, is nothing to the purpose of your inquiry. To come to the point. I still propose to go South the instant I can disengage myself from this place; which may be a very few days before the close of the session. I shall be at least twenty days on the road. I entreat you, however, not to excite any expectation on the subject of my visit; not even to mention my intentions, until we shall see how far it may be in my power to execute them. The judiciary bill being out of the way, I am in hopes we shall engage zealously in the despatch of business. Of this matter I shall write further when I shall receive answers from you to my late letters. They may hasten or retard my movements a little, but not much. Adieu.

A. BURR.

TO THEODOSIA.

Washington, March 8, 1802.

From an accurate attention to the dates of your letters, I discover that you write on Sunday only; that if, by accident or mental indisposition, to which people in warm climates are liable, the business should be put off for that day, it lays over to the next Sunday, and so to a third or fourth, according to exigences, active or passive. Your letter, dated the 22d, but, in fact, written on Sunday the 21st, was received by the mail preceding the last, which brought nothing. This letter is a confirmation of my theory of provocations, which I have lately enlarged and more accurately defined, deducing it from philosophical principles, and adapting it to different climates. When this volume shall be ready for publication, I propose to add, in an appendix, by way of illustration, a series of our letters.

What you say of Huger shall receive due attention. Which Maria did your husband go for, the biped or the quadruped? It is impossible to determine from any thing in your letter. On the subject of busts you are more whimsical than even your father; just now you had something in view; but, on the 22d of February, "worse than any part of the United States." I have no time to give you now an explanation of your ice phenomenon, but will talk with T.I. and W.E. on the subject. Your last was sealed on the writing, a vulgarism which I again condemn. Adieu.

A. BURR.

TO THEODOSIA.

Washington, March 8, 1802.

At the moment of closing your letter, this scrap of a newspaper [1] caught my eye, and is sent for your amusement. It is aimed at Aaron Burr, by whom, it is well known, the publication of the book [2] is delayed or suppressed. The book consists of five hundred pages, principally low scurrility and illy-told private anecdotes; with about thirty pages of high eulogium on A. B. There may, for aught I know, have been twenty other publications criminating the person by whom the work has been suppressed. They are so utterly lost on me, that I never should have seen even this, but that it came enclosed to me from a friend in New-York, who is solicitous for my honour, &c.

You may judge of the purity and decency of the book when I mention that some dozen of persons, by name, are charged with being bribed by British gold, and there is a surmise that General Pinckney is not reputed very honest. Of all the federal men, General Hamilton alone is treated with respect, even to flattery. My "solicitous friend" has given me a curious fact, of which I was ignorant till the receipt of his letter. Barlas, a Scotchman, the publisher of the book, is private tutor to the children of General Hamilton. Adieu.

A. BURR.

TO JOSEPH ALSTON.

Washington, March 8, 1802.