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.