"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.