Marcel Proust - "A L'Ombre Des Jeunes Filles en Fleur, Volume 1"

William Edward Hartpole Lecky - "Historical and Political Essays"

Alexandre Dumas - "La dame de Monsoreau v.2"

United States War Department - "Infantry Drill Regulations, United States Army, 1911"

Annual Bibliography of Commonwealth Literature 2007
This paper argues that discourses of love in Ghanaian market literature for youth offer a view into complex negotiations of agency and empowerment. Drawing on Deborah Durham's notion of youth as "social `shifters'" and Francis Nyamnjoh's conception of the "interconnectedness" of agency, I take Ghanaian market literature as one specific case of how African literature for youth foregrounds questions of continuity and change as African societies enter into increasingly complex global relations. In this literature for youth, received notions of love, often constructed out of impressions from American pop and hip hop music, carry new notions of agency that compete with existing "domesticated" forms. Authors like Ike Tandoh and Evelyn Tay employ discourses of love to offer youth alternative avenues for empowerment in a context of socio-economic disenfranchizement. In a creative process of "straddling", this writing both reveals and reproduces the contradictions that obtain in youth configurations of agency.

Memoirs of Aaron Burr, Volume 1.

M >> Matthew L. Davis >> Memoirs of Aaron Burr, Volume 1.




At the commencement of the revolutionary war, the State of New-York
held an extensive tract of wild and unimproved lands. Sundry laws were
passed in the years 1779, 1780, 1784, 1785, and 1786, providing for
their sale and settlement. A board was created, entitled "the
Commissioners of the Land Office." It was composed of the governor,
the secretary of state, the attorney-general, the treasurer, and the
auditor. The powers conferred by the several acts above referred to
having been found inadequate to the proposed object, the legislature,
on the 22d of March, 1791, gave unlimited powers to the commissioners,
authorizing them to "dispose of any of the waste and unappropriated
lands in the state, in such parcels, and on such terms, and in such
manner as they shall judge most conducive to the interests of the
state." In pursuance of this authority, the commissioners sold during
the year 1791, by estimate, five millions five hundred and forty-two
thousand one hundred and seventy acres of waste land, for the sum of
one million and thirty thousand four hundred and thirty-three dollars;
leaving in the possession of the state, yet to be disposed of, about
two millions of acres. Among the sales was one to Alexander Macomb,
for three millions six hundred and thirty-five thousand two hundred
acres. The magnitude of this sale, and the price at which it was sold,
created a great excitement throughout the state, and at the session of
the legislature which commenced on the 4th of January, 1792, the
subject was brought before the assembly.

The price at which Mr. Macomb made his purchase was eight pence per
acre, payable in five annual instalments, without interest, with
permission to discount for prompt payment at six per cent. per annum,
which made the price about equal to seven cents per acre cash. Colonel
Burr, as attorney-general, was a member of the board. On the 9th of
April, 1792, the report of the commissioners being the order of the
day, the subject was taken up in the house. Mr. Talbot, from
Montgomery county, moved sundry resolutions. They were intended as the
foundation for an impeachment of a part of the commissioners of the
land office. They assumed to contain a statement of facts, evidencing
on the part of the commissioners great indiscretion and want of
judgment, if not corruption, in the sale of the public lands, and they
charged the commissioners with a willful violation of the law. These
resolutions, however, excepted Colonel Burr from any participation in
the maleconduct complained of, inasmuch as the minutes of the board
proved that he was not present at the meetings (being absent on
official duty as attorney-general) when these contracts, so ruinous,
as they alleged, to the interests of the state, were made: nor did it
appear that he (Colonel Burr) was ever consulted in relation to them.
These resolutions elicited a heated debate; in the progress of which
all the commissioners, except the attorney-general, were assailed with
great bitterness; and charges of corruption by innuendo were
unceremoniously made. At a late hour the house adjourned without
decision until the next day.

On the 10th of April, 1792, Mr. Melancton Smith moved the following
resolution, with a preamble as a substitute:--

"Resolved, That this house do highly approve of the conduct of the
commissioners of the land office in the judicious sales by them, as
aforesaid, which have been productive of the before mentioned
beneficial effects."

This resolution was adopted by a vote of ays 35--noes 20.

Of Melancton Smith it is proper to remark here that he was a plain,
unsophisticated man. A purer patriot never lived. Of the powers of his
mind some opinion may be formed by the following anecdote. Dr.
Ledyard, who was afterwards health officer of the port of New-York,
was a warm federalist. He was at Poughkeepsie while the federal
constitution was under discussion in the state convention. Smith was
an anti-federal member of that body. Some time after the adoption of
the constitution, Ledyard stated to a friend of his, that to Colonel
Alexander Hamilton had been assigned, in a special manner, the duty of
defending that portion of the constitution which related to the
judiciary of the United States. That an outdoor conversation between
Colonel Hamilton and Mr. Smith took place in relation to the
judiciary, in the course of which Smith urged some of his objections
to the proposed system. In the evening a federal caucus was held; at
that caucus Mr. Hamilton referred to the conversation, and requested
that some gentleman might be designated to aid in the discussion of
this question. Robert R. Livingston, chancellor of the state, was
accordingly named. Mr. Livingston was at that time a distinguished
leader in the ranks of the federal party. Whoever will take the
trouble to read the debates in the Convention, in which will be found
the reply of Smith to Livingston, will perceive in that reply the
efforts of a mighty mind. It was a high but merited compliment to the
talents of Melancton Smith, that such a man as Colonel Hamilton should
have wished aid in opposing him.

During the winter of 1791-92, being Colonel Burr's first session in
the Senate of the United States, he spent much of his leisure time in
the state department. For several sessions after the organization of
the federal government, all the business of the Senate was transacted
with closed doors. At that period the correspondence of existing
ministers was kept secret, even from the senators. With every thing
connected with the foreign affairs of the country, Colonel Burr was
exceedingly anxious to make himself intimately acquainted. He
considered it necessary to the faithful and useful performance of his
duty as a senator. He obtained permission from Mr. Jefferson, then
secretary of state, to have access to the records of the department
before the hour for opening the office arrived. He employed one of the
messengers to make a fire at five o'clock in the morning, and
occasionally an intelligent and confidential clerk to assist him in
searching for papers. Here he was engaged until near ten o'clock every
day. It was his constant practice to have his breakfast sent to him.
He continued this employment the greater part of the session, making
notes on, or extracts from, the records of the department, until he
was interrupted by a peremptory order from the president (Washington)
prohibiting his farther examination.

Wishing some information that he had not obtained in relation to a
surrender of the western posts by the British, he addressed a note to
the secretary of state, asking permission to make that particular
examination; to which he received the following answer:----

"Thomas Jefferson presents his respectful compliments to Colonel Burr,
and is sorry to inform him it has been concluded to be improper to
communicate the correspondence of existing ministers. He hopes this
will, with Colonel Burr, be his sufficient apology."

In April, 1792, there was an election for governor of the State of
New-York. By some it was supposed that Governor Clinton would decline
being again considered a candidate. It was known that John Jay would
be the candidate of the federal party. At that period Colonel Burr had
warm personal friends in both parties, who were urging his
pretensions. Among the most ardent was Judge Yates. In the latter part
of February, 1792, he authorized his friends to state that he declined
a nomination. He was placed, however, in an unpleasant dilemma. The
connexions, and many of the personal friends of Governor Clinton, were
jealous of Colonel Burr's talents and growing influence. Between the
governor and himself there was very little intercourse. On the other
hand, the kindest feelings towards him were evinced by Chief-justice
Jay, who was a most amiable man. It was his wish, therefore, as far as
practicable, consistent with his principles, to remain neuter. He had
never been an electioneering character, and with the people he wished
to leave the pending question, without the exercise of any influence
he might be supposed to possess.

By the then existing laws of New-York, the ballots that were taken in
the several counties were, immediately after the election, transmitted
to the office of the secretary of state, and there kept until the
second Tuesday in May, when the board of canvassers were, by law, to
convene and canvass them. The election for governor was warmly
contested; the federal party supporting Judge Jay, the anti-federal
party George Clinton. When the canvassers met, difficulties arose as
to the legality of the returns from certain counties, particularly of
Otsego, Tioga, and Clinton. The canvassers differing in opinion on the
question whether the ballots should be counted or destroyed, they
agreed to ask the advice of Rufus King and Colonel Burr. These
gentlemen conferred, and, like the canvassers, differed: whereupon Mr.
Burr proposed that they should decline giving advice. To this Mr. King
objected, and expressed a determination to give his own opinion
separate. This rendered it necessary for Colonel Burr to adopt a like
procedure. He thus became a partisan, and a most efficient partisan,
in that controversy.

_Seven_ of the canvassers determined to reject and destroy the ballots
alleged to have been illegally returned. To this decision _four_
objected. The ballots were accordingly destroyed, and George Clinton
declared to be duly elected governor. The excitement produced was
without a parallel in the state. The friends of Judge Jay contended
that he had been chosen by the people, but was cheated out of his
election by the corruption of the canvassers. Great asperity and
virulence were exhibited by both political parties on the occasion.

From the moment that Colonel Burr was driven to interfere in the
controversy, he took upon himself, almost exclusively, the management
of the whole case on the side of the anti-federal party. His
accustomed acumen, vigilance, and zeal, were promptly put in
requisition. Full scope was allowed for the display of those great
legal talents for which he was so pre-eminently distinguished. It has
been known to only a very few individuals that on Colonel Burr rested
nearly the whole labour; and that nothing was done, even by the
canvassers, but under his advice and direction. It has therefore been
deemed proper to insert here some of the official details of the case.
They are worthy record, as an interesting part of the political
history of the State of New-York.

"_Statement of the case by the Canvassers, for the advice of Rufus
King and Aaron Burr_.

"OTSEGO.--By the 26th section of the constitution of the State of
New-York, it is ordained that sheriffs and coroners be annually
appointed, and that no person shall be capable of holding either of
the said offices for more than four years successively, nor the
sheriff of holding any other office at the same time. By the ninth
section of the act for regulating elections, it is enacted that one of
the inspectors shall deliver the ballots and poll-lists, scaled up, to
the sheriff of the county; and, by the tenth section of the said act,
it is further enacted, that each and every sheriff of the respective
counties in this state shall, upon receiving the said enclosures,
directed to be delivered to him as aforesaid, without opening or
inspecting the same, or any or either of them, put the said
enclosures, and every one of them, into one box, which shall be well
closed and sealed up by him, under his hand and seal, with the name of
his county written on the box, and be delivered by him into the office
of the secretary of this state, where the same shall be safely kept by
the secretary, or his deputy. By the eleventh section of the said act,
all questions arising on the canvass and estimate of the votes, or on
any of the proceedings therein, shall be determined by a majority of
the members of the joint committee attending; and their judgment shall
be final, and the oath of the canvassers requires them faithfully,
honestly, and impartially to canvass and estimate the votes contained
in the boxes delivered into the office of the secretary of this state
by the sheriffs of the several counties.

"On the 17th of February, 1791, Richard R. Smith was appointed sheriff
of the county of Otsego, and his commission gives him the custody of
that county until the 18th of February, 1792. On the 13th of January,
1792, he writes a letter to the Council of Appointment, informing them
that, as the year for which he was appointed had nearly elapsed, he
should decline a reappointment.

"On the 30th of March, 1792, the Council of Appointment appointed
Benjamin Gilbert to the office of sheriff of the said county, with a
commission, in the usual form, to keep the county until the 17th of
February next. His commission was delivered to Stephen Van Rensselaer,
Esq., on the 13th of April last, to be forwarded by him to the said
Benjamin Gilbert. By the affidavit of the said Benjamin Gilbert,
herewith delivered, it appears that he qualified into the office of
sheriff on the 11th day of May, 1792. On the first Tuesday in April,
1792, Richard R. Smith was elected supervisor of the town of Otsego,
in said county, and on the first Tuesday in May took his seat at the
board of supervisors, and assisted in the appointment of loan officers
for the county of Otsego. By the affidavit of Richard R. Smith,
herewith delivered, it appears that the ballots taken in the county of
Otsego were delivered to him as sheriff, and by him enclosed in a
sufficient box, on or about the 3d of May, which box he then delivered
into the hands of Leonard Goes, a person specially deputed by him for
the purpose of delivering the said box into the hands of the secretary
of this state, which was accordingly done, as appears by information
from the secretary.

"A small bundle of papers, enclosed and sealed, was delivered to the
secretary with the box, on which is written, 'The votes of the town of
Cherry Valley, in the county of Otsego. Richard R. Smith, Sheriff.'
Several affidavits, herewith delivered, state certain facts respecting
this separate bundle, said to be the votes of Cherry Valley.

"On this case arise the following questions:--

"1. Was Richard R. Smith the sheriff of the county of Otsego when he
received and forwarded the ballots by his special deputy?

"2. If he was not sheriff, can the votes sent by him be legally
canvassed?

"3. Can the joint committee canvass the votes when sent to them in two
parcels, the one contained in a box, and the other contained in a
paper, or separate bundle? Or,

"4. Ought they to canvass those sealed in the box, and reject the
others?

"TIOGA.--It appears that the sheriff of Tioga delivered the box
containing the ballots to B. Hovey, his special deputy, who set out,
was taken sick on his journey, and delivered the box to H. Thompson,
his clerk, who delivered it into the secretary's office.

"_Question_. Ought the votes of Tioga to be canvassed?

"CLINTON.--It appears that the sheriff of Clinton delivered the box
containing the ballots to Theodorus Platt, Esq., who had no
deputation, but who delivered them into the secretary's office, as
appears by his affidavit.

"_Question._ Ought the votes of Clinton to be canvassed?"

_Mr. King's opinion to the Canvassers_.

"OTSEGO.--It may be inferred, from the constitution and laws of the
state, that the office of sheriff is held during the pleasure of the
Council of Appointment, subject to the limitation contained in the
26th section of the constitution. The sheriff may therefore hold his
office for four years, unless within that period a successor shall
have been appointed, and shall have entered upon the execution of the
office. The term of four years from the appointment of R. R. Smith not
having expired, and B. Gilbert not having entered upon the execution
of the office before the receipt and delivery of the votes by R. R.
Smith to his deputy, I am of opinion that R. R. Smith was then lawful
sheriff of Otsego.

"This opinion is strengthened by what is understood to be practice,
namely, that the office of sheriff is frequently held for more than a
year under one appointment.

"R. R. Smith's giving notice to the Council of Appointment of his
disinclination to be reappointed, or his acting as supervisor, cannot,
in my opinion, be deemed a resignation or surrender of his office.

"Should doubts, however, be entertained whether R. R. Smith was
_lawfully_ sheriff when he received and delivered the votes to his
deputy, the case contains facts which in another view of the subject
are important. It appears that R. R. Smith was appointed sheriff of
Otsego on the 17th of February, 1791, and afterwards entered upon the
execution of his office: that no other person was in the execution of
or claimed the office after the date of his appointment, and before
the time when he received and delivered the votes of the county to his
deputy; that during that interval R. R. Smith was sheriff, or the
county was without a sheriff; that R. R. Smith, during the election,
and when he received and delivered the votes to his deputy, continued
in the actual exercise of the shrievalty, and that under colour of a
regular appointment. From this statement it may be inferred, that if
R. R. Smith, when he received and delivered the votes to his deputy,
was not _de jure_, he was _de facto_, sheriff of Otsego.

"Though all the acts of an officer _de facto_ may not be valid, and
such of them as are merely voluntary and exclusively beneficial to
himself are void; yet such acts as tend to the public utility, and
such as be would be compellable to perform, such as are essential to
preserve the rights of third persons, and without which they might be
lost or destroyed, when done by an officer _de facto_, are valid.

"I am therefore of opinion, that admitting R. R. Smith, when he
received and delivered the votes to his deputy, was not _de jure_
sheriff, yet that he was _de facto_ sheriff; and that his receiving
and delivering the votes being acts done under colour of authority,
tending to the public utility, and necessary to the carrying into
effect the rights of suffrage of the citizens of that county, they are
and ought to be deemed valid; and consequently the votes of that
county may lawfully be canvassed.

"2d Question. The preceding answer to the first question renders an
answer to the second unnecessary.

"3d and 4th Questions. The sheriff is required to put into one box
every enclosure delivered to him by an inspector appointed for that
purpose by the inspectors of any town or district; and for omitting to
put any such enclosure into the box, he is liable to prosecution; but
in case of such omission, the votes put into the box, and seasonably
delivered into the secretary's office, may, notwithstanding such
omission, be lawfully canvassed; and equally so whether the omitted
enclosure be kept back or sent forward with the box to the secretary's
office. I am therefore of opinion that the votes contained in the box
may lawfully be canvassed; that those contained in a separate packet,
from considerations explained in the depositions, and distinct from
the objection of not being included within the box, cannot be lawfully
canvassed.

"CLINTON.--The deputy having no interest in the office of sheriff, but
being merely the sheriff's servant, it does not seem to be necessary
that the evidence of his being employed or made a deputy should be a
deed or an instrument in writing, though the latter would be proper;
yet a deputy may be made by _parole_: I am therefore inclined to the
opinion that the votes of Clinton may be canvassed.

"TIOGA.--The sheriff is one who executes an office in person or by
deputy, so far at least as the office is ministerial; when a deputy is
required of the sheriff conomine, he may execute it in person or by
deputy; but if the deputy appoints a deputy, it may be doubtful
whether ordinarily the acts of the last deputy are the acts of the
sheriff. The present instance is an extreme case; had the duty been
capable of being performed within the county, the sheriff or another
deputy could have performed. Here the deputy, being in the execution
of his duty, and without the county, is prevented by the act of God
from completing it; the sheriff could not appoint, and the deputy
undertakes to appoint a deputy to finish his duty, who accordingly
does so. The election law is intended to render effectual the
constitutional right of suffrage; it should therefore be construed
liberally, and the means should be in subordination to the end.

"In this case it may be reasonably doubted whether the canvassers are
obliged to reject the votes of Tioga.

"RUFUS KING."



_Mr. Burr's opinion to the Canvassers._

"OTSEGO.--The duration of the office of sheriff in England having been
limited by statute to one year, great inconveniences were experienced,
as well by suiters as by the public. To remove which it was thought
necessary to pass an act of parliament. The statute of 12 Ed. IV., ch.
1, recites at large these inconveniences, and authorizes the sheriff
to execute and return writs in the term of St. Michael, before the
delivery of a writ of discharge, notwithstanding the expiration of the
year. The authority given by this statute being to execute only
certain specified duties, the remedy was not complete, and another
statute [1] was soon after passed, permitting sheriffs to do every act
pertaining to the office, during the term of St. Michael and St.
Hilary, after the expiration of the year, if not sooner discharged.
The practice in England appears to have been conformable to these
statutes, [2] though the king did pretend to dispense with them by
force of the royal prerogative; and this claim and exercise of a power
in the crown to dispense with and control the operation of statutes,
has been long and universally condemned as odious and
unconstitutional; yet the form of the commission is said still to be
during pleasure.

"These considerations tend to show the principles of several opinions
and adjudications, which are found in English law-books, relative to
the holding over of the office of sheriff.

"None of the statutes of England or Great Britain continued to be laws
of this state after the first of May, 1778. So that at present there
remains no pretence for adopting any other than the obvious meaning of
the constitution, which limits the duration of the office to one year,
beyond which the authority to hold cannot be derived from the
constitution, the appointment, or the commission. If inconveniences
arise, remedies can be provided by _law only_, as has in similar cases
been done in England, deciding on legal principles; therefore, the
appointment and commission, and with them the authority of Mr. Smith,
must be deemed to have expired on the 18th of February.

"Yet there are instances of offices being exercised by persons holding
under an authority apparently good, but which, on strict legal
examination, proves defective; whose acts, nevertheless, are, with
_some limitations_, considered as valid. This authority is called
_colourable_, and the officer in such cases is said to be an officer
_de facto_; which intends an intermediate state between an exercise
strictly lawful and one without such colour of right. Mr. Smith does
not appear to me to have holden the office of sheriff on the 3d of May
under such colour or pretence of right. The term of his office had
expired, and he had formally expressed his determination not to accept
a reappointment; after the expiration of the year he accepted, and
even two days before the receipt of the ballots, openly exercised an
office incompatible with that of sheriff; and it is to be inferred,
from the tenour of the affidavits, that he then knew of the
appointment of Mr. Gilbert. The assumption of this authority by Mr.
Smith does not even appear to have been produced by any urgent public
necessity or imminent public inconvenience. Mr. Gilbert was qualified
in season to have discharged the duty, and, for aught that is shown,
his attendance, if really desired, might have been procured still
earlier.

"Upon all the circumstances of this case, I am of opinion,

"1. That Mr. Smith was not sheriff of Otsego when he received and
forwarded the ballots.

"2d. That the ballots delivered by the deputy of Mr. Smith cannot be
legally canvassed.

"The direction of the law is positive, that the sheriff shall put all
the enclosures into one box. How far his inattention or misconduct in
this particular shall be deemed to vitiate the ballots of a county,
appears to be left to the judgment of the canvassers. Were the ballots
of this county subject to no other exception than that stated in the
third and fourth questions, I should incline to think it one of those
cases in which the discretion of the canvassers might be safely
exercised, and that the ballots contained in the boxes might be
legally canvassed; those in the separate package do not appear to be
subject to such discretionary power; the law does not _permit_ them to
be estimated. But the extent to which this power might be exercised in
cases similar in kind, but varying in degree, cannot be precisely
defined. Instances may doubtless be supposed, in which sound
discretion would require that the whole should be rejected.

Copyright (c) 2007. topboookz.com. All rights reserved.