Memoirs of Aaron Burr, Volume 2.

M >> Matthew L. Davis >> Memoirs of Aaron Burr, Volume 2.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33

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

I am, gentlemen, with respect,

Your obedient servant,

S. SMITH.

FROM RICHARD H. BAYARD.

Wilmington, Delaware, April 22, 1830.

SIR,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have the honour to be, respectfully,

Your obedient servant,

RICHARD H. BAYARD.

Footnotes:

1. See Ch. V.

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

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

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

CHAPTER VIII.

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

WILLIAM COOPER TO THOMAS MORRIS. [1]

Washington, February 10, 1801.

DEAR SIR,

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

Your friend,

W. COOPER.

WILLIAM COOPER TO THOMAS MORRIS.

February 13, 1801.

DEAR SIR,

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

FROM JAMES A. BAYARD TO ALEXANDER HAMILTON.

Washington, January 7, 1801.

DEAR SIR,

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

With great consideration,

Your obedient servant,

JAMES A. BAYARD.

GEORGE BAER TO RICHARD H. BAYARD.

Frederick, April 19, 1830

SIR,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am respectfully, Sir,

Your most obedient servant,

GEORGE BAER.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miller & Van Wyck, Attorneys for Defendant.

Approved, March 6, 1805.

B. Livingston.

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

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

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

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

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

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33