the candour or the generosity of the really upright man-on the contrary, the utter selfishness of his disposition predominated in his practice at the bar; and while the qualities of his head, which were confessedly great, made him feared as an opponent, and perhaps by many desired as an advocate, they have failed to earn him, associated as they were with the defects and vices we have mentioned, the sterling reputation which lives in the memory of the wise and good, and which, had Burr possessed it, would have been the best memorial his biographer could have gathered. We shall extract Mr. Davis's own statement of his legal abilities and conduct-we think it fully justifies our estimate of his hero-and, in presenting it to our readers, cannot withhold the expression of some surprise that it never occurred to the writer that possibly he might be adding but little to the real reputation of his friend.

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

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

"I was struck, says the same friend, in his legal practice, with that tendency to mystery which was so remarkable in his conduct in other respects. He delighted in surprising his opponents, and in laying, as it were, ambuscades for them. A suit, in which I was not counsel, but which has since passed professionally under my observation, will illustrate this point in his practice. It was an ejectment suit, brought by him to recover a valuable tenement in the lower part of the city, and in which it was supposed, by the able lawyers retained on the part of the defendant, that the only question would be on the construction of the will. On the trial they were surprised to find the whole force of the plaintiff's case brought against the authenticity of an ancient deed,

forming a link in their title, and of which, as it had never been questioned nor suspected, they had prepared merely formal proof; and a verdict of the jury, obtained by a sort of coup-de-main, pronounced the deed a forgery. Two tribunals have subsequently established the deed as authentic; but the plaintiff lived and died in the possession of the land in consequence of the verdict, while the law doubts, which form the only real questions in the case, are still proceeding, at the customary snail's pace, through our courts to their final solution..

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

Equal discrimination and acuteness was displayed in his political movements. An anecdote which occurred in the contested election of 1800, will exemplify this remark. Funds were required for printing, for committee rooms, &c. The finance committee took down the names of leading democrats, and attached to each the sum they proposed to solicit from him. Before attempting the collection, the list, at Colonel Burr's request, was presented for his inspection. An individual of wealth, an active partisan, but proverbially parsimonious, was assessed one hundred dollars. Burr directed that his name should be struck from the list; for, said he, you will not get the money, and from the moment the demand is made upon him, his exertions will cease, and you will not see him at the polls during the election. The request was complied with. On proceeding with the examination, the name of another wealthy individual was presented; he was liberal, but indolent; he also was assessed one hundred dollars. Burr requested that this sum should be doubled, and that he should be informed that no labour would be expected from him, except an occasional attendance at the committee rooms to assist in folding tickets. He will pay you the two hundred dollars, and thank you for letting him off so easy. The result proved the correctness of these opinions. On that occasion Colonel Burr remarked, that the knowledge and use of men consisted in placing each in his appropriate position." pp. 14-17.

To do full justice, however, to his powers as a speaker, we shall extract what his biographer says upon that head, with the anecdote which he introduces. A subsequent effort, at a much later period of his life, which in its proper place we shall advert to, is a conspicuous evidence of his command over the passions and affections.

"As a public speaker, his ideas were not diffuse enough; or rather, he appeared to lack fluency to make a long, and what is called an elaborate argument upon any matter, however grave or momentous. In a cause in which he was employed as associate counsel with General Hamilton, an incident occurred, in relation to Chief Justice Yates, not unworthy recording. It speaks a language that cannot be misunderstood,

and is demonstrative of the influence which he had over the feelings as well as the minds of his hearers. It was the celebrated case of Le Guen vs. Gouverneur and Kemble, one of the most important, in regard to the legal questions and amount of property involved, which at that day had been brought before our tribunals, and in which case he completely triumphed. Only a short period previous to his decease Colonel Burr remarked, that on this occasion he had acquired more money and more reputation as a lawyer than on any other during his long practice at the bar. A letter was addressed to Thurlow Weed, Esq., requesting him to apply to the Hon. John Van Ness Yates, son of the late chief justice, and ascertain whether the incident, as reported, was founded on fact. To that letter Mr. Weed received the following answer.

"John Van Ness Yates to Thurlow Weed.

"ALBANY, July 8th, 1837.

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

"II. The plaintiff'-another hiatus.

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

"Hamilton's eloquence was (if I may be allowed the expression) argumentative, and induced no great elevation or depression of mind, consequently could be easily followed by a note taker. Burr's was more persuasive and imaginative. He first enslaved the heart, and then led captive the head. Hamilton addressed himself to the head only. I do not therefore wonder that Burr engrossed all the faculties of the hearer. Indeed, I have heard him often at the bar myself, and always with the same effect. I do not recollect, in conversation, any particular allusion of my father's to Burr's argument in the case of Le Guen vs. Gouverneur and Kemble; but I have frequently heard him say, that of all lawyers at the bar, Burr was the most difficult to follow in the way of taking notes. Yet Burr was very concise in his language. He had no pleonasms or expletives. Every word was in its proper place, and seemed to be the only one suited to the place. He made few or no repetitions. If what he said had been immediately committed to the press, it would want no correction." pp. 20, 21.

It will be seen by the above extract, that our author places Mr. Burr in favourable contrast with his great rival, Hamiltonand he takes more than one opportunity of doing so. This is adroitly managed for the purpose of preparing the reader's mind for a sympathy with the former, when the thread of his story shall lead him to the famous personal conflict between these gentlemen. Of this hereafter-suffice it for the present to say, that with almost every one the flimsy artifice will be unsuccessful.

With the same object, that of lauding Mr. Burr and casting odium upon the federalists and their great head, Gen. Hamilton, (for such at least he was in the state of New York,) Mr. Davis presents a sketch, partial and uncandid, of the two great political VOL. XXII.-NO. 44

45

parties whose contests raged with such violence at that period in the "empire state." Mr. Burr attached himself to what was called the "violent whig party:" a party which was pleased to monopolize the designation of "republican," and, moreover, all the political virtue and love of country which were then afloat in the United States. The moderate whigs, who wished, as was said by Chancellor Livingston in 1784, "to suppress all violence, and to soften the rigour of the laws against the royalists"-composed principally those who were afterward denominated "Federalists"-joined, undoubtedly, from a sense of gratitude for the proper protection extended to them from unjust persecution, by the "tories," who had, however, lost any political influence in the state. The "pure democrats" are, of course, the only patriots in the view of Mr. Davis, and, above all, that section of them which was under the immediate control of Col. Burr, and followed his fortunes. It is, to be sure, rather unpleasant to the biographer to remember, and somewhat unfortunate for the fame of his hero to be compelled to record, that the great mass of the "real republicans" subsequently ejected Mr. Burr from their ranks, and that his chief support came from those who were opposed to the great democratic party, and, consequently, wofully deficient in love of country. However, so it was; and the only explanation the author can think of is to be found in the fact of the jealous persecution of Burr by Mr. Jefferson, and the arts by which the former lost the confidence of the republicans. For ourselves, we neither sympathize with Colonel Burr in his political downfall, nor exult with Mr. Jefferson in his exaltation. We consider that there is but little difference in their political merits-one being about as bad as the other; though the latter rejoiced in the adventitious circumstance of having ultimately become successful; a result which is amply sufficient to make him right in the opinion of all good democrats. The course pursued by Mr. Jefferson with respect to his rival, his inconsistency and unmanly hypocrisy, we shall note as we proceed. It is pleasant to see what these "pure men" thought of each other, when their interest came into collision, and as a matter of course, themselves became personally opposed to each other. We have invariably observed, that in such cases "virtuous individuals" of this kind entertain and express far a worse estimate of each other's moral and intellectual qualities than their bitterest original enemies ever did. Abundant proof could be presented of this truth in much more recent times, did it need illustration. Suffice it to say, that no opponent of either of the two "violent whigs," Burr and Jefferson, could desire them to go down to posterity in more vivid descriptions than were mutually furnished by these quondam associates in the great cause of "the rights of man."

While upon this topic, it is not uninteresting to record the opinion which George Clinton, the head in New York of the democratic party, entertained of Mr. Jefferson. Before introducing, however, the evidence which our author furnishes upon this point, and as having some connection with it, we must not omit a notice of the strenuous and successful exertions made by Burr in the great contest of 1800, which snatched the city and the state of New York, and indeed the general government, I out of the hands of the federalists. We shall see what our author says of these efforts presently; we now merely advert to one of the chief difficulties with which Mr. Burr had to contend the formation of an union between different sections of "the party," which was any thing but united; and the bringing over of Mr. Clinton to the support of the Jefferson ticket. That gentleman had a strong repugnance to the Virginia candidate-distrusting both his honesty and his capacity-and this sentiment he was neither anxious nor careful about concealing.

Burr's grand plan was to place upon the state ticket as candidates, all the revolutionary worthies, and all the gentlemen of respectability and high standing whom he could induce by any and every mode of persuasion to consent to stand. With many he found great difficulty-with none so much as with Mr. Clinton. He was the last to yield. Our author says—

"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. Áfter 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 immovable. 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