above, of the 15th of December, 1800, which speaks in the fullest terms of the writer's unlimited confidence in his (Burr's) abilities and integrity. How are we to reconcile these inconsistencies or can they possibly be reconciled? Are they not additional proofs of Mr. Jefferson's want of candour and manliness-to say nothing of any harsher construction? We leave our readers to judge for themselves; and return to the famous election, for the purpose of introducing here an anecdote as detailed by Mr. Davis, which casts a very serious imputation upon Mr. Jefferson's character, and is certainly, if true, an important incident in the political history of the country. We shall give it in Mr. Davis's own language:—

"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 has 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 be taken 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 concili tory 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?" pp. 71-74.

This story, it is proper to remark, comes to us at second hand. Mr. Davis gets it from "an honourable gentleman, yet living in the state of New York." That gentleman got his information from Mr. Wells of Delaware, one of the tellers on the occasion referred to. The truth of the story depends, therefore, upon the veracity of these different persons; or, without impeaching that, upon the correctness of their memory, or their right understanding of what had been narrated to them. It is proper that the public should have the best possible ground for a judgment in so important a matter, and therefore the name of this "honourable gentleman now alive" should not be withheld. The anecdote bears a very "anonymous shape," and ought at least to be sustained by the names of all the witnesses to its accuracy. Mr. Davis would have cast the air of greater authenticity upon the matter, had he attended to this circumstance-as it is, however, we do not venture to pronounce, at all decidedly, upon its truth or falsity-we merely deem it prudent to await further testimony upon the subject.

There are two points, chiefly, which Mr. Davis, in treating of this part of his Menoir, labours to substantiate. First: that Mr. Burr abstained entirely from the use of any means or arts to secure his own election, or from any interference, direct or indirect, in the contest-intimating no opinion as to the course or policy of his future administration, if elected; and holding out no pledges as to appointments to or removals from office. In the next place, that Mr. Jefferson was not equally abstemious-that he authorized his confidential friends to say to those federal gentlemen who were known to be less favourable to Mr. Burr's success, or less hostile to himself, that certain points of policy, which their party thought essential to the prosperity of the country, would receive Mr. Jefferson's countenance --and that a few holders of office under Mr. Adams should be continued in their situations. And, finally, that these intimation's operated powerfully with those gentlemen in producing a result favourable to Mr. Jefferson's views.

The first of these, points Mr. Davis has fully substantiated. Nothing can be clearer than that Burr might have secured his election if he had taken the proper measures for that purposeand that his failure was chiefly owing to his own entire apparent apathy, and to his abstinence from interference, either personally or by his friends, in the contest. It is well known that some of the federal members were originally opposed to the scheme of running him in opposition to Mr. Jefferson-that this opposition arose partly from an opinion on their part, which was by no means a sound one, that in no event could he be successful-and partly from a belief, that he would be less favourable to them, and some of their favourite and leading

measures, than even his great rival himself. In this, also, we think, if Burr had been elected, the result would have shown that they were mistaken. The gentlemen of the federal party to whom we have alluded, were confirmed in their sentiments of the indisposition of Burr to conciliate them, or to adopt any of their measures, by the total silence and reserve which he manifested towards them.

The opposition of General Hamilton to Burr, which, from the origin of their respective political careers, was decided and unremitting, we are disposed by no means to pass by as unimportant-but we think that it would not have been by any means omnipotent, if Burr had but actively electioneered for himself.

The proofs of Mr. Davis's main point may be found in the following extracts: the first of them from a letter, by Burr himself, to General Smith of Baltimore.

"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." p. 75.

"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, accord

ing to their sentiments, was the only conduct which was worthy of their own characters or of their cause.

"SAMUEL S. SMITH." pp. 90, 91.

"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 authorised 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 authorised 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." pp. 93, 94.

The following is an extract from a letter by David A. Ogden, to P. Irving, dated New York, Nov. 24, 1802:

"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 interests to be inseparably connected." pp. 96, 97.