And again, Mr. Livingston writes, about the same period, to Mr. Burr, in answer to a call made upon him.

"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, 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." p. 97.

Judge Cooper says

"William Cooper to Thomas Morris.

"WA

*

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. Å 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,

"William Cooper to Thomas Morris.

"W. COOPER.

"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." pp. 112, 113.

Finally Mr. Davis says—

"In the year 1804, a suit was instituted by Colonel Burr against James Cheetham, editor of the American Citizen, for a libel, in charging him with intriguing for the presidency. This suit was commenced by Mr. Burr with reluctance, and only to gratify personal friends. It progressed tardily, impediments having been thrown in the way of bringing it to trial by the defendant, and probably the cause not sufficiently pressed by the complainant. In 1805 or 1806, some persons who were really desirous of ascertaining not only the truth or falsity of the charge, but whether there was any foundation for it, determined on having a wager-suit placed at issue on the records of the court, and then take out a commission to examine witnesses. Accordingly, the names of James Gillespie, plaintiff, and Abraham Smith, defendant, were used. The latter at the time being a clerk in the store of Matthew L. Davis, then in the mercantile business, trading under the firm of Strong & Davis.

"It was universally believed, that if there were two men in congress that could unfold the whole negotiation if any had taken place, those two men were James A. Bayard, of Delaware, and Samuel Smith, of Baltimore. The former, a federal gentleman of high standing, the sole

representative of a state in the congress of 1800, and thus possessing, at any moment, the power of deciding the contest in favour of Mr. Jefferson. The latter, a political and personal friend of Mr. Jefferson, and the very individual whom Colonel Burr had previously selected as his proxy to declare his sentiments, in case there was a tie between Mr. Jefferson and himself. A commission was accordingly taken out, and, on the 3d of April, 1806, Mr. Bayard and Mr. Smith were examined. No use, however, was made of these depositions until December, 1830, being a period of nearly twenty-five years.

On the publication of Mr. Jefferson's writings, the sons of the late James A. Bayard felt that the memory of their father had been wrongfully and unjustly assailed in two paragraphs in the fourth volume of this work. The first of these paragraphs, on the 28th of January, 1830, was read in the United States senate by the Hon. Mr. Clayton, of Delawate, General Samuel Smith and Edward Livingston both being members of the senate and present. He read the following:

"February 12, 1801. Edward Livingston tells me that Bayard applied to-day or last night to General Samuel Smith, and represented to him the expediency of coming over to the states who vote for Burr; that there was nothing in the way of appointment which he might not command, and particularly mentioned the secretaryship of the navy. Smith asked him if he was authorised to make the offer. He said he was authorised. Smith told this to Livingston and W. C. Nicholas, who confirms it to me, &c.

"Mr. Clayton then called upon the senator from Maryland (Mr. Smith) and the senator from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) to disprove the statement here made by Mr. Jefferson.

"Mr. Smith, of Maryland, rose and said, 'that he had read the paragraph before he came here to-day, and was, therefore, aware of its import. He had not the most distant recollection that Mr. Bayard had ever made such a proposition to him. Mr. Bayard, said he, and myself, though politically opposed, were intimate personal friends, and he was an honourable man. Of all men, Mr. Bayard would have been the last to make such a proposition to any man; and I am confident that he had too much respect for me to have made it under any circumstances. I never received from any man any such proposition.'

"Mr. Livingston, of Louisiana, said, that as to the precise question which had been put to him by the senator from Delaware, he must say, that having taxed his recollection as far as it could go on so remote a transaction, he had no iemembrance of it.' `p. 100, 101, 102.

We might multiply very considerably the extracts which tend to the full proof of this point; but we deem what we have given above sufficient-particularly, as it cannot be disguised that abundant cause for dissatisfaction with Colonel Burr on the part of his former political friends was found in the fact that he suffered-passively to be sure-but still suffered his name to be used in opposition to Mr. Jefferson, who was universally conceded to be the choice of the democratic party for the presidentship. A perfectly high-minded and honourable man would, at once and unhesitatingly, have signified to the members of Congress who were known to support him, his absolute refusal to accept the office at their hands, and the positive withdrawal of his name as a candidate. This Burr did not

do-and he lost in consequence, we think justly, the confidence

of his party.

In regard to the next point of our author, the interference of Mr. Jefferson in the contest, so far at least as that idea is embraced in the extension of pledges from his friends authorzied by himself, both as to the retention of individual federalists in office, and the adherence by him to certain plans of policy which that party had anxiously at heart-the proof is not so conclusive, though we confess that the weight of evidence sustains Mr. Davis's views. It is well known that much of the proof upon the subject is found in the opposing statements of Mr. Bayard and General Smith, embraced in their depositions in the cases of Burr vs. Cheetham and Gillespie vs. Smith. These depositions are exceedingly interesting, and give probably most of the light that can ever be thrown upon the subject; as they have however been heretofore before the public, we shall not extract them, particularly as their length is very considerable. We content ourselves therefore with the expression of the greater conviction which the statement of Mr. Bayard carries with it to our minds, from several circumstances. It is positive upon the affirmative of the topic under considerationwhile that of General Smith himself, in one portion of it, (see page 136,) far from opposing, almost admits it. It gives dates, names, circumstances-is probable in itself, and is supported by certain facts which are known to have had existence. We allude to the continuance in lucrative situations, after Mr. Jefferson's election, of certain well-known federalists, as Mr. George Latimer and Mr. Allen M'Lane, who were embraced in the asserted arrangements, notwithstanding the complaints of "the faithful." This circumstance is mentioned thus by Mr. Davis, in a note.

"During the year 1802 unsuccessful efforts were made by the democracy of Philadelphia to have Mr. Latimer removed from the office of collector. The federal party complained of the number of removals which had already been made. The Aurora of June 29, 1802, referring to this subject, says-'We can tell them (the federalists) that the most lucrative office under the government of the United States in this commonwealth, the emoluments of which amount to triple the salary of the governor of this commonwealth, is now held by George Latimer, collector of the customs;' and on the 29th September, he adds, 'Let any man of candour say if Latimer ought not long since to have been discharged from his office.' Mr. Duane had not then read the depositions of Messrs. Bayard and Smith, and perhaps was ignorant of the arrangements by virtue of which this gentlemen and Mr. M'Lane, of Delaware, were retained in office."

For the details, therefore, attendant upon this discussion, we must refer our readers to the Memoirs, with the exception of those contained in a letter of Mr. George Baer, of Maryland, to

Richard H. Bayard, which is probably less known than the depositions of the other gentlemen referred to, and will besides. well repay a perusal.

"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

VOL. XXII.--NO. 44.

47

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 realised.

"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