Colonel Burr's silence under these reiterated attacks, with such means
of defence as his enemies knew that he possessed, encouraged and
imboldened them to make other and more daring assaults. He was now
charged, in general terms, with intriguing for the presidency, in
opposition to Mr. Jefferson; with endeavouring to obtain federal
electoral votes, and thus to defeat Mr. Jefferson and promote his own
elevation; with having entered into terms and conditions with federal
members of Congress in the winter of 1800; and with having committed
himself to, that party, in the event of success through their
instrumentality. These slanders were countenanced and circulated in
whispers by men high in authority, until the political integrity of
Colonel Burr was so far ruined as to render any defence, on his part
or on the part of his friends, useless and unavailing. The hireling
press now boldly entered upon specific charges; naming the parties
with whom Colonel Burr or his friends had negotiated, and the agents
whom the vice-president had employed to effect his purposes. These
details were given in a manner so circumstantial, as, by their
audacity, seemingly to command confidence. The slanders were
circulated with industry and rapidity, while the contradictions rarely
met the public eye, except through the medium of a federal press,
which publication, with the already prejudiced republican, was
construed as evidence of the truth of the charge. The principal
instances of specific cases will now be presented as briefly as
practicable.
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, according to their sentiments, was the
only conduct which was worthy of their own characters or of their
cause.
"SAMUEL. S. SMITH."
It was next charged that Colonel Burr had sent, at his own expense,
special agents to different states, previous to the choice of
electors, with the view of influencing their selection, and to promote
his own elevation to the exclusion of Mr. Jefferson. The agents named
were Mr. Abraham Bishop, of New-Haven, and Mr. Timothy Green, of
New-York. It was asserted that Mr. Bishop was Mr. Burr's agent at
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, during the session of the legislature that
appointed the presidential electors.
In August, 1802, Mr. Bishop published a full and explicit refutation
of the charge. He denied that Mr. Burr sent him to Lancaster, or that
he went there for any purposes personally or politically regarding
that gentleman. The publication of Mr. Bishop is not readily to be
found; but he is still living, and subsequently was appointed by Mr.
Jefferson collector of the port of New-Haven.
In relation to Mr. Green, it was alleged that he was sent to Columbia,
South Carolina, for similar purposes, and that he "_corresponded with
the vice-president on the subject of the then approaching election,
under cover to John Swartwout_." The replies of Mr. Green and Mr.
Swartwout were as follows:--
"New-York, October 11, 1802,
"MESSRS. DENNISTON AND CHEETHAM,
"In the _American Citizen_ of this day you have made a publication, to
which you have affixed your names. In this you have stated, 1st, That
Timothy Green, of this city, was despatched as an agent to Columbia,
the seat of government of the state of South Carolina, by the
vice-president. 2dly, That he was the eulogist and intercessor for the
vice-president. 3dly, That he sent the vice-president despatches
regularly, addressed to Mr. John Swartwout, of this city, under cover.
"Now, as you have been most egregiously imposed upon by some
disorganizing person, it is your duty and mine that the public be
immediately furnished with both what were and what were not my
inducements and motives in making a journey in November, 1800, to
Columbia, and of my conduct while there. For this purpose you will
please to insert in your paper of to-morrow the following corrections
to your statement:--
"1st, I aver that I never went on any message of a political nature to
Columbia, in South Carolina, or to any other place for the
vice-president or any other person; neither was I ever requested or
desired by the vice- president or by any other person to go to
Columbia, in South Carolina, or any other place, on any political or
electioneering mission, of any name or nature whatsoever. On the
contrary, my journey to Columbia, in South Carolina, in the year of
our Lord 1800, and my engagements until my return in 1801, was wholly
unsolicited by any person (except my debtors in South Carolina), and
were solely of a commercial nature, and for which I had been preparing
eight months before.
"2dly, That I never wrote a letter to the vice-president of a
political nature; neither did I write him any information relative to
the presidential election in South Carolina, neither did I ever
enclose a letter, directed to the vice-president, in a letter or cover
directed to Mr. John Swartwout.
"3dly, That my letters to Mr. Swartwout while in South Carolina were
unsolicited, and written solely with the motive to relieve the minds
of my friends from the anxiety necessarily attendant on a state of
suspense, while an important event is hourly expected to take place.
"4thly, That I never was in the habit of eulogizing public men,
neither did I vary from my usual manners while in South Carolina. I
had no occasion to intercede for the election of Colonel Burr: all the
fear I had while there was lest a compromise should take place, as the
political parties were nearly balanced in the state legislature. This
I did, as far as in my power, conscientiously endeavour to prevent;
knowing that, if union and good faith were not inviolably preserved
among the constitutional republicans, our past, present, and future
exertions would be unavailing.
"TIMOTHY GREEN."
FOR THE AMERICAN CITIZEN.
"New-York, October 13, 1802.
"MESSRS. DENNISTON AND CHEETHAM,
"In your seventh letter addressed to Aaron Burr, Esq., Vice-president
of the United States, published in the American Citizen of the 11th
instant, I notice the following paragraph, viz.:--
"Meantime, Sir, you had your eye on South Carolina; you despatched an
agent, Mr. Timothy Green, of this city, to Columbia, the seat of
government of that state. It was questionable whether South Carolina
would give you a single vote. At that period you were scarcely known
in the state. Mr. Green was at Columbia at least two months. He, was
your eulogist; your intercessor; he sent you despatches regularly;
they were addressed to Mr. John Swartwout, of this city, under cover,
and by him communicated to you.
"You will please to inform the public, through the medium of your
paper, that the above paragraph, so far as relates to my receiving
letters under cover, or communications from Timothy Green for Aaron
Burr, is utterly destitute of truth.
"JOHN SWARTWOUT."
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
authorized 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 authorized 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.
It will be recollected that Colonel Burr, in his letter to Governor
Bloomfield, denied the charge of "having proposed or agreed to any
terms with the federal party." The person named as being the agent of
the federalists, with authority to confer with Colonel Burr, was David
A. Ogden, Esq., of the city of New-York, who was intimately connected
with General Hamilton in professional business. Dr. Peter Irving was
at that time the proprietor and editor of a highly respectable daily
journal (Morning Chronicle) published in the city of New-York. The
facts in relation to this charge are developed in the following
letters.
P. IRVING TO DANIEL A. OGDEN.
"New-York, November 24, 1802.
"SIR,
"Though I have not the pleasure of a personal acquaintance with you, I
flatter myself that the contents of this letter will preclude the
necessity of an apology for addressing you.
"It has been asserted in various publications that Mr. Burr, during
the late election for president and vice-president, entered into
negotiations and agreed to terms with the federal party, or with
certain individuals of that party, with a view to advance himself to
the office of president to the exclusion of Mr. Jefferson. Mr. Burr,
in a letter to Governor Bloomfield, dated the 21st of September last,
declared that all such allegations were false and groundless; and the
charges have been renewed in more recent publications, which point to
you by name as the person through whom such negotiations were carried
on and terms concluded. It has now become interesting to a great
portion of the community to be informed how far these assertions and
charges have been authorized by you, or are warranted by your
knowledge of facts.
"Having received frequent anonymous communications for the Morning
Chronicle relative to these matters, and being unwilling to occupy the
paper with vague and unsubstantial conjectures or remarks on a subject
of such importance, I am induced to apply directly to yourself as an
authentic source of information. I do this with the more confidence,
from a persuasion that you can have no wish to suffer false reports to
circulate under the authority of your name for mere party purposes;
and that, in the actual posture of things, you cannot be averse to
declare publicly and explicitly your agency, if any, in the business.
I take the liberty, therefore, of requesting your written declaration
to the points above stated, together with any circumstances you may be
pleased to communicate tending to establish the truth or falsehood of
the charges in question.
"I have the honour to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
P. IRVING."
DAVID A. OGDEN TO P. IRVING.
New-York, November 24, 1802.
"SIR,
"Though I did not conceive it to be incumbent upon me, or in itself
proper to notice a publication in a newspaper in which my name was
used without my permission or knowledge, yet I have no objection to
reply to an inquiry which comes in the shape of that contained in your
letter, and from a person of your standing in society.
"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 interest to
be inseparably connected.
"There are no facts within my knowledge tending to establish the truth
of the charges specified in your letter.
"With due respect, I am, sir, your obedient servant,
"DAVID A. OGDEN.
"DR. P. IRVING."
It was then boldly asserted that Edward Livingston was "the
confidential friend" to whom Mr. Ogden was referred "to complete the
negotiation;" whereupon Mr. Burr made a call upon Mr. Livingston, to
which the following reply was given:--
"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, [1] 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."
In the hope of giving some support to these, calumnies, Mr. William S.
Pennington, of New-Jersey, addressed a letter to the editors of the
American Citizen, in which he asserted that General John Swartwout had
written to Robert Williams, of Poughkeepsie, pending the election,
recommending or countenancing the support of Mr. Burr for president to
the exclusion of Mr. Jefferson. To this General Swartwout replied:--
TO THE PUBLIC.
"The false colouring given by the relation of one William S.
Pennington, in a letter to Denniston & Cheetham, which appeared in the
American Citizen of the 22d inst., and their subsequent malicious
remarks, oblige me once more to ask pardon for obtruding myself on the
public attention.
"I declare, on my honour, that I did not at any time advise the
election of Mr. Burr as president of the United States to the
exclusion of Mr. Jefferson; nor did I ever write to any person or
persons to that effect; and I hereby authorize Mr. Robert Williams to
publish any letter or letters he may have received from me on the
subject of the late presidential election. I am induced to contradict
the base slanders of those exclusive patriots by a regard to truth
only, and not from a conviction that it would have been either
dishonourable to me, or disadvantageous to the country or the
republican party, to have promoted the election of Mr. Burr to the
presidential chair.
"JOHN SWARTWOUT.
"New-York, January 23."
The principal specifications, intended as explanatory of the general
charge against Colonel Burr of intriguing for the presidency, have now
been given. The replies of the parties implicated accompany them. A
whole generation has passed away since these scenes occurred, and yet
the time has not arrived when they can be calmly reviewed with
impartiality and free from prejudice. They may serve, however, as
beacon-lights for those who are now figuring or may hereafter figure
on the great political theatre of our country. Through life, Colonel
Burr committed an error, if he did not display a weakness, in
permitting his reputation to be assailed, without contradiction, in
cases where it was perfectly defensible. His enemies took advantage of
the sullen silence which he was known to preserve in regard to
newspaper attacks. Under these attacks he fell from the proud eminence
he once enjoyed to a condition more mortifying and more prostrate than
any distinguished man has ever experienced in the United States.
Different individuals, to gratify different feelings, have ascribed
this unprecedented fall to different causes. But one who is not
altogether ignorant of the springs of human actions; whose
partialities and prejudices are mellowed by more than threescore years
of experience; who has carefully and laboriously, in this case,
examined cause and effect, hesitates not in declaring that, from the
moment Aaron Burr was elected vice-president, his doom was unalterably
decided, if that decision could be accomplished by a combination of
wealth, of talent, of government patronage, of favouritism and
proscription, inflamed by the worst passions, and nurtured by the hope
of gratifying a sordid ambition. The contest in Congress fixed his
fate. Subsequent events were only consequences resulting from
antecedent acts.
In the progress of this work no desire has been evinced, none is felt
to screen Colonel Burr from censure where it is merited. But the man
who can read, unmoved, the evidence which has already been presented
of the injustice done him in the charge of having intrigued and
negotiated with the federal party for the presidency, must possess
more of philosophic than of generous or magnanimous feelings. It would
seem that the task of recording the presidential contest in Congress,
in the spring of 1801, was now brought to a close. But not so. There
yet remains another and imposing view to be presented. Whatever may
have been the wishes of Colonel Burr, it is certain that they were so
far under his own control as to prevent him from entering into any
negotiation, bargain, or intrigue to obtain the presidency. There is
not the slightest evidence of any such attempt on his part, while
there is strong, if not conclusive proof to the contrary. Can as much
be said in favor of his great competitor on that occasion? This is the
view that remains to be taken. But, before presenting the testimony in
the case, some explanation is necessary as to the manner in which it
was first obtained and subsequently made public.
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 Delaware, 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 authorized to make the offer. He said he was
authorized. 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 remembrance of it."
The sons of the late Mr. Bayard, not yet being satisfied as to the
other paragraph, resolved on an investigation of the subject, and with
this view one of them wrote the following letter. [2]
FROM RICHARD H. BAYARD.
Wilmington, March 8, 1830.
SIR,
In the fourth volume of Mr. Jefferson's Writings, lately published by
his grandson, page 521, under the head of a note made April 15, 1806,
occurs the following paragraph, after the detail of a conversation
held with you about a month previously:--
"I did not commit these things to writing at the time, but I do now,
because, in a suit between him and Cheetham, he has had a deposition
of Mr. Bayard taken which seems to have no relation to the suit, nor
to any other object than to calumniate me. Bayard pretends to have
addressed to me, during the pending of the presidential election in
February, 1801, through General Samuel Smith, certain conditions on
which my election might be obtained; and that General Smith, after
conversing with me, gave answers from me. This is absolutely false. No
proposition of any kind was ever made to me on that occasion by
General Smith, or any answer authorized by me. And this fact General
Smith affirms at this moment."
Mr. Jefferson supposes this deposition to have been made in your suit
against Cheetham. I have some reason to think he is mistaken as to the
precise case in which it was made. However this may be, I am anxious
to procure a copy of it, as returned with the commission under which
it was taken.
If I may not be considered as trespassing too far on your time and
attention, will you permit me to ask whether the deposition referred
to by Mr. Jefferson is still in existence? In what case it was taken?
And whether a copy of it can be procured?
I have the honour to be, respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
RICHARD H. BAYARD.
TO RICHARD H. BAYARD.
New-York, March 10, 1830.
SIR,
I have this day received your letter of the 8th inst., containing an
extract from the fourth volume of the writings of Mr. Jefferson. I
have not seen that book, and, on inquiry, do not learn that there is a
copy in this city.
The suit referred to is not that of Cheetham, but one instituted,
without my agency or knowledge, _on a wager_. The title not now
recollected. A commission to take testimony was transmitted to me,
then at Washington, and several depositions thereupon taken; copies of
all of which may, no doubt, be found among the papers of the late Mr.
Bayard.
A gentleman well informed of these matters is now at Albany, where I
expect to meet him about the 20th inst., when it may be in my power to
give you further satisfaction on the subject of your letter.
I pray in the mean time to be informed whether you are a son of the
late Mr. Bayard. Or how, if at all related to him. And what use it is
proposed to make of the communications you may receive. Permit me to
add, it will at all times afford me great pleasure to gratify the
family of Mr. Bayard on this or on any other occasion.
I have the honour to be, very respectfully,
A. BURR.
TO MATTHEW L. DAVIS.
New-York, March 15, 1830.
SIR,
I enclose you copies of a letter from Mr. Richard H. Bayard, with my
answer, and have only to inquire whether I may refer to you to answer
this letter of Mr. Bayard; your memory being better than mine, and I
not having the depositions in question, or any copies thereof at this
moment at my command. If you should write, please to enclose your
letter to me. I think it was you who got up that suit. Pray give me
the title and date.
I expect to be in Albany early next week. In your answer to this, let
me know where to find you. God speed you.
A. BURR.
FROM MATTHEW L. DAVIS.
Albany, March 18, 1830.
SIR,
The irregularity of the mails has prevented my receiving your letter
of the 15th inst., with its enclosures, until this day.
I have read Mr. Bayard's letter to you under date of the 8th inst. All
the circumstances connected with the subject to which it refers are
within my recollection; but, absent as I am from my papers, I am
unwilling to speak with great confidence in relation to events which
have occurred nearly thirty years since.
The deposition of Mr. Bayard, to which I presume Mr. Jefferson alludes
in his memorandum of the 15th of April, 1806, was taken, as you
remark, in the case of _a wager_. The title of the cause I do not now
recollect; but Abraham Smith, a clerk in my store, was one of the
parties, and I think the period was during the winter of 1805. It may
have been a year later.
In that deposition Mr. Bayard states that a negotiation in regard to
the pending election between Mr. Jefferson and Colonel Burr, in
February, 1801, was entered into with Mr. Jefferson, through Mr.
Nicholas, of Virginia, and General Samuel Smith, of Maryland; and that
Mr. Jefferson did agree to certain stipulations or conditions therein
specified. It is proper for me to add, that to both Robert G. Harper
and General Smith the same interrogatories were propounded that were
answered by Mr. Bayard, and that the testimony (if my memory is
correct) of Mr. Bayard was, in every material point, sustained by both
these gentlemen. These examinations were made under a commission
issued out of the Supreme Court of our state.
Several copies of these depositions were made from the originals, and
I have reason to believe that one copy of them was in the possession
of Mr. Bayard or Mr. Harper, and another in the possession of Stephen
R. Bradley, Esq., of Vermont. They were read by different gentlemen;
among them, I think, was General John P. Van Ness, of Washington city,
and Rundolph Bunner, Esq., late a member of Congress from this state,
who, I have no doubt, can and would, if asked, detail their contents.
I should suppose that General Smith would not only recollect the
occurrences in February, 1801, but the contents also of the deposition
to which he has sworn.
During the contest I was the advocate of Mr. Jefferson's election, and
corresponded with different members of Congress; among the number were
Edward Livingston and Albert Gallatin, Esquires. The letters I then
received enumerated not only the _doubtful states_, but the _doubtful
men_ of both parties which were in Congress. These letters have been
carefully preserved.
It is due to the character of the late Mr. Bayard to remark, that, so
far as the circumstances have come to my knowledge, there was nothing
in the transaction calculated in the slightest degree to impeach his
fidelity to his party or his honour. The object of the negotiation was
not to aggrandize or to elevate himself or his friends, but to secure
and perpetuate certain cardinal points of federal policy.
I have not seen the works of Mr. Jefferson, but I will obtain and
examine them with care and attention. The history of the times to
which these memorandums and documents relate are enveloped in thick
darkness. Whether the period has yet arrived when an effort should be
made to dispel that darkness is problematical. The means, however, do
exist of proving, to the satisfaction of the most skeptical, what are
the facts in the case; and, consequently, of doing full justice to all
the parties concerned; and that duty, however unpleasant, shall, at a
proper crisis, be fairly, impartially, and fearlessly performed.
At my advanced age I do not wish to be drawn into newspaper
controversies; nor can I be induced, prematurely, to make any
publication on the subject alluded to in this letter. At the same
time, you are at liberty to communicate the whole or any part of its
contents to Mr. Bayard, in the expectation that it will be used
discreetly.
Respectfully, your friend,
M. L. DAVIS.
GENERAL SAMUEL SMITH TO RICHARD H. BAYARD AND JAMES A. BAYARD.
Washington, April 3, 1830.
GENTLEMEN,
Ill health, and disinclination to go back to circumstances which
happened thirty years past, has prevented an earlier answer to your
letter. In the extract you have sent me from Mr. Jefferson's writings,
it is said--"Bayard" (alluding to his deposition) "pretends to have
addressed to me, during the pending of the presidential election in
February, 1801, through General Smith, certain conditions on which my
election might be obtained, and that General Smith, after conversing
with me, gave answer for me. This is absolutely false. No proposition
of any kind ever was made to me on that occasion by General Smith, or
any answer authorized by me; and the fact General Smith affirms at
this moment"--to wit, 15th of April, 1806. Yes, gentlemen, it was (I
believe) on that day I put into the hands of Mr. Jefferson a press
copy of _my deposition in the case of Cheetham_, [3] in which _I
perfectly recollect that I deny having ever received from Mr.
Jefferson any proposition of any kind to be made by me to Mr. Bayard
or any other person. Not, perhaps, in those words, but in detail to
that effect_; or having ever communicated any proposition of the kind
as from Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Bayard.
My experience in life has shown that few men take advice unless it
comports with their own views. I will, however, recommend that you let
well enough alone. Your father was a bitter, most bitter enemy of Mr.
Jefferson; his enmity was known to all, and, I presume, to Mr.
Jefferson; it was therefore very natural for him to conclude that the
suit of Cheetham had been got up for the express purpose of obtaining
the oath of your father with the view of injuring him, and that your
father had advised such a course. _My recollection of what passed on
the occasion is as strong as if it had happened yesterday_. I will
give you a detail in as few words as possible.
Two or three days before the election was terminated, a member, who I
suppose had been deputed by the federal party, called on me to
converse on the subject. I held little conversation with _him_. Your
father then called on me, and said that he was anxious to put an end
to the controversy; that, in case of dissolution, Delaware never could
expect to obtain her present advantages; that, if satisfied on certain
points, he would terminate the contest. He then went on to state those
points: they were three or four. I can now remember only _three_, to
wit--the funding system, the navy, and the retaining or dismissal of
federalists then in office. I answered promptly that I could satisfy
him fully on two of the points (which two I do not now recollect), for
that I had had frequent conversations with him on them, and I stated
what I understood and believed to be his opinions, and what I thought
would be his rule of conduct; with which explanation your father
expressed his entire satisfaction, and on the third requested that I
would inform myself.
I lodged with Mr. Jefferson, and that night had a conversation with
him, _without his having the remotest idea of my object_. Mr.
Jefferson was a gentleman of _extreme frankness_ with his friends; he
conversed freely and frankly with them on all subjects, and gave his
opinions without reserve. Some of them thought that he did so too
freely. Satisfied with his opinion on the third point, I communicated
to your father the next day--that, from the conversation that I had
had with Mr. Jefferson, I was satisfied in _my own mind_ that his
conduct on that point would be so and so. But I certainly never did
tell your father that I had any authority from Mr. Jefferson to
communicate any thing to him or to any other person.
During the session of Congress of 1805-6, your father told me that a
little lawyer in Delaware had (he supposed at the instance of Colonel
Burr) endeavoured to get from him a deposition touching a conversation
with me; that he had refused it; that Burr had, however, trumped up a
suit for the sole purpose of coercing his deposition and mine, and
said that a commission to take testimony was now in the city, and that
he apprized me that I might be prepared. I asked him what he would
state in his deposition. He answered similar to the quotation you have
sent. I told him instantly that I had communicated to him my _own
opinion_, [4] derived from conversation with Mr. Jefferson, and not
one word from him to your father; and that my testimony would, as to
that point, be in direct hostility. He then said, the little fellow
will have our testimony by some means or other, and I will give mine.
I answered that I would also. A few nights afterward Colonel Burr
called on me. I told him that I had written my deposition, and would
have a fair copy made of it. He said, trust it to me, and I will get
Mr. ----- to copy it. I did so, and, on his returning it to me, I
found words not mine interpolated in the copy. I struck out those
words, had it copied again, and, to prevent all plea of false copying,
I had a press copy taken of it. When I appeared before the commission,
I found a deposition attached to that of your father, and asked how
they came by that. They answered that it had been sent to them. I
requested them to take it off; that I had the deposition in my hand to
which alone I would swear; they did so, and my deposition was
attached. The next day (I think) I called, and told Mr. Jefferson what
had passed, read to him the press copy, and asked him if he
recollected having given to me the opinions I had detailed. He
answered that he did not, but it might be so, for that they were
opinions he held and expressed to many of his friends, and as probably
to me as any other, and then said that he would wish to have a copy. I
told him that I had no use for it; he might, and I gave him the press
copy.
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?