MARCH 30, 1807, in a room at the Eagle Tavern in Richmond,
Aaron Burr was brought before Chief-Justice Marshall for examination
and commitment. Although Burr had been but a few days in the town,
he was already treated by many persons as though he had conferred
honor upon his country. Throughout the United States the Federalists,
who formed almost the whole of fashionable society, affected to
disbelieve in the conspiracy, and ridiculed Jefferson’s sudden fears.
The Democrats had never been able to persuade themselves that the
Union was really in danger, or that Burr’s projects, whatever they
were, had a chance of success; and in truth Burr’s conspiracy, like
that of Pickering and Griswold, had no deep roots in society, but was
mostly confined to a circle of well-born, well-bred, and well-educated
individuals, whose want of moral sense was one more proof that the
moral instinct had little to do with social distinctions. In the case
of Burr, Jefferson himself had persistently ignored danger; and no one
denied that if danger ever existed, it had passed. Burr was fighting
for his life against the power of an encroaching government; and human
nature was too simply organized to think of abstract justice or remote
principles when watching the weak fight for life against the strong.
Even the Democrats were more curious to see Burr than to hang him; and
had he gone to the gallows, he would have gone as a hero, like Captain
Macheath amidst the admiring crowds of London.
Between Captain Macheath and Colonel Burr was more than one point of
resemblance, and the “Beggar’s Opera” could have been easily paralleled
within the prison at Richmond; but no part of Burr’s career was more
humorous than the gravity with which he took an injured tone, and
maintained with success that Jefferson, being a trivial person, had
been deceived by the stories of Eaton and Wilkinson, until, under the
influence of causeless alarm, he had permitted a wanton violation of
right. From the first step toward commitment, March 30, to the last day
of the tedious trials, October 20, Burr and his counsel never ceased
their effort to convict Jefferson; until the acquittal of Burr began
to seem a matter of secondary importance compared with the President’s
discomfiture.
Over this tournament the chief-justice presided as arbiter.
Blennerhassett’s island, where the overt act of treason was charged to
have taken place, lay within the chief-justice’s circuit. According as
he might lean toward the accused or toward the government, he would
decide the result; and therefore his leanings were a matter of deep
interest. That he held Federalist prejudices and nourished a personal
dislike to Jefferson was notorious; but apart from political feelings
he had given no clew to his probable legal bias except in his recent
decision upon the case of Bollman and Swartwout. In discharging these
two agents of Burr on the ground that no overt act of levying war was
alleged against them, Marshall had taken occasion to define the law of
treason as a guide to the attorney-general in the coming indictment of
Burr:--
“It is not the intention of the Court to say that no individual
can be guilty of this crime who has not appeared in arms against
his country. On the contrary, if war be actually levied,--that
is, if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of
effecting by force a treasonable purpose,--all those who perform
any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of
action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy,
are to be considered as traitors. But there must be an actual
assembling of men for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a
levying of war.”
On the strength of this opinion, the attorney-general undertook to
convict Burr of treason for the acts committed under his direction at
Blennerhassett’s island, although at the time when these acts were
committed Burr himself was in Kentucky, two hundred miles away.
The task was difficult, and Burr’s experience as a lawyer enabled
him to make it more difficult still. He retained the ablest counsel
at the bar. First of these was Edmund Randolph, prominent among the
older Virginia lawyers, who had been attorney-general and Secretary of
State in President Washington’s Cabinet. Edmund Randolph’s style of
address was ponderous, and not always happy; to balance its defects
Burr employed the services of John Wickham, another Virginian, whose
versatility and wit were remarkable. A third Virginian, Benjamin Botts,
was brought into the case, and proved a valuable ally. Finally Luther
Martin was summoned from Baltimore; and Martin’s whole heart was with
his client. In defending Justice Chase, Luther Martin had made a
great name; but hatred for the Democrats and their President became a
secondary passion in his breast. His zeal for Burr was doubled by a
sudden idolatry which the sexagenarian conceived for Burr’s daughter
Theodosia, who came to her father’s side at Richmond.
The government was represented by no one of equal force with these
opponents. John Breckinridge, the Attorney-General of the United
States, died in December, 1806. Jan. 20, 1807, President Jefferson
appointed Cæsar A. Rodney to the post. Although Rodney’s abilities were
respectable, he could hardly have wished to be confronted at once by
the most important and difficult State prosecution ever tried under
Executive authority. Rodney’s duties or his health prevented him from
attendance. He barely appeared at Richmond in the preliminaries, and
then left the case in the hands of the district-attorney, George Hay,
who took his orders directly from Jefferson, with whom he was in active
correspondence. To assist Hay the President engaged the services of
William Wirt, then thirty-five years old, and promising to become an
ornament to the bar; but in the profession of the law age gave weight,
and Wirt, though popular, conscientious, admired, and brilliant in
a florid style of oratory, suffered as a lawyer from his youth and
his reputation as an orator. He was hardly more capable than Hay of
conducting a case which drew upon every resource of personal authority.
The third counsel, Alexander McRae, Lieutenant-Governor of Virginia,
was inferior both in ability and in tact to either of his associates.
His temper irritated Hay and offended the Court, while his arguments
added little strength to the prosecution.
The first object of the government was to commit Burr for trial
on the charge of treason as well as of misdemeanor; but Marshall
promptly checked all hopes of obtaining aid from the court. April 1
the chief-justice delivered an opinion on the question of commitment,
and took that opportunity to give the district-attorney a warning.
Declining to commit Burr for treason without evidence stronger than the
affidavits of Eaton and Wilkinson, Marshall blamed the Executive with
asperity for neglect of duty in providing proof of treason:--
“Several months have elapsed since this fact did occur, if
it ever occurred. More than five weeks have elapsed since
the opinion of the Supreme Court has declared the necessity
of proving the fact if it exists. Why is it not proved? To
the Executive government is intrusted the important power of
prosecuting those whose crimes may disturb the public repose or
endanger its safety. It would be easy in much less time than has
intervened since Colonel Burr has been alleged to have assembled
his troops, to procure affidavits establishing the fact.”
Accordingly Burr was committed only for misdemeanor, and five
securities immediately offered themselves on his behalf. At three
o’clock on the afternoon of April 1 he was again at liberty, under
bonds for ten thousand dollars to appear at the next circuit court, May
22, at Richmond.
Marshall’s reproof of Executive slowness was not altogether respectful
to the co-ordinate branch of government. No doubt treasonable
assemblages had taken place in December, and affidavits could have
been brought from Marietta or Nashville within six or eight weeks had
the government known precisely what would be needed, or where the
evidence was to go; but no judge could reasonably require that the
Executive should within five weeks obey a hint from the Supreme Court
which implied a long correspondence and inquiry at spots so remote
as Blennerhassett’s island, Lexington, Nashville, Fort Massac, and
Chickasaw Bluffs. Jefferson was naturally indignant at being treated
with so little courtesy. He wrote with extreme bitterness about
Marshall’s “tricks to force trials before it is possible to collect
the evidence.”[315] He returned threat for threat, with something in
addition:--
“In what terms of decency can we speak of this? As if an express
could go to Natchez or the mouth of the Cumberland and return
in five weeks, to do which has never taken less than twelve!...
But all the principles of law are to be perverted which would
bear on the favorite offenders who endeavor to overturn this
odious republic!... All this, however, will work well. The
nation will judge both the offender and judges for themselves.
If a member of the Executive or Legislature does wrong, the day
is never far distant when the people will remove him. They will
see then and amend the error in our Constitution which makes
any branch independent of the nation. They will see that one
of the great co-ordinate branches of the government, setting
itself in opposition to the other two and to the common-sense of
the nation, proclaims impunity to that class of offenders which
endeavors to overturn the Constitution, and are protected in it
by the Constitution itself; for impeachment is a farce which
will not be tried again. If their protection of Burr produces
this amendment, it will do more good than his condemnation would
have done; ... and if his punishment can be commuted now for a
useful amendment of the Constitution, I shall rejoice in it.”
In substance Jefferson said that if Marshall should suffer Burr to
escape, Marshall himself should be removed from office. No secret was
made of this intention. The letter in which Jefferson announced the
threat was written to the Virginia senator William B. Giles, who had
been foremost in every attack upon the Judiciary, and would certainly
lead the new one; but Giles was not the confidant of a secret,--the
idea was common, as Marshall knew. The little society that swarmed in
the court-room and in the streets of Richmond could see without an
effort that the President courted a challenge from Marshall, and that
the chief-justice on his side, for a second or third time, welcomed a
trial of skill and address with the President. If Marshall was in truth
the gloomy and malignant conspirator that Jefferson imagined him to be,
he might easily excuse or justify the President’s intended course.
Punctually, May 22, the next act began. The question of commitment had
been a matter of no great consequence; that of indictment was vital.
Burr must be indicted, not merely for misdemeanor, but for treason;
and to leave no doubt of success, the government summoned a cloud
of witnesses to appear before the grand jury. The town swarmed with
conspirators and government agents. The grand jury--containing some
of the most respected citizens of Virginia--was sworn, and the court
instructed the clerk to place John Randolph as foreman. A long delay
ensued. General Wilkinson, the most important witness for government,
was on his way from New Orleans; and while waiting his arrival from
day to day, the grand jury took evidence and the court listened to
the disputes of counsel. The district-attorney moved to commit Burr
on the charge of treason, while Burr on his side moved for a subpœna
_duces tecum_ to be directed to the President, requiring him to
produce certain papers in evidence. This motion was evidently part of
a system adopted by the defence for annoying and throwing odium on the
Executive,--a system which Burr’s counsel rather avowed than concealed,
by declaiming against the despotism of government and the persecution
of which Burr was a victim. Luther Martin, at the first moment of his
appearance in court, launched into an invective against Jefferson:--
“The President has undertaken to prejudge my client by declaring
that ‘of his guilt there can be no doubt.’ He has assumed the
knowledge of the Supreme Being himself, and pretended to search
the heart of my highly respected friend. He has proclaimed him a
traitor in the face of that country which has rewarded him. He
has let slip the dogs of war, the hell-hounds of persecution,
to hunt down my friend. And would this President of the United
States, who has raised all this absurd clamor, pretend to keep
back the papers which are wanted for this trial, where life
itself is at stake?”
A long argument followed. Hay, while admitting that the President might
be generally subpœnaed as a witness, held that no need of a subpœna had
been shown, and that in any case a subpœna _duces tecum_ ought not
to be issued. The chief-justice, after hearing counsel on both sides,
read June 13 an elaborate decision, which settled the point in Burr’s
favor.
“If upon any principle,” said he, “the President could be
construed to stand exempt from the general provisions of the
Constitution, it would be because his duties as chief magistrate
demand his whole time for national objects. But it is apparent
that this demand is not unremitting; and if it should exist at
the time when his attendance on a court is required, it would be
sworn on the return of the subpœna, and would rather constitute
a reason for not obeying the process of the court than a reason
against its being issued.... It cannot be denied that to issue
a subpœna to a person filling the exalted station of the chief
magistrate is a duty which would be dispensed with much more
cheerfully than it would be performed; but if it be a duty, the
court can have no choice in the case.”
Nothing could irritate Jefferson more sensibly than this decision. Only
a few months before, in the trial of Smith and Ogden for complicity
with Miranda, he had ordered his Cabinet to disregard the summons of
the court. Luther Martin did not fail to fling reproach on him for
this act. “In New York, on the farcical trial of Ogden and Smith, the
officers of the government screened themselves from attending, under
the sanction of the President’s name. Perhaps the same farce may be
repeated here.” To be insulted by Martin and to be ordered about the
country by Marshall, exasperated Jefferson beyond reason. He wrote
letter after letter to Hay, filled with resentment:--
“The leading feature of our Constitution is the independence of
the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary of each other; and
none are more jealous of this than the Judiciary. But would the
Executive be independent of the Judiciary if he were subject
to the _commands_ of the latter, and to imprisonment for
disobedience; if the smaller courts could bandy him from pillar
to post, keep him constantly trudging from north to south and
east to west, and withdraw him entirely from his executive
duties?”[316]
The Judiciary never admitted the propriety of this reasoning,[317]
which was indeed no answer to Marshall’s argument. Unless the President
of the United States were raised above the rank of a citizen, and
endowed with more than royal prerogatives, no duty could be more
imperative upon him than that of lending every aid in his power to the
Judiciary in a case which involved the foundations of civil society
and government. No Judiciary could assume at the outset that Executive
duties would necessarily be interrupted by breaking Jefferson’s long
visits to Monticello in order to bring him for a day to Richmond.
Consciousness of this possible rejoinder disturbed the President’s mind
so much that he undertook to meet it in advance:--
“The Judge says ‘_it is apparent_ that the President’s
duties as chief magistrate do not demand his whole time, and are
not unremitting.’ If he alludes to our annual retirement from
the seat of government during the sickly season, he should be
told that such arrangements are made for carrying on the public
business, at and between the several stations we take, that
it goes on as unremittingly there as if we were at the seat of
government.”
The district-attorney would hardly have dared tell this to the
chief-justice, for he must have felt that Marshall would treat it as
an admission. If arrangements could be made for carrying on the public
business at Monticello, why could they not be made for carrying it on
at Richmond?
Perhaps temper had more to do with Jefferson’s reasoning than he
imagined. Nothing could be better calculated to nettle a philosophic
President who believed the world, except within his own domain, to
be too much governed, than the charge that he himself had played the
despot and had trampled upon private rights; but that such charges
should be pressed with the coarseness of Luther Martin, and should
depend on the rulings of John Marshall, seemed an intolerable outrage
on the purity of Jefferson’s intentions. In such cases an explosion
of anger was a common form of relief. Even President Washington was
said to have sometimes dashed his hat upon the ground, and the second
President was famous for gusts of temper.
“I have heard, indeed,” wrote Jefferson,[318] “that my
predecessor sometimes decided things against his Council by
dashing and trampling his wig on the floor. This only proves,
what you and I knew, that he had a better heart than head.”
Wigs were Federalist symbols of dignity and power. Republicans wore
no wigs, and could use no such resource in moments of rage; but had
President Jefferson worn the full paraphernalia of Federalism,--wig
and powder, cocked hat and small sword,--he would never have shown
his passion in acts of violence or in physical excitement. His
sensitiveness relieved itself in irritability and complaints, in
threats forgotten as soon as uttered, or in reflections tinged with a
color of philosophic thought. His first impulse was to retaliate upon
Martin and thrust him into the criminal dock. He wrote to Hay,[319]--
“Shall we move to commit Luther Martin as _particeps
criminis_ with Burr? Graybell will fix upon him misprision
of treason at least. And at any rate his evidence will put down
this unprincipled and impudent Federal bulldog, and add another
proof that the most clamorous defenders of Burr are all his
accomplices.”
To the attorney-general he wrote in the same words:[320] “I think
it material to break down this bulldog of Federalism.” Jefferson’s
irritation rarely lasted long, and it evaporated with these words.
Martin railed unmolested.
No one fretted by personal feeling could cope with the Rhadamanthine
calm of John Marshall. The President could not successfully strike
back; he was fortunate if he should succeed in warding off his enemies’
blows. In the midst of these controversies and irritations, June
15, General Wilkinson arrived. The audiences which in those days
still crowded to the theatre and laughed at the extraordinary wit and
morality of the “Beggar’s Opera,” found none of its possible allusions
more amusing than the often-quoted line which seemed meant to point at
James Wilkinson. “That Jemmy Twitcher should peach me, I own surprised
me. ’Tis a plain proof that the world is all alike, and that even our
gang can no more trust one another than other people.” Wilkinson had
not a friend; even Daniel Clark turned against him. To break him down,
to prove by his own confession that he was a pensioner of Spain and
an accomplice with Burr, was the known object of the defence; but the
disgrace of Wilkinson would also discredit the President and shake the
Administration which Wilkinson had saved. Whatever the consequences
might be, Jefferson could not allow Wilkinson to suffer.
When Major Bruff, of the artillery, came from St. Louis to Washington
early in March, 1807, three months before Burr’s indictment, he made
bitter complaints to the Secretary of War, accusing the general,
under whose orders he served, of being a spy of Spain and a traitor
with Burr.[321] General Dearborn listened without contradiction, and
replied that there had been a time when General Wilkinson did not
stand well with the Executive, but his energetic measures at New
Orleans had regained him Executive confidence, and the President would
sustain him; that after the actual bustle was over there might perhaps
be an inquiry, but meanwhile Wilkinson must and would be supported.
Attorney-General Rodney went even further.
“What would be the result,” he asked Bruff, “if all your charges
against General Wilkinson should be proven? Why, just what
the Federalists and the enemies of the present Administration
wish,--it would turn the indignation of the people from Burr on
Wilkinson. Burr would escape, and Wilkinson take his place.”
Rodney did not add, what was patent to all the world, that if Wilkinson
were to be convicted, President Jefferson himself, whose negligence
had left the Western country, in spite of a thousand warnings, at the
General’s mercy, could not be saved from the roughest handling. The
President and his Cabinet shrank from Marshall’s subpœnas because
under the examination of Wickham, Botts, and Luther Martin they would
be forced either to make common cause with the General, or to admit
their own negligence. The whole case hung together. Disobedience of
the subpœna was necessary for the support of Wilkinson; support of
Wilkinson was more than ever necessary after refusing to obey the
subpœna. The President accepted his full share in the labor. No sooner
did he hear of Wilkinson’s arrival, at the moment when his own subpœna
was issued and defied, than he wrote a letter calculated to give the
General all the confidence he needed:[322]--
“Your enemies have filled the public ear with slanders and your
mind with trouble on that account. The establishment of their
guilt will let the world see what they ought to think of their
clamors; it will dissipate the doubts of those who doubted for
want of knowledge, and will place you on higher ground in the
public estimate and public confidence. No one is more sensible
than myself of the injustice which has been aimed at you.
Accept, I pray you, my salutations and assurances of respect and
esteem.”
As an American citizen Jefferson had the right to respect and esteem
whom he pleased, and need not even excuse his friendships. The world
often loved and cherished its worst rogues,--its Falstaffs, Macheaths,
and Burrs,--and Jefferson was not exempt from such weakness; but that
his respect and esteem for Wilkinson should require him to retain
a pensioned Spanish spy and a confederate with Burr and Dayton at
the head of the United States army during several years of extreme
public danger, was a costly consequence to the people whose confidence
Jefferson claimed and held. John Randolph saw this point clearly, and
his bloodhound instinct detected and followed, without hesitation, the
trail that led to the White House. Whether the chief-justice intended
it or not, he never struck Jefferson a blow so mischievous as when he
directed the clerk to place John Randolph as foreman of the grand
jury.[323] Randolph’s nature revolted from Wilkinson; and if the
President and the General could be gibbeted together, Randolph was the
man to do it.
Such was the situation when the General was sworn and sent before
the grand jury June 15, where his appearance, if his enemy could be
believed, was abject.
“Under examination all was confusion of language and of looks,”
wrote Randolph to Nicholson.[324] “Such a countenance never did
I behold; there was scarcely a variance of opinion among us
as to his guilt. Yet this miscreant is hugged to the bosom of
Government while Monroe is denounced.”
Randolph ardently wished to indict the General at the same time with
Burr; and while he strained every nerve to effect this purpose in the
grand-jury room, Burr and his counsel in the court-room moved for
an attachment against Wilkinson for attempting to obstruct the free
course of justice by oppression of witnesses. The district-attorney
resisted both attempts with all his authority; and June 24, to the
disappointment of his enemies, Wilkinson escaped.
“Yesterday,” wrote Randolph, June 25,[325] “the grand jury
found bills for treason and misdemeanor against Burr and
Blennerhassett _una voce_, and this day presented Jonathan
Dayton, ex-senator, John Smith of Ohio, Comfort Tyler, Israel
Smith of New York, and Davis Floyd of Indiana, for treason; but
the mammoth of iniquity escaped,--not that any man pretended to
think him innocent, but upon certain wire-drawn distinctions
that I will not pester you with. Wilkinson is the only man that
I ever saw who was from the bark to the very core a villain.
The proof is unquestionable; but, my good friend, I cannot
enter upon it here. Suffice it to say that I have seen it, and
that it is not susceptible of misconstruction. Burr supported
himself with great fortitude. He was last night lodged in the
common town jail (we have no State prison except for convicts),
where I daresay he slept sounder than I did. Perhaps you never
saw human nature in so degraded a situation as in the person of
Wilkinson before the grand jury; and yet this man stands on the
very summit and pinnacle of Executive favor, while James Monroe
is denounced.”
In the debates of the next session, when Randolph followed up his
attacks on Jefferson by trying to identify him with Wilkinson’s
misdeeds, a fuller account was given of the plea which saved Wilkinson
from presentment.
“There was before the grand jury,” said Randolph,[326] “a motion
to present General Wilkinson for misprision of treason. This
motion was overruled upon this ground,--that the treasonable
(overt) act having been alleged to be committed in the State
of Ohio, and General Wilkinson’s letter to the President of
the United States having been dated, though but a short time,
prior to that act, this person had the benefit of what lawyers
would call a legal exception, or a fraud; but I will inform the
gentleman that I did not hear a single member of the grand jury
express any other opinion than that which I myself expressed, of
the moral, not of the legal, guilt of the party.”
In the evidence taken by a Congressional committee in 1811 regarding
Wilkinson,[327] several members of the grand jury were called to
testify; and their accounts showed that the motion to present General
Wilkinson for misprision of treason was made by Littleton W. Tazewell,
and supported by Randolph and three or four other members of the grand
jury. One witness thought that the vote stood 9 to 7.
Narrow though the loophole might be, Wilkinson squeezed through it. The
indictment of Burr was at length obtained. The conspirators, who had
at first vehemently averred that Wilkinson would never dare to appear,
and who if he should appear intended to break him down before the grand
jury, were reduced to hoping for revenge when he should come on the
witness-stand. Meanwhile, June 26, Burr pleaded not guilty, and the
court adjourned until August 3, when the trial was to begin.
Thus far the President had carried everything before him. He had
produced his witnesses, had sustained Wilkinson, indicted Burr, and
defied Marshall’s subpœnas. This success could not be won without
rousing passion. Richmond was in the hands of the conspirators, and
they denounced Jefferson publicly and without mercy, as they denounced
Wilkinson and every other government officer.
“As I was crossing the court-house green,” said an
eye-witness,[328] “I heard a great noise of haranguing some
distance off. Inquiring what it was, I was told it was a great
blackguard from Tennessee, one Andrew Jackson, making a speech
for Burr and damning Jefferson as a persecutor.”
Hay wrote to the President, June 14:[329]--
“General Jackson, of Tennessee, has been here ever since the
22d, denouncing Wilkinson in the coarsest terms in every
company. The latter showed me a paper which at once explained
the motive of this incessant hostility. His own character
depends on the prostration of Wilkinson’s.”
This paper was no doubt Jackson’s secret denunciation to Claiborne.
Young Samuel Swartwout, who had some reason to complain of the
ridiculous figure he had been made to cut, jostled Wilkinson in the
street, and ended by posting him for a coward. John Randolph echoed
Luther Martin’s tirades against the President. Randolph was in despair
at Jefferson’s success.
“My friend,” he wrote to Nicholson,[330] “I am standing on the
soil of my native country divested of every right for which our
fathers bled. Politics have usurped the place of law, and the
scenes of 1798 are again revived. Men now see and hear, and
feel and think, _politically_. Maxims are now advanced and
advocated which would almost have staggered the effrontery of
Bayard or the cooler impudence of Chauncey Goodrich when we were
first acquainted.”
All this work was but skirmishing. The true struggle had still to come.
So long as the President dealt only with grand jurors and indictments,
he could hardly fail to succeed; but the case was different when he
dealt directly with Chief-Justice Marshall and with the stubborn words
of the Constitution, that “no person shall be convicted of treason
unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on
confession in open court.” The district-attorney was ready with a mass
of evidence, but the chief-justice alone could say whether a syllable
of this evidence should be admitted; and hitherto the chief-justice had
by no means shown a bias toward the government. Hay was convinced that
Marshall meant to protect Burr, and he wrote to the President on the
subject:[331]--
“The bias of Judge Marshall is as obvious as if it was stamped
upon his forehead. I may do him injustice, but I do not believe
that I am, when I say that he is endeavoring to work himself up
to a state of f[irmness?] which will enable [him] to aid Burr
throughout the trial without appearing to be conscious of doing
wrong. He seems to think that his reputation is irretrievably
gone, and that he has now nothing to lose by doing as he
pleases. His concern for Mr. Burr is wonderful. He told me
many years ago, when Burr was rising in the estimation of the
Republican party, that he was as profligate in principle as he
was desperate in fortune. I remember his words; they astonished
me. Yet when the grand jury brought in their bill, the
chief-justice gazed at him for a long time, without appearing
conscious that he was doing so, with an expression of sympathy
and sorrow as strong as the human countenance can exhibit
without palpable emotion.”
August 3 the court opened its session and the trial began. Not until
August 17 was the jury impanelled; and meanwhile a new figure appeared
at Burr’s side. Blennerhassett arrived in Richmond August 4, and was
brought before the court August 10. He began at once a private journal
of the trial, which remained the only record of what passed among the
conspirators. As each witness appeared, Blennerhassett told the gossip
regarding him.
“The once redoubted Eaton,”[332] who was put first upon the
stand, “has dwindled down in the eyes of this sarcastic town
into a ridiculous mountebank, strutting about the streets under
a tremendous hat, with a Turkish sash over colored clothes, when
he is not tippling in the taverns, where he offers up with his
libations the bitter effusions of his sorrows.”
“Old sly-boots” Dayton,[333] he said, was lurking about corners.
Wilkinson[334] “exhibited the manner of a sergeant under a
court-martial rather than the demeanor of an accusing officer
confronted with his culprit. His perplexity and derangement,
even upon his direct examination, has placed beyond all doubt
‘his honor as a soldier and his fidelity as a citizen.’”
These comments were sharp, yet the pages of Blennerhassett’s diary were
not so severe upon any of the witnesses for the government as they were
upon Burr himself. Blennerhassett had wakened to the discovery that
Burr was, after all, but a vulgar swindler. The collapse of Burr’s
courage when confronted by Cowles Meade and the Mississippi militia at
Cole’s Creek January 17; his desertion of Blennerhassett and his flight
toward Spanish territory; the protest of the bills which he had drawn
on pretended funds in New York, and which Blennerhassett had indorsed
under Allston’s guaranty; the evident wish of Allston to repudiate
this guaranty as he had repudiated Burr; and the ruin which had fallen
on Blennerhassett’s property at the island,--taught the Irishman how
thoroughly he had been duped:[335]--
“The present trial cannot fail to furnish ample testimony, if
not to the guilt, at least to the defect of every talent under
the assumption of which this giddy adventurer has seduced so
many followers of riper experience and better judgment than
myself.”
Yet Burr’s mastership in deportment, his superficial dignity, his
cheerfulness and sanguine temperament, and the skill with which he
managed legal tactics, made an impression on Blennerhassett’s mind:--
“As a jockey might restore his fame in the course after he
had injured it on the tight-rope, so, perhaps, the little
‘Emperor’ at Cole’s Creek may be forgotten in the attorney at
Richmond.”[336]
For a few days the trial went on undisturbed, while the government
put Eaton, Truxton, Peter Taylor, the Morgans, and a number of
other witnesses on the stand to prove an overt act of treason at
Blennerhassett’s island; but nothing short of Blennerhassett’s own
confession could place the matter in a clear light, and Burr’s chief
fear was evidently that Blennerhassett should turn State’s evidence. To
prevent this, Allston was persuaded to pay the more pressing demands
against Blennerhassett, and Burr exerted himself to conciliate him.
On the other hand, Jefferson seemed to hope that he could be won
over.[337] Duane, of the “Aurora,” visited him in prison August 23,
and offered to serve as an intermediary with the government.[338]
Had matters gone as the President hoped, something might have come
of this manœuvre; but before further pressure could be employed, the
chief-justice struck the prosecution dead.
August 19 Burr’s counsel suddenly moved to arrest the evidence. The
government, they said, had gone through all its testimony relating to
the overt act charged in the indictment; it admitted that Burr was
hundreds of miles distant from the scene; and as the district-attorney
was about to introduce collateral testimony of acts done beyond the
jurisdiction of the court, it became the duty of the defence to object.
For ten days this vital point was argued. All the counsel on either
side exerted themselves to the utmost. Wickham’s opening speech on
the nature of treason was declared by as good a judge as Littleton
Tazewell to be “the greatest forensic effort of the American bar.”[339]
Luther Martin spoke fourteen hours, beginning with an almost passionate
allusion to his idol Theodosia. William Wirt exhausted his powers
of argument and oratory, and in the course of his address made the
rhetorical display which became familiar to every American, and which
introduced a sort of appeal to Blennerhassett to turn against the more
guilty crew who were trying to sacrifice him to save themselves:--
“Who is Blennerhassett? A native of Ireland, a man of letters,
who fled from the storms of his own country to find quiet in
ours.”
George Hay was neither so efficient nor so dexterous as Wirt, and
either intentionally or by awkwardness succeeded in giving the
impression of threatening the court:[340]--
“Mr. Bott says that we are now advocating opinions which
on Fries’ trial we condemned.... I beg leave to assure the
gentleman that the censure which the judge drew on himself was
not on account of his opinions, however incorrect they might
be, but for his arbitrary and irregular conduct at the trial,
which was one of the principal causes for which he was afterward
impeached. He attempted to wrest the decision from the jury, and
prejudge the case before hearing all the evidence in it,--the
identical thing which this court is now called on by these
gentlemen to do.”
That Hay, knowing well Jefferson’s thoughts and the magic that
hung about the word “impeachment,” should have used these words
inadvertently seemed hardly credible. If he did so, his clumsiness
was as offensive as the threat could have been, for the idea of
impeachment was in the air of the court-house. Burr’s counsel at once
retaliated.[341] “It was very kind of the gentleman to remind the court
of the danger of a decision of the motion in favor of the prisoner.”
Hay protested that he had spoken innocently, and the chief-justice
said that the allusion had not been taken as personal; but the
unpleasant impression remained. “The gentleman plainly insinuated the
possibility of danger to the court,” persisted the defence; and Luther
Martin added,[342]--
“I do not know whether it were intended by this observation that
your honors should be apprehensive of an impeachment in case you
should decide against the wishes of the government. I will not
presume that it was used with that view, but it is susceptible
of being so misunderstood, however innocently or inadvertently
it may have been made.”
August 31 the chief-justice read his decision. Much the longest of
Marshall’s judicial opinions; elaborately argued, with many citations,
and with less simple adherence to one leading thought than was usual
in his logic,--this paper seemed, in the imagination of Marshall’s
enemies, to betray a painful effort to reconcile his dictum in
Bollman’s case with the exclusion of further evidence in the case of
Burr. To laymen, who knew only the uncertainties of law; who thought
that the assemblage on Blennerhassett’s island was such an overt act
as might, without violent impropriety, be held by a jury to be an act
of levying war; and who conceived that Burr, although absent from the
spot, was as principal present in a legal sense such as would excuse a
jury in finding him guilty,--an uneasy doubt could not fail to suggest
itself that the chief-justice, with an equal effort of ingenuity,
might have produced equal conviction in a directly opposite result. On
the other hand, the intent of the Constitution was clear. The men who
framed that instrument remembered the crimes that had been perpetrated
under the pretence of justice; for the most part they had been
traitors themselves, and having risked their necks under the law they
feared despotism and arbitrary power more than they feared treason.
No one could doubt that their sympathies, at least in 1788, when the
Constitution was framed, would have been on the side of Marshall’s
decision. If Jefferson, since 1788, had changed his point of view, the
chief-justice was not under obligations to imitate him.
“If it be said that the advising or procurement of treason is
a secret transaction which can scarcely ever be proved in the
manner required by this opinion, the answer which will readily
suggest itself is that the difficulty of proving a fact will not
justify conviction without proof.”
At the close of his decision the chief-justice, with simple dignity
which still compels respectful admiration, took up the gauntlet which
the district-attorney had flung at his feet. As though turning from the
crowd in the court-room to look for a moment directly into the eyes of
the President, the threatened chief-justice uttered a few words that
were at once answer and defiance:--
“Much has been said in the course of the argument on points on
which the Court feels no inclination to comment particularly,
but which may perhaps not improperly receive some notice.
“That this Court dares not usurp power is most true; that this
Court dares not shrink from its duty is not less true. No man
is desirous of placing himself in a disagreeable situation; no
man is desirous of becoming the peculiar subject of calumny;
no man, might he let the bitter cup pass from him without
self-reproach, would drain it to the bottom; but if he has no
choice in the case,--if there is no alternative presented to him
but a dereliction of duty or the opprobrium of those who are
denominated the world,--he merits the contempt as well as the
indignation of his country who can hesitate which to embrace....
“No testimony relative to the conduct or declarations of the
prisoner elsewhere and subsequent to the transactions on
Blennerhassett’s island can be admitted; because such testimony,
being in its nature merely corroborative, and incompetent to
prove the overt act in itself, is irrelevant until there be
proof of the overt act by two witnesses.”
On the following day, September 1, District-Attorney Hay abandoned the
case, and the jury entered a verdict of “Not guilty.” Hay instantly
reported to Monticello the result of his efforts, and added criticisms
upon Marshall:[343]--
“Wirt, who has hitherto advocated the _integrity_ of the
chief-justice, now abandons him. This last opinion has opened
his eyes, and he speaks in the strongest terms of reprobation.”
September 4 Jefferson replied in the tone which always accompanied his
vexation:[344]--
“Yours of the 1st came to hand yesterday. The event has been
what was evidently intended from the beginning of the trial;
that is to say, not only to clear Burr, but to prevent the
evidence from ever going before the world. But this latter
case must not take place. It is now, therefore, more than ever
indispensable that not a single witness be paid or permitted to
depart until his testimony has been committed to writing....
These whole proceedings will be laid before Congress, that they
may decide whether the defect has been in the evidence of guilt,
or in the law, or in the application of the law, and that they
may provide the proper remedy for the past and the future.”
Accordingly, although the trial for treason was at an end, the
district-attorney pressed the indictment for misdemeanor; and until
October 19 the chief-justice was occupied in hearing testimony
intended for use not against Burr, but against himself. Then at last
the conspirators were suffered to go their way, subject to legal
proceedings in Ohio which the government had no idea of prosecuting;
while the President, mortified and angry, prepared to pursue Marshall
instead of Burr. The Federalists, who always overrated the strength
of party passions, trembled again for the Judiciary; but in truth
nothing was to be feared. The days of Jefferson’s power and glory had
passed forever, while those of Marshall had barely begun. Even on
the testimony, the President’s case was far from being so clear as
he had hoped and expected. His chief witness, Wilkinson, could only
with difficulty be sustained; and the district-attorney, who began by
pledging himself before the court to show the falsity of the charges
which had been brought against the General, ended by admitting their
truth.
“The declaration which I made in court in his favor some time
ago,” wrote Hay to the President at the close,[345] “was
precipitate; and though I have not retracted it, everybody sees
that I have not attempted the task which I in fact promised to
perform. My confidence in him is shaken, if not destroyed. I am
sorry for it, on his own account, on the public account, and
because you have expressed opinions in his favor; but you did
not know then what you will soon know, and what I did not learn
until after--long after--my declaration above mentioned.”
The hint was strong. If Wilkinson were discredited, Jefferson himself
was in danger. To attack the Supreme Court on such evidence was to
invite a worse defeat than in the impeachment of Chase. Meanwhile the
country had graver dangers to think about, and enemies at its doors who
were not to be curbed by proclamations or impeachments.
END OF VOL. III.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Diary of J. Q. Adams (March 4, 1805), i. 373.
[2] Jefferson’s Writings (Ford), viii. 341.
[3] Gallatin’s Writings, i. 227.
[4] Jefferson to General Heath, Dec. 13, 1804; Jefferson MSS.
[5] Jefferson to Robert Smith, Jan. 3, 1805; Jefferson MSS.
[6] Crowninshield to Jefferson, Jan. 29, 1805; Jefferson MSS. State
Department Archives.
[7] Dearborn to Robertson, March 20, 1805; State Papers, vol. v.;
Indian Affairs, i. 700.
[8] Message of Jan. 30, 1808; State Papers, vol. v.; Indian Affairs, i.
752.
[9] Jefferson to Gallatin, May 29, 1805; Gallatin’s Writings, 232.
[10] Monroe and Pinckney to Cevallos, Jan. 28, 1805; State Papers, ii.
636.
[11] Cevallos to Monroe and Pinckney, Jan. 31, 1805; State Papers, ii.
636.
[12] Monroe and Pinckney to Madison, May 23, 1805; State Papers, ii.
667.
[13] Pinckney and Monroe to Cevallos, Feb. 5, 1805; State Papers, ii.
640.
[14] Cevallos to Monroe and Pinckney, Feb. 10, 1805; State Papers, ii.
541.
[15] Cevallos to Monroe and Pinckney, Feb. 16, 1806; State Papers, ii.
643.
[16] Cevallos to Monroe and Pinckney, Feb. 24, 1805; State Papers, ii.
644.
[17] Monroe and Pinckney to Cevallos, Feb. 26, 1805; State Papers, ii.
646.
[18] Monroe’s diary at Aranjuez, March 16, 1805; Monroe MSS.
[19] Monroe to Armstrong, March 1, 1805; MSS. State Department Archives.
[20] Armstrong to Monroe, March 12 and 18, 1805; State Papers, ii. 636.
[21] Pinckney and Monroe to Cevallos, March 30, 1805; State Papers, ii.
657.
[22] Monroe and Pinckney to Cevallos, April 9, 1805; State Papers, ii.
658.
[23] Monroe and Pinckney to Cevallos, April 12, 1805; State Papers, ii.
660.
[24] Cevallos to Pinckney and Monroe, April 13, 1805; State Papers, ii.
660.
[25] Monroe and Pinckney to Cevallos, April 20, 1805; State Papers, ii.
662.
[26] Monroe and Pinckney to Madison, 23 May, 1805; State Papers, ii.
668.
[27] Pinckney and Monroe to Cevallos, May 12, 1805; State Papers, ii.
665.
[28] Cevallos to Monroe and Pinckney, May 15, 1805; State Papers, ii.
666.
[29] Erving to Madison, Dec. 7, 1805; MSS. State Department Archives.
[30] Armstrong to Monroe, May 4, 1805; MSS. State Department Archives.
[31] Armstrong to Madison, July 3, 1805; MSS. State Department Archives.
[32] Cf. Correspondance de Napoleon, xxxii. 321.
[33] Monroe to Madison, June 30, 1805; MSS. State Department Archives.
[34] Monroe to Madison, Oct. 18, 1805; State Papers, iii. 106.
[35] Monroe to Madison, June 3, 1805; State Papers, iii. 93.
[36] Act of April 10, 1805; Instructions of June 29, 1805; Orders of
Aug. 3, 1805.
[37] See First Administration, ii. 400.
[38] Speech of Sir John Nicholl (Advocate-General), Feb. 11, 1805;
Cobbett’s Debates, iii. 407.
[39] Monroe to Madison, Aug. 16, 1805; State Papers, iii. 103.
[40] Monroe to Madison, Aug. 20, 1805; State Papers, iii. 105.
[41] Monroe to Madison, Oct. 18, 1805; State Papers, iii. 106. Monroe
to Colonel Taylor, Sept. 10, 1810; Monroe MSS., State Department
Archives.
[42] New Reasons for abolishing the Slave-Trade, 1807.
[43] War in Disguise, pp. 131–133.
[44] Bosanquet, Causes of the Depreciation, etc. p. 42.
[45] Jefferson to Madison, March 23, 1805; Madison MSS.
[46] Madison to Jefferson, March 27, 1805; Jefferson MSS.
[47] Jefferson’s Writings (Ford), viii. 350.
[48] See p. 8.
[49] Madison to Jefferson, Aug. 2, 1805; Jefferson MSS.
[50] Jefferson’s Writings (Ford), viii. 374.
[51] Jefferson to Madison, Aug. 7, 1805; Works, iv. 583.
[52] Jefferson to Madison, Aug. 17, 1805; Jefferson MSS.
[53] Madison to Jefferson, Aug. 20, 1805; Jefferson MSS.
[54] Jefferson to Madison, Aug. 27, 1805; Works iv. 585.
[55] Madison to Jefferson, Sept. 1, 1805; Jefferson MSS.
[56] Gallatin to Madison, Aug. 6, 1805; Gallatin’s Writings, i. 237.
[57] Madison to Jefferson, Sept. 1, 1805; Jefferson MSS.
[58] Gallatin to Jefferson, Sept. 12, 1805; Gallatin’s Writings, i. 241.
[59] Gallatin to Jefferson, May 30, 1805; Gallatin’s Writings, i. 233.
[60] Robert Smith to Jefferson, Sept. 10, 1805; Jefferson MSS.
[61] Jefferson to Madison, Sept. 16, 1805; Works, iv. 587.
[62] Madison to Jefferson, Sept. 30, 1805; Jefferson MSS.
[63] Jefferson to Madison, Sept. 18, 1805; Jefferson MSS.
[64] Jefferson’s Writings (Ford), viii. 380.
[65] Madison to Jefferson, Oct. 16, 1805; Jefferson MSS.
[66] Madison to Jefferson, Sept. 14, 1805; Jefferson MSS.
[67] Jefferson’s Writings (Ford), viii. 380.
[68] Jefferson’s Writings (Ford), viii. 381.
[69] Madison to Jefferson, Sept. 30, 1805; Jefferson MSS.
[70] Cabinet Memoranda; Jefferson’s Writings (Ford), i. 308.
[71] Turreau to Madison, 26 Thermidor, An xiii. (Aug. 14, 1805); MSS.
State Department Archives.
[72] Jefferson to Madison, Aug. 25, 1805; Works, iv. 584.
[73] Madison to Jefferson, Sept. 1, 1805; Jefferson MSS.
[74] Turreau to Talleyrand, 20 Messidor, An xiii. (July 9, 1805);
Archives des Aff. Étr., MSS.
[75] Turreau to Talleyrand, 30 Germinal, An xiii. (April 20, 1805);
Archives des Aff. Étr., MSS.
[76] State Papers, ii. 728.
[77] Napoleon to Talleyrand, 22 Thermidor, An xiii. (Aug. 10, 1805);
Correspondance, xi. 73.
[78] Talleyrand to Armstrong, 29 Thermidor, An xiii. (Aug. 16, 1805);
State Papers, ii. 726.
[79] Turreau to Madison, Jan. 3, 1806; State Papers, ii. 726.
[80] State Papers, ii. 682–695.
[81] Fragments of Voyages and Travels, by Captain Basil Hall, R. N., F.
R. S., London, 1856.
[82] Gallatin to Jefferson, April 16, 1807; Works, i. 335.
[83] Merry to Mulgrave, Sept. 2, 1805; MSS. British Archives.
[84] Merry to Mulgrave, Sept. 30, 1805; MSS. British Archives.
[85] Ibid.
[86] Merry to Mulgrave, Nov. 3, 1805; MSS. British Archives.
[87] Merry to Mulgrave, Nov. 3, 1805: MSS. British Archives.
[88] Merry to Mulgrave, Nov. 3, 1805; MSS. British Archives.
[89] Jefferson to Madison, Aug. 27, 1805; Writings, iv. 585.
[90] Armstrong to Madison, Sept. 10, 1805; MSS. State Department
Archives.
[91] Cabinet Memoranda; Jefferson’s Writings (Ford), i. 309.
[92] Merry to Mulgrave, Dec. 2, 1805; MSS. British Archives.
[93] Jefferson to Judge Cooper, Feb. 18, 1806; Jefferson MSS.
[94] Gallatin to Jefferson, Nov. 21, 1805; Gallatin’s Writings, i. 261.
[95] Jefferson to Gallatin, Nov. 24, 1805; Gallatin’s Writings, i. 264.
[96] Jefferson to Gallatin: Spanish Resolutions, 1805; Gallatin’s
Writings, i. 277.
[97] Gallatin to Jefferson, Dec. 3, 1805; Gallatin’s Writings, i. 278.
[98] Jefferson to Gallatin, Dec. 4, 1805; Gallatin’s Writings, i. 281.
[99] Jefferson to Bidwell, July 5, 1806; Writings, v. 14.
[100] Adams’s Randolph, p. 161.
[101] Turreau to Talleyrand, Jan. 20, 1806; Archives des Aff. Étr., MSS.
[102] Diary of J. Q. Adams (March 8, 1806), i. 419.
[103] Columbian Centinel, Dec. 21, 1805.
[104] Cabinet Memoranda; Jefferson’s Writings (Ford), i. 308.
[105] Diary of J. Q. Adams (Nov. 30, 1805), i. 376.
[106] Jefferson to Monroe, May 4, 1806; Writings (Ford), viii. 447.
[107] State Papers, ii. 613.
[108] First Letter of Decius, in the “Richmond Enquirer,” August, 1806.
[109] Nicholson to Gallatin, Dec. 8, 1805; Gallatin MSS.
[110] Decius, No. 1; Randolph’s speech of April 5, 1806; Annals of
Congress, 1805–1806, pp. 984–985.
[111] Decius, No. 1.
[112] Madison to Armstrong and Bowdoin, March 13, 1806; State Papers,
iii. 539.
[113] Diary of J. Q. Adams (Feb. 8, 1806), i. 405.
[114] Diary of J. Q. Adams (Jan. 15, 1806), i. 383.
[115] Act of Feb. 28, 1806; Annals of Congress, 1805–1806, p. 1228.
[116] Ames to Pickering; Ames’s Works, i. 342. Cf. Lodge’s Cabot, p.
315.
[117] Boston Memorial; Annals of Congress, 1806–1809, Appendix, p. 890.
[118] Message of Jan. 17, 1806; State Papers, ii. 727.
[119] Annals of Congress, 1793–1795, p. 155.
[120] Diary of J. Q. Adams (Feb. 13, 1806), i. 408.
[121] Randolph’s Speech of March 5, 1805; Annals of Congress,
1805–1806, p. 571.
[122] Merry to Mulgrave, Feb. 2, 1806; MSS. British Archives.
[123] Diary of J. Q. Adams (March 13, 1806), i. 420.
[124] Adams’s Randolph, p. 203.
[125] Diary of J. Q. Adams (Feb. 1, 1806), i. 395.
[126] Jefferson to Monroe, March 10, 1808; Works, v. 253.
[127] Annals of Congress, 1805–1806, p. 555.
[128] Annals of Congress, 1805–1806, p. 961.
[129] Jefferson to Monroe, March 16, 1806; Jefferson MSS.
[130] Jefferson to Monroe, March 18, 1806; Jefferson MSS.
[131] Adams’s Randolph, p. 199–202.
[132] Jefferson’s Writings (Ford), viii. 439.
[133] Samuel Smith to W. C. Nicholas, April 1, 1806; Nicholas MSS.
[134] Cf. Jefferson to W. C. Nicholas, March 24 and April 13, 1806.
Writings (Ford), viii. 434.
[135] W. C. Nicholas to Jefferson, April 2, 1806; Jefferson MSS.
[136] Annals of Congress, 1805–1806, p. 1107.
[137] Annals of Congress, March 26, 1806, p. 851.
[138] Diary of J. Q. Adams (Feb. 15, 1806), i. 410.
[139] Diary of J. Q. Adams (Feb. 20, 1806), i. 414.
[140] Miranda to Madison, Jan. 22, 1806; Madison MSS.
[141] Yrujo to Cevallos, Feb. 12, 1806; MSS. Spanish Archives.
[142] Yrujo to Turreau, Feb. 4, 1806; MSS. Spanish Archives.
[143] Turreau to Yrujo, Feb. 7, 1806; MSS. Spanish Archives.
[144] See p. 111.
[145] Merry to Lord Mulgrave, March 19, 1806; MSS. British Archives.
[146] Jefferson’s Writings (Ford), viii. 451.
[147] Merry to C. J. Fox, May 4, 1806; MSS. British Archives.
[148] Turreau to Talleyrand, Jan. 15, 1806; Archives des Aff. Étr., MSS.
[149] Turreau to Talleyrand, May 10, 1806; Archives des Aff. Étr., MSS.
[150] Jefferson to Bidwell, July 5, 1806; Works, v. 14; Jefferson MSS.
[151] Pickering to Gouverneur Morris, Oct. 21, 1814; Lodge’s Cabot, p.
535.
[152] Deposition of Matthew Lyon; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, ii. Appendix,
lxviii.
[153] Adair to Wilkinson, Jan. 27, 1806; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, ii.
Appendix, lxxvii.
[154] Wilkinson’s Memoirs, ii. 283.
[155] Daniel Clark to Wilkinson, Sept. 7, 1805; Wilkinson’s Memoirs,
ii. Appendix, xxxiii.
[156] Wilkinson to Clark, Oct. 12, 1807; Clark’s Proofs, p. 154.
[157] Wilkinson’s Memoirs, ii. Appendix, lxxxvi.
[158] Merry to Mulgrave, Aug. 4, 1805; MSS. British Archives.
[159] Turreau to Talleyrand, Feb. 13, 1806; Archives des Aff. Étr., MSS.
[160] Wilkinson’s Evidence, Burr’s Trial; Annals of Congress,
1807–1808, p. 611.
[161] Wilkinson’s Memoirs, ii. 303.
[162] Merry to Lord Mulgrave, Nov. 25, 1805; MSS. British Archives.
[163] Yrujo to Cevallos, Dec. 5, 1805; MSS. Spanish Archives.
[164] Yrujo to Cevallos, Jan. 1, 1806; MSS. Spanish Archives.
[165] Deposition of General Eaton; Life of William Eaton, p. 396.
[166] Burr to Wilkinson, Dec. 12, 1806; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, ii.
Appendix, lxxxiv.
[167] Evidence of Major Bruff, Burr’s Trial; Annals of Congress,
1807–1808, p. 597.
[168] Evidence of William Eaton, Burr’s Trial; Annals of Congress,
1807–1808, pp. 511, 512.
[169] Deposition of Jan. 26, 1807; Life of Eaton, p. 401.
[170] Wilkinson’s Memoirs, ii. Appendix, lxxxiii.
[171] Yrujo to Cevallos, May 14, 1806; MSS. Spanish Archives.
[172] Yrujo to Cevallos, June 9, 1806; MSS. Spanish Archives.
[173] Cevallos to Casa Yrujo, March 28, 1806; MSS. Spanish Archives.
[174] Cevallos to Casa Yrujo, July 12, 1806; MSS. Spanish Archives.
[175] Merry to C. J. Fox, June 1, 1806; MSS. British Archives.
[176] Blennerhassett Papers, p. 351.
[177] Blennerhassett Papers, p. 333; Blennerhassett to Allston, March
2, 1811.
[178] Blennerhassett Papers, pp. 397, 535.
[179] Yrujo to Cevallos, Nov. 10, 1806; MSS. Spanish Archives.
[180] Yrujo to Cevallos, Dec. 16, 1806; MSS. Spanish Archives.
[181] Merry to C. J. Fox, Nov. 2, 1806; MSS. British Archives.
[182] Gayarré’s Louisiana; Spanish Domination, pp. 192–199.
[183] See History of First Administration, p. 240.
[184] Marshall’s History of Kentucky, ii. 376–384.
[185] Daveiss to Jefferson, Jan. 10, 1806; View of the President’s
Conduct, by J. H. Daveiss, 1807. Clark’s Proofs, pp. 177–179.
[186] Daveiss to Jefferson, Feb. 10, 1806; View, etc. Cf. Marshall’s
History of Kentucky, ii. 401.
[187] See p. 278.
[188] Jefferson to Daveiss, Feb. 15, 1806; View, etc. Clark’s Proofs,
p. 179.
[189] Burr to John Smith, Oct. 26, 1806; Senate Report, p. 33.
[190] Marshall’s History of Kentucky, ii. 396.
[191] Cabinet Memoranda; Writings (Ford), i. 318.
[192] National Intelligencer, Jan. 12, 1807.
[193] Dearborn to Wilkinson, Nov. 27, 1806; Report of Committee, Feb.
26, 1811; 3 Sess. 11 Cong. p. 408.
[194] See Cabinet Memoranda of October 22, p. 278.
[195] Proclamation of Nov. 27, 1806; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, ii. Appendix,
xcvii.
[196] Jackson to Claiborne, Nov. 12, 1806; Burr’s Trial. Annals of
Congress, 1807–1808, p. 571.
[197] Letters of General Adair and General Jackson, 1817.
[198] Parton’s Burr, ii. 87.
[199] Parton’s Jackson, i. 322.
[200] Bissell to Andrew Jackson, Jan. 5, 1807; Annals of Congress,
1806–1807, p. 1017.
[201] Jefferson to Wilkinson, Jan. 3, 1807; Burr’s Trial. Annals of
Congress, 1807–1808, p. 580.
[202] Report of the Select Committee to the Kentucky Legislature, Dec.
2, 1806; National Intelligencer, Jan. 7, 1807.
[203] Wilkinson’s Evidence, Burr’s Trial; Annals of Congress,
1807–1808, p. 515.
[204] Wilkinson to Daniel Clark, Oct. 5, 1807; Clark’s Proofs, p. 154.
[205] Laussat to Decrès, 18 Germinal, An xii. (April 8, 1804); Archives
de la Marine, MSS. Gayarré’s Louisiana, iii. 10.
[206] Gayarré, Spanish Domination, p. 627.
[207] Laussat to Decrès, 18 Germinal, An xii. (April 8, 1804); Archives
de la Marine, MSS.
[208] Gayarré’s Louisiana, iii. 35.
[209] Gayarré’s Louisiana, iii. 161.
[210] Report of the Committee to inquire into the Conduct of General
Wilkinson, Feb. 26, 1811; 3 Sess. 11 Cong. p. 320.
[211] Gayarré’s Louisiana, iii. 151.
[212] Gayarré’s Louisiana, iii. 153.
[213] Gayarré’s Louisiana, iii. 154.
[214] Clark’s Proofs, p. 145.
[215] Clark to Wilkinson, Oct. 2, 1806; Clark’s Proofs, p. 157.
[216] Wilkinson’s Evidence, Burr’s Trial; Annals of Congress,
1807–1808, p. 518. Evidence of Lieutenant Spence, Report of House
Committee, Feb. 26, 1811; 3 Sess. 11 Cong., p. 312.
[217] Wilkinson to Smith, Sept. 28, 1806; Senate Report, Dec. 31, 1807,
p. 41.
[218] See p. 253.
[219] Wilkinson to Jefferson, Oct. 20 and 21, 1806; Wilkinson’s
Memoirs, ii. Appendix, xcv.
[220] Wilkinson to Freeman, Oct. 23, 1806; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, ii.
Appendix, ci.
[221] Wilkinson’s Evidence, Burr’s Trial; Annals of Congress,
1807–1808, p. 541.
[222] Wilkinson to Cushing, Nov. 7, 1806; Memoirs, ii. Appendix, xcix.
[223] Ibid.
[224] Ibid.
[225] Wilkinson to Jefferson, Nov. 12, 1806; Memoirs, ii. Appendix, c.
[226] Wilkinson to Claiborne, Nov. 12, 1806; Memoirs, ii. 328.
[227] Jackson to Claiborne, Nov. 12, 1806; Burr’s Trial. Annals of
Congress, 1807–1808, p. 571.
[228] Gayarré’s Louisiana, iii. 163.
[229] President’s Message of Jan· 22, 1807. Annals of Congress,
1806–1807, p. 43.
[230] Wilkinson to Daniel Clark, Dec. 10, 1806; Clark’s Proofs, p. 150.
[231] Clark’s Proofs, p. 151.
[232] Wilkinson to Daniel Clark, March 20, 1807; Clark’s Proofs, p. 151.
[233] Wilkinson to Daniel Clark, Oct. 5, 1807; Clark’s Proofs, p. 154.
[234] Deposition of John Shaw, Burr’s Trial; Annals of Congress,
1807–1808, p. 573.
[235] Evidence of Lieutenant Jacob Jackson, Burr’s Trial; Annals of
Congress, 1807–1808, p. 683.
[236] Blennerhassett Papers, p. 426.
[237] Blennerhassett Papers, p. 206.
[238] Robert Smith to Jefferson, Dec. 22, 1806; Jefferson MSS.
[239] Jefferson’s Writings (Ford), viii. 504.
[240] Randolph to Monroe, Jan. 2, 1807; Monroe MSS.
[241] Samuel Smith to W. C. Nicholas, Jan. 9, 1807; Nicholas MSS.
[242] Wilkinson to Jefferson, Dec. 14, 1806; Annals of Congress,
1806–1807, p. 1009.
[243] Diary of J. Q. Adams (Jan. 23, 1807), i. 445.
[244] Diary of J. Q. Adams (Feb. 21, 1807), i. 459.
[245] Yrujo to Cevallos, Jan. 28, 1807: MSS. Spanish Archives.
[246] Clark’s Proofs against Wilkinson, 1809.
[247] Jefferson’s Writings (Ford), viii. 502.
[248] Adams’s Randolph, p. 206.
[249] Adams’s Randolph, p. 208.
[250] Annals of Congress, 1806–1807, p. 389.
[251] Annals of Congress, 1806–1807, p. 598.
[252] Annals of Congress, 1806–1807, p. 610.
[253] Annals of Congress, 1806–1807, p. 398.
[254] Annals of Congress, 1806–1807, p. 400.
[255] Annals of Congress, 1806–1807, p. 168.
[256] Annals of Congress, 1806–1807, p. 183.
[257] Annals of Congress, 1806–1807, p. 238.
[258] Annals of Congress, 1806–1807, p. 267.
[259] Annals of Congress, 1806–1807, p. 477.
[260] Annals of Congress, 1806–1807, p. 626.
[261] Annals of Congress, 1806–1807, p. 635.
[262] Annals of Congress, 1806–1807, p. 635.
[263] Diary of J. Q. Adams, i. 464.
[264] Thiers, Consulat et Empire, vi. 30.
[265] Armstrong to Madison, Feb. 17, 1806; MSS. State Department
Archives.
[266] Armstrong to Madison, March 9, 1806; MSS. State Department
Archives.
[267] Madison to Armstrong and Bowdoin, March 13, 1806; MSS. State
Department Archives.
[268] Armstrong to Madison (private), May 4, 1806; MSS. State
Department Archives.
[269] Bowdoin to Jefferson, May 20, 1806; Jefferson MSS.
[270] Bowdoin to Jefferson, Oct. 20, 1806; Jefferson MSS.
[271] Armstrong to Madison, Oct. 10, 1806; MSS. State Department
Archives.
[272] Talleyrand to Vandeul, May 21, 1806; Archives, des Aff. Étr., MSS.
[273] Vandeul to Talleyrand, June 19, 1806; Archives des Aff. Étr., MSS.
[274] Vandeul to Talleyrand, June 23, 1806; Archives des Aff. Étr., MSS.
[275] Armstrong to Madison, Oct. 10, 1806; MSS. State Department
Archives.
[276] Talleyrand to Vandeul, July 3, 1806; Archives des Aff. Étr., MSS.
[277] Talleyrand to Vandeul, July 12, 1806; Archives des Aff. Étr., MSS.
[278] Talleyrand to Turreau, July 31, 1806; Archives des Aff. Étr., MSS.
[279] Armstrong to Madison, Dec. 24, 1806; State Papers ii. 805.
[280] Monroe to Madison, Feb. 12, 1806; MSS. State Department Archives.
[281] Monroe to Madison, April 3, 1806; State Papers, iii. 115.
[282] Monroe to Madison, April 18, 1806; State Papers, iii. 116.
[283] Monroe to Madison, May 17, 1806; State Papers, iii. 124.
[284] Madison to Monroe and Pinkney, May 17, 1806; State Papers, iii.
119.
[285] Jefferson to Monroe, May 4, 1806; Works, v. 12.
[286] Memoirs of Lord Holland, ii. 98–103.
[287] Oil without Vinegar, Medford, London, 1807.
[288] Monroe and Pinkney to Madison, Jan. 3, 1807; State Papers, iii.
145.
[289] American State Papers, iii. 151.
[290] Monroe to Colonel Taylor, 10 Sept., 1810; Monroe MSS., State
Department Archives.
[291] Order in Council, of Jan. 7, 1807; American State Papers, iii.
267.
[292] Cobbett’s Debates, viii. 632.
[293] Cobbett’s Debates, viii. 635.
[294] Howick to Erskine, Jan. 8, 1807; Cobbett’s Debates, x. 558.
Erskine to Madison, March 12, 1807; American State Papers, iii. 158.
[295] Edinburgh Review, xxii. 485.
[296] T. P. Courtney’s Additional Observations on the American Treaty,
London, 1808, p. 89.
[297] Madison to Monroe and Pinkney, Feb. 3, 1807; State Papers, iii.
153.
[298] Turreau to Talleyrand, Dec. 12, 1806; Archives des Aff. Étr., MSS.
[299] Turreau to Talleyrand, Jan. 12, 1807; Archives des Aff. Étr., MSS.
[300] Turreau to Talleyrand, Feb. 23, 1807; Archives des Aff. Étr., MSS.
[301] Turreau to Talleyrand, April 1, 1807; Archives des Aff. Étr., MSS.
[302] Turreau to Talleyrand, May 15, 1807; Archives des Aff. Étr., MSS.
[303] Erskine to Howick, March 6, 1807; MSS. British Archives.
[304] Diary of J. Q. Adams, i. 495.
[305] S. Smith to W. C. Nicholas, March 4, 1807; Nicholas MSS.
[306] S. Smith to W. C. Nicholas, March 4, 1807; Nicholas MSS.
[307] Madison to Erskine, March 20, 1807; State Papers, iii. 158.
[308] Same to same, March 29, 1807; Ibid., 159.
[309] Jefferson to Monroe, March 21, 1807; Works, v. 52.
[310] Jefferson to Bowdoin, April 2, 1807; Works, v. 63.
[311] Madison to Jefferson, April 20, 1807; Jefferson MSS.
[312] Madison to Jefferson, April 24, 1807; Jefferson MSS.
[313] Jefferson to Madison, April 21, 1807; Works, v. 69.
[314] Jefferson to Madison, April 21, 1807; Works, v. 74.
[315] Jefferson to W. B. Giles, April 20, 1807; Works, v. 65.
[316] Jefferson to Hay, June 20, 1807; Works, v. 102.
[317] U. S. _vs._ Kendall, Cranch’s Circuit Court Reports, v. 385.
[318] Jefferson to William Short, June 12, 1807; Works, v. 93. Cf.
Jefferson MSS.
[319] Jefferson to Hay, June 19, 1807; Works, v. 98.
[320] Jefferson to Rodney, June 19, 1807; Jefferson MSS.
[321] Major Bruff’s Testimony, Burr’s Trial; Annals of Congress,
1807–1808, pp. 598–600.
[322] Jefferson to Wilkinson, June 21, 1807; Works, v. 109.
[323] Wilkinson’s Memoirs, ii. 6.
[324] Randolph to Nicholson, June 28, 1807; Nicholson MSS.
[325] Randolph to Nicholson, June 25, 1807; Nicholson MSS.
[326] Annals of Congress, Jan. 11, 1808; Session of 1807–1808, p. 1397.
[327] Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the Conduct
of General Wilkinson, Feb. 26, 1811, pp. 281, 298. Cf. National
Intelligencer, Aug. 3, 1807.
[328] Parton’s Life of Burr, ii. 107.
[329] Hay to Jefferson, June 14, 1807; Jefferson MSS.
[330] Randolph to Nicholson, June 25, 1807; Adams’s Randolph, p. 221.
[331] Hay to Jefferson, Aug. 11, 1807; Jefferson MSS.
[332] Blennerhassett Papers, p. 315.
[333] Blennerhassett Papers, p. 397.
[334] Blennerhassett Papers, p. 422.
[335] Blennerhassett Papers, p. 373.
[336] Blennerhassett Papers, p. 343.
[337] Jefferson to Hay, Aug. 20. 1807; Works, v. 174.
[338] Blennerhassett Papers, p. 356.
[339] Grigsby’s Tazewell, p. 73.
[340] Burr’s Trial, ii. 193.
[341] Burr’s Trial, ii. 238.
[342] Burr’s Trial, ii. 369.
[343] Hay to Jefferson, Sept. 1, 1807; Jefferson MSS.
[344] Jefferson to Hay, Sept. 4, 1807; Works, v. 187. Cf. Jefferson MSS.
[345] Hay to Jefferson, Oct. 15, 1807; Jefferson MSS.
Transcriber’s Notes:
1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been
corrected silently.
2. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have
been retained as in the original.
3. Where hyphenation is in doubt, it has been retained as in the
original.
4. Italics are shown as _xxx_.