"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 pa.s.sengers.

"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 a.s.serted 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 a.s.serted 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 princ.i.p.al 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 pa.s.sed 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 a.s.sailed, 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 pa.s.sions, 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 compet.i.tor 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 inst.i.tuted 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 a.s.sailed 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 circ.u.mstances. 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 trespa.s.sing 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.