The suit referred to is not that of Cheetham, but one inst.i.tuted, without my agency or knowledge, _on a wager_. The t.i.tle 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 t.i.tle and date.

I expect to be in Albany early next week. In your answer to this, let me know where to find you. G.o.d 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 circ.u.mstances 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 t.i.tle 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 circ.u.mstances 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 doc.u.ments 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 circ.u.mstances 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 pa.s.sed 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 pa.s.sed, 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 pa.s.sage in Mr.