33D CONG....2D SESS.

The proposed tariffs could, of course, if established now, have no retrospective operation. We see what their "working" would have been. But taking things as we find them, the public debt as we find it, and estimating as accurately as we can, in view of all the facts, the probable future expenses of the Government, the question for us to consider is, what their practical "working" and effect upon the revenue and general interests of the country hereafter would be? Without stopping, then, to inquire further what condition the country would now be in with such an excess of imports over exports in the last seven yearswe see what the state of things has been, and is, with an excess of $93,000,000-let us look at the effect of continuing those tariffs seven years longer. But, in order to this, we need first to ascertain what the expenses for another seven years are to be, and how they will compare with what they have been. Will they be less, or the same, or more? We cannot act understandingly in making provision for the expenses of the Government, without forming an opinion of what they will amount to, and no intelligent opinion can be formed except from the facts. What, then, are the facts bearing upon this point? The Secretary relies upon what he considers "almost a certainty that our increasing commerce will give an increase of revenue equal to all the reasonable demands of the future." But what is his idea of reasonable demands? What does he mean by it? Does he suppose the expenses of the Government are to be, or may be, reduced, and that less revenue will be needed? It is quite clear that he does not, as we shall see by comparing the estimates of expenses for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1854, 1855, and 1856-those for 1855 and 1856 being made by the Secretary himself: Estimate of expenses for 1854....$39,323,870 32 Estimate of expenses for 1855.....44,195,150 68 Estimate of expenses for 1856... .49,656,928 17 He does not, then, as this comparison shows, base his recommendation of a reduction of the tariff upon the idea that the expenses are to be reduced, and for that reason less money will be wanted. And still further comparisons will furnish no reason to suppose there will be a reduction of expenses, but, on the contrary, show that they have been increasing, and are likely to continue to increase. A few only can be presented here.

The average annual expenses of the Government for three years, from June 30, 1847, to June 30, 1850, were $40,775,662 29. And the expenses for military service in these years, growing out of the Mexican war, were $20,187,132 60 more than the average for that service for the four following years. Deducting this sum, (and it should be deducted in comparing the ordinary expenses of the Government at different periods,) the average annual expenses, from 1847 to 1850, were $34,046,618 09. From 1850 to 1854 the annual average was $44,884,074 09.

Calling the expense for military service from June 30, 1847, to June 30, 1848, the same as the average annual amount for 1850 to 1854, the expenses for that year would be $28,122,020 38. From 1853 to 1854 they were $51,018,239 60; increase in seven years nearly $23,000,000.

The estimated expenses for the year ending June 30, 1854, were $39,323,870 32; the actual expenses were $51,018,239 60, or $11,694,369 28 over the estimate.

The estimated expenses for the year ending June 30, 1855, were $44,195,150 68, averaging $11,048,787 67 for each quarter; but the actual expenses for the first quarter were $14,293,317 45. Should the expenses of the other three quarters be the same, the actual expenses of the year will amount to $57,173,269 80, exceeding the estimates $12,978,119 12. Perhaps the expenses of 1855 may not be as much as this; probably they will not be; but it is pretty certain they will be largely in advance of the estimates.

The estimated expenses for the year ending June 30, 1856, are $49,656,928 17, or about $5,000,000 more than the average annual expenses from 1850 to 1854; but the actual expenses of 1856 will exceed the annual average from 1850 to 1854 more than $15,000,000, if they exceed the estimates as much as they did in 1854, and are likely to in 1855.

The estimates no doubt are very correctly made,

Vindication of the Late James A. Bayard.

but Congress have made large appropriations which the Secretary could not foresee and estimate for; and this will continue to be done.

We see, then, that there has been a large increase in the estimates; a large increase in the expenses, and that the actual expenses have generally exceeded the estimates. I am not saying this is right or wrong, or that the expenses ought to be more or less; but am speaking simply of the fact that they have increased very rapidly for the last seven years, and that there is no reason to believe they will be reduced for the next seven years. What, then, would be a fair estimate of the expenses of the Government, exclusive of the public debt, for seven years, from 1855 to 1861, inclusive? They exceeded $51,000,000 in 1854. The first quarter of the fiscal year 1855 they have been at the rate of over $57,000,000. With these facts, I estimate the expenses of 1855 at $52,000,000, and take that sum as the standard or annual average for the seven years; and I submit that, judging from the past ratio of increase, there is reason to believe that it will be much more than this.

At this estimate, the total expenses of the Government, from 1854 to 1861, exclusive of the public debt, will be.. .$364,009,000 00 | Total receipts under the

.....

present tariff, with the same amount of imports.....

....

347,447,956 03

........

$119,446,383 08

Excess of expenses over receipts, $72,204,176 97
Add public debt, July 1, 1854... 47,242 206 11
Public debt, July 1, 1861...
Committee's tariff, expenses... $364,000,000 00
Receipts, ($79,537,740 less).... 267,910,216 03
Excess of expenses over receipts, $96,089,783 97
Add public debt, July 1, 1854... 47,242,206 11
Public debt, July 1, 1861........$143,331,990 08

Now, admitting that the expenses of the Government from this time on till 1861 will be as large as I have estimated them-and I doubt whether a single member can convince himself that they will not be there must be an increase of imports, under the existing tariff, of $78,493,201; under the Secretary's tariff, of $419,028,452; and under the committee's tariff, of $630,623,127, to yield a revenue equal to the expenses of the seven years, and prevent such an increase of the public debt. And with no increase of exports from 1854 to 1861, over 1847 to 1854-and it is by no means certain there will be any-the excess of imports over the exports in 1861, would be, under the existing tariff, $266,004,837; under the Secretary's tariff, $606,540,088; and under the committee's tariff, $818,134,763.

But everybody knows that, long before we had reached these points of excess of imports over the exports, every dollar of specie would be withdrawn from the country, every bank would suspend payment, and universal bankruptcy prevail, from one end of the land to the other. We cannot pay for such an amount of imports if made, and yet, if we were under either of the proposed tariffs, they must be made, or the public debt would go on increasing.

Shall I be told that these calculations are made upon an erroneous principle, and do not show the practical "workings" of the proposed tariffs? I answer, if there be error in the principle, the error is the Secretary's, not mine. He has calculated what their precise "working" would have been for six years, and I have merely spread his calculations, or others made upon the same basis, over a longer period.

And what answer will the honorable chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, or any other member of that committee, or of the House, who favors the committee's plan of reduction, I make to them? There can be but one answer,

SENATE.

and that answer must show that the assumed or estimated expenses of the Government, from 1854 to 1861, are too high. All else is clear deduction, so far as the calculations are concerned, from admitted facts and premises. If this cannot be shown, there will be no occasion for alarm at the prospect of a very early payment of the public debt under the present tariff even.

There was a balance in the Treasury, July 1, 1854, of $20,137,967 50; and it may be said that so far, at least, as this amount is more than is necessary to be kept on hand subject to draft, the revenue may be reduced. But the revenue, even if the present tariff should be continued, the Secretary informs us, will be reduced annually $1,524,457 40, under the reciprocity treaty with the British provinces. In seven years this will amount to $10,671,201 80. And it cannot be expected that the receipts from public lands, under the operation of the acts graduating the price and granting bounty land, will be as much as they have been. In 1854, the receipts from public lands were $8,470,798 39. I think it quite reasonable, therefore, to conclude that the revenue will be reduced in seven years, under the reciprocity treaty, and from a falling off of receipts from public lands, more than enough to cover any sum that might properly be drawn from the balance in the Treasury last July. But if there be any doubt of this, such a reduction can easily be secured by adopting the suggestion of the Secretary, and admitting articles of raw material used in the arts and manufactures free of duty. This may be done, too, without touching a single article that comes in competition with anything produced here, and it ought to be done at once, whether there be doubt or not as to the operation of the reciprocity treaty and land laws.

The remarks I have submitted have had reference mainly to the revenue aspect of the question, bearing, of course, incidentally, upon the question of protection. The pending propositions open the whole question of the propriety and policy of protection, and I may take occasion to present my views upon it more fully when the subject comes up.

VINDICATION OF THE LATE JAMES A. BAYARD.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, WEDNESDAY, January 31, 1855, In regard to the Aspersions upon the Memory of late James A. Bayard, of Delaware, contained in the "Anas" of Thomas Jefferson, as published under the authority of Congress.

Mr. BAYARD said: Mr. President, since I have been a member of the Senate, under no circumstances have I had occasion to ask the indulgence of the body for the purpose of remarks upon any subject having a personal relation to myself; but I feel authorized to ask that indulgence now, both from my position as a Senator from the State of Delaware, and a sense of duty to the memory of a parent who has left no undistinguished name in his country's annals.

My purpose is, by a succinct statement of facts, and the submission of documents sustaining that statement, to repel and refute two utterly groundless aspersions upon the memory of my father, (the late James A. Bayard, of Delaware,) contained in the "Anas" of Thomas Jefferson, as published under the authority of Congress. A copy of the works of Mr. Jefferson was delivered to me, as a member of the Senate, at the commencement of the present session; and, in running over them, I found that two charges, reflecting upon the character of my father, which were published in the first edition of Mr. Jefferson's works, were retained in the edition published by the authority of Congress. In a note, at page 87, of the ninth volume, the editor assigns the reasons why he "did not feel at liberty" to exclude, what he denominates "the celebrated Anas" from the publication. I mean to imply no censure upon him for retaining them, though I might have arrived at a different conclusion; and I doubt not that he exercised an honest discretion. But the very fact that, in this publication made under the authority of Congress the two charges to which I allude, though previously refuted, have been

33D CONG....2d Sess.

retained without the slightest notice of that refutation, renders it more appropriate indeed, imperative-that I should thus publicly repel any statement contained in that publication aspersing the character of one of the most distinguished citizens of my State, and of a father around whose memory my best affections are clustered; whose stainless character affords some consolation to his children for his early death.

Vindication of the Late James A. Bayard.

at rest, he hoped he should be pardoned for referring to the objectional passage in their presence.

"He then read, from the fourth volume of Jefferson's Memoirs, page 515, (the same volume which had been brought into the Senate by General Hayne,) the following

passage:

"February the 12th, 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 to W. C. Nicholas, who confirms it to me,' &c. "He then called upon the Senators from Maryland and Louisiana, referred to in this passage, to disprove the statement here made.

Mr. President, when the first publication of the works of Mr. Jefferson was made, in 1830, my friend and colleague, who had just entered the Senate of the United States, having his attention attracted to one of the misrepresentations contained in these "Anas," with a promptitude and sincerity, and depth of feeling, which I can never forget, called the attention to the passage of two Senators (then most fortunately members of this body) on whose alleged authority this misrepre- politically opposed, were intimate personal friends, and he sentation is founded, and it was then, by their testimony, publicly refuted.

The second misrepresentation, however, escaped his notice, but the publication of what had occurred in the Senate, brought the writings of Mr. Jefferson, for the first time, within the knowledge of my brother, Richard H. Bayard, (one of my predecessors in this body) and myself.

We found the second misrepresentation in another part of the "Anas," and, subsequently, after months of inquiries, were enabled to obtain documentary testimony utterly demolishing both these aspersions upon our father's memory.

We published this testimony in December, 1830, in a newspaper in Philadelphia, and also, in pamphlet; but such a mode of refutation being of a perishable nature, and the works of Mr. Jefferson having been republished under the authority of Congress, it is requisite that the refutation should be made in a more public and more enduring form.

The first charge will be found in the ninth volume of the congressional edition of Mr. Jefferson's works, page 202.

It is in these words:

"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 his 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 to W. C. Nicholas, who confirms it to me."

"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 was an honorable 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 be on so remote a transaction, he had no remembrance of it."

DEPOSITION OF J. A. BAYARD. The deposition of James A. Bayard, sworn and examined on the twenty day of in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and five, at Wilmington, in the State of Delaware, by virtue of a commission issuing out of the supreme court of judicature in the State of New York, to John Vaughan, directed for the examination of the said James A. Bayard, in a cause there depending between Aaron Burr, plaintiff, and James Cheetham, defendant, on the part and behalf of the defendant. 1st. To the first interrogatory this deponent answers and says: As a member of the House of Representatives 1 paid a visit of ceremony to the plaintiff on the 4th of March, in the year one thousand eight hundred and one, and was introduced to him. I had no acquaintance with him before that period. I had no knowledge of the defendant but what was derived from his general reputation before the last session of Congress, when a personal acquaintance commenced upon my becoming a member of the Senate.

2d. To the second interrogatory this deponent saith: 1

was.

3d. To the third interrogatory this deponent saith: There was an equality of electoral votes for Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Burr, and the choice of one of them did, of consequence, devolve on the House of Representatives.

4th. To the fourth interrogatory this deponent saith: The House, resolved into States, balloted for a President a number of times-the exact number is not at present in my recollection-before a choice was made. The frequency of balloting was occasioned by the preference given by the Federal side of the House to Mr. Burr. With the exception of Mr. Huger, of South Carolina, I recollect no Federal member, who did not concur in the general course of balloting for Mr. Burr. I cannot name each member. The Federal members, at that time, composed a majority of the House, though not of the States. Their names can be ascertained by the Journals of the House of Represent

atives.

In answer to this charge, I shall first read the remarks in the Senate at the time my colleague brought it to the notice of Messrs. Smith and Livingston; then the deposition of my father made in 1805, in a suit for libel brought by Aaron Burr, against James Cheetham, and a letter written by him to General Hamilton, on the 7th of January, 1801. I shall also refer to a letter from Colonel Burr to General Smith, a copy of which is given in the deposition of General Smith in the case of Presidency. Several gentlemen of the Federal party doubted James Gillespie against Abraham Smith, which deposition I shall read hereafter in refutation of the second charge made by Mr. Jefferson.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE.

"The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution moved by Mr. Foor respecting surveys of the public lands. "Mr. BENTON being entitled to the floor

"Mr. CLAYTON said, that he desired the permission of the Senator from Missouri, [Mr. BENTON,] who was entitled to the floor, to call the attention of two of the honorable members of this body, Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, and Mr. LIVINGSTON, of Louisiana, to a passage in a book which had been cited in this debate by the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. HAYNE,] as authority on another subject. He did not rise for the purpose of discussing the resolution itself. In the wide range of the debate here, the northeastern and southern sections of the country had been arrayed against each other. He listened to the discussion without any intention of participating in it, while the State which he had the honor in part to represent, had escaped unscathed by the controversy. Though favorable to the resolution, as a mere proposition to inquire, he felt but little interest in such contentions between the North and South; and his only desire in relation to that subject, was, that the warmth of the discussion might have no tendency to alienate one portion of the country from the other. But his attention had been called by a number of members of this House, to a passage in the same book, another part of which had been referred to by the Senator from South Carolina. That passage charged an illustrious statesman, who formerly occupied the seat of a Senator here, and whose memory and fame were dear to himself and to the people he represented, with atrocious corruption, of which, he was convinced that great and good man could never have been guilty; and as the witnesses referred to in the book itself were present, and ready to give testimony to set the charge

5th. To the fifth interrogatory this deponent saith: I know of no measures but those of argument and persuasion which were used to secure the election of Mr. Burr to the

the practicability of electing Mr. Burr, and the policy of attempting it. Before the election came on, there were several meetings of the party to consider the subject. It was frequently debated; and most of the gentlemen who had adopted a decided opinion in favor of his election, employed their influence and address to convince those who doubted, of the propriety of the measure. I cannot tell whether Mr. Burr was acquainted with what passed at our meetings. But I neither knew nor heard of any letter being written to him on the subject. He never informed me, nor have I reason to believe, further than inference from the open professions, and public course pursued by the Federal party, that he was apprised that an attempt would be made to secure his election.

6th. To the sixth interrogatory the deponent saith: Mr. Burr, or any person on his behalf, never did communicate to me, in writing or otherwise, nor to any other persons of which I have any knowledge, that any measures had been suggested, or would be pursued, to secure his election. Preceding the day of the election, in the course of the session, the Federal members of Congress had a number of general meetings, the professed and sole purpose of which was to consider the propriety of giving their support to the election of Mr. Burr. The general sentiment of the party was strongly in his favor. Mr. Huger, I think, could not be brought to vote for him. Mr. Craik and Mr. Baer, of Maryland, and myself, were those who acquiesced with the greatest difficulty and hesitation. I did not believe Mr. Burr could be elected, and thought it vain to make the attempt. But I was chiefly influenced by the current of pub lic sentiment, which I thought it neither safe nor politic to counteract. It was, however, determined by the party without consulting Mr. Burr, to make the experiment, whether he could be elected. Mr. Ogden never was authorized nor requested by me, nor any member of the House, to my knowledge, to call upon Mr. Burr, and to make any propositions to him of any kind or nature. I remember Mr. Ogden's being at Washington, while the election was

SENATE.

depending. I spent one or two evenings in his company at Stiller's hotel, in small parties, and we recalled an acquaintance of very early life, which had been suspended by a separation of eighteen or twenty years. I spent not a moment with Mr. Ogden in private. It was reported that he was an agent for Mr. Burr, or it was understood that he was in possession of declarations of Mr. Burr, that be would serve as President if elected. I never questioned him on the subject. Although I considered Mr. Burr personally better qualified to fill the office of President than Mr. Jefferson, yet for a reason above suggested, I felt no anxiety for his election, and I presumed if Mr. Ogden came on any errand from Mr. Burr, or was desirous of making any disclosure relative to his election, he would do it without any application from me. But Mr. Ogden or any other person never did make any communication to me from Mr. Burr, nor do I remember having any conversation with him relative to the election. I never had any communication directly or indirectly with Mr. Burr in relation to his election to the presidency. I was one of those who thought from the beginning that the election of Mr. Burr was not practicable. The sentiment was freely and openly expressed. I remember it was generally said by those who wished a perseverance in the opposition to Mr. Jefferson, that several Democratic States were more disposed to vote for Mr. Burr than for Mr. Jefferson. That out of complaisance to the known intention of the party they would vote a decent length of time for Mr. Jefferson, and as soon as they could excuse themselves by the imperious situation of affairs, would give their votes for Mr. Burr, the man they really preferred. The States relied upon for this change were New York, New Jersey, Vermont, and Tennessee. I never however, understood that any assurance to this effect came from Mr. Burr. Early in the election it was reported that Mr. Edward Livingston, the Representative of the city of New York, was the confidential agent of Mr. Burr, and that Mr. Burr had committed himself entirely to the discretion of Mr. Livingston, having agreed to adopt all his acts. I took an occasion to sound Mr. Livingston on the subject, and intimated that, having it in my power to terminate the contest, I should do so, unless he could give me some assurance that we might calculate upon a change in the votes of some of the members of his party. Mr. Livingston stated that he felt no great concern as to the event of the election, but he disclaimed any agency from Mr. Burr, or any connection with him on the subject, and any knowledge of Mr. Burr's designing to cooperate in support of his election.

7th. The deponent answering that part of the seventh interrogatory, which relates to letters received from the late Alexander Hamilton, says: I did receive, in the course of the winter of 1801, several letters from General Hamilton upon the subject of the election, but the name of David A. Ogden is not mentioned in any of them. The general design and effect of these letters was to persuade me to vote for Mr. Jefferson, and not for Mr. Burr. The letters contain very strong reasons and a very earnest opinion against the election of Mr. Burr. In answer to the residue of the same interrogatory, the deponent saith: 1 repeat that I know of no means used to promote the election of Mr. Burr, but persuasion. I am wholly ignorant of what the plaintiff was apprized of in relation to the election, as I had no communication with him, directly or indirectly; and as to the expectation of a change of votes from Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Burr, I never knew of a better ground for it than the opinions and calculations of a number of members.

8th. In answer to the eighth interrogatory, the deponent saith: I know of nothing which, in my opinion, can be of service to the defendant in the cause.

To the interrogatory on the part of the plaintiff, the deponent answers: Having yielded with Messrs. Craik and Baer, of Maryland, to the strong desire of the great body of the party with whom we usually acted, and agreed to vote for Mr. Burr, and those gentlemen and myself being governed by the same views and motives, we pledged ourselves to each other to pursue the same line of conduct, and act together. We felt that some concession was due to the judgment of a great majority of our political friends, who differed from us in opinion, but we determined that no consideration should make us lose sight for a moment of the necessity of a President being chosen. We therefore resolved that as soon as it was fairly ascertained that Mr. Burr could not be elected, to give our votes to Mr. Jefferson. General Morris, of Vermont, shortly after acceded to this arrangement. The result of the ballot of the States had uniformly been eight States for Mr. Jefferson, six for Mr. Burr, and two divided. Mr. Jefferson wanted the vote of one State only; those three gentlemen belonged to the divided States, I held the vote of the State of Delaware; it was therefore in the power of either of us to terminate the election. Those gentlemen knowing the strong interest of my State to have a President, and knowing the sincerity of my determination to make one, left it to me to fix the time when the opposition should cease, and to make terms, if any could be accomplished, with the friends of Mr. Jefferson. I took pains to disclose this state of things in such a manner, that it might be known to the friends of Mr. Burr, and to those gentlemen who were believed to be most disposed to change their votes in his favor. I repeatedly stated to many gentlemen with whom I was acting, that it was a vain thing to protract the election, as it had become manifest that Mr. Burr would not assist us; and, as we could do nothing without his aid, I expected, under these circumstances, if there were any latent engines at work in Mr. Burr's favor, the plan of operations would be disclosed to me. But, although I had the power, and threatened to terminate the election, I had not even an intimation from any friend of Mr. Burr's, that it would be desirable to them to protract it. I never did discover that Mr. Burr used the least influence to promote the object we had in view. And being completely persuaded that Mr. Burr would not cooperate with us, I determined to end the contest by voting for Mr. Jefferson. I publicly announced the intention which I designed to carry into effect the next day. In the morning of the day there was a general meeting of the party, where it was generally

33D CONG....2D SESS.

admitted that Mr. Burr could not be elected; but some thought it was better to persist in our vote, and to go without à President rather than to elect Mr. Jefferson. The greater number, however, wished the election terminated, and a President made; and, in the course of the day, the manner was settled, which was afterwards adopted, to end the business.

Mr. Burr, probably, might have put an end sooner to the election by coming forward and declaring that he would not serve, if chosen; but I have no reason to believe, and never did think, that he interfered, even to the point of personal influence, to obstruct the election of Mr. Jefferson, or to promote his own.

It is considered that, at least in the first instance, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, will vote for Mr. Jef ferson. It is probable that Maryland and Vermont will be divided. It is, therefore, counted that, upon the first ballot, it would be possible to give to Mr. Burr six votes. It is calculated, however, and strongly insisted by some gentlemen, that a persevering opposition to Mr. Jefferson would bring over New York, New Jersey, and Maryland. What is the probability relative to New York? Your means enable you to form the most correct opinion. As to New Jersey and Maryland, it would depend on Mr. Lynn, of the former, and Mr. Dent, of the latter State.

I assure you sir, there appears to be a strong inclination in a majority of the Federal party to support Mr. Burr. The current has already acquired considerable force, and is manifestly increasing. The vote which the representation of a State enables me to give, would decide the question in favor of Mr. Jefferson. At present, I am by no means decided as to the object of preference. If the Federal party should take up Mr. Burr, I ought certainly to be impressed with the most undoubting conviction before I separated myself from them. I cannot, however, deny that there are strong consideratious which give a preference to Mr. Jefferson. The subject admits of many and very doubtful views, and before I resolve on the part I shall take, I will await the approach of the crisis which may probably bring with it circumstances decisive of the event.

The Federal party meet on Friday for the purpose of forming a resolution as to their line of conduct. I have not the least doubt of their agreeing to support Burr.

Their determination will not bind me, for though it might cost me a painful struggle to disappoint the views and wishes of many gentlemen with whom I have been accustomed to act, yet the magnitude of the subject forbids the sacrifice of a strong conviction. I cannot answer for the coherence of my letter, as I have undertaken to write to you from the Chamber of Representatives with an attention divided by the debate which occupies the House. I have not contidered myself at liberty to show your letter to any one, though I think it would be serviceable, if you could trust my discretion in the communication of it.

I am, with great consideration, your very obedient servant, JAMES A. BAYARD.

HON. ALEXANder Hamilton.

It will be perceived, Mr. President, that the charge which Mr. Jefferson has recorded is, in its offensive character, this: That my father attempted to corrupt General Samuel Smith, of Maryland, by offering to purchase his support of Mr. Burr, by the promise of such office as he might desire, designating, especially, the Secretaryship of the Navy, and further, that my father stated he was authorized to make the offer. It must be borne in mind, that General Smith was, at the time of the election of 1801, a Representative from Maryland, and that the vote of Maryland was equally

divided.

The denial of Mr. Jefferson's own witness, General Smith, is broad and unqualified, and Mr. Edward Livingston, who is cited as a witness that Smith made a similar statement to him, denies all remembrance of it.

As to the truth or falsity of the charge, Mr. Livingston is not alleged to have had any personal knowledge.

The deposition of my father, in the case of Mr. Burr vs. Cheetham, proves that he had not even a personal acquaintance with Colonel Burr antecedent to the election of 1801, and no communication with him, directly or indirectly. It further shows that, from the commencement of the struggle, as to the election, my father was opposed to the determination of his party, and only yielded to it for a time, as "a concession which was due to the judgment of a great majority of his political friends," and that, mainly through his influence, the course adopted by the Federal party was abandoned, and the election of Mr. Jefferson effected. His letter of January 7th, 1801, written in the confidence of friendship to General Hamilton, confirms this conclusively.

of time I do not recollect. The acquaintance did not extend beyond the common salutation upon meeting, and accidental conversation upon such meetings.

To the third interrogatory he answers and says: I was a member of the House of Representatives of the United

the 3d of March, 1797, to the 3d of May, 1803.

I shall read a copy of it, as contained in General Smith's deposition, in my answer to the second charge.

Sir, I look back with pride and pleasure to the course taken by my father in the election of 1801, and the service he rendered to his country in being the chief actor in its termination.

I will not detain the Senate by reading the other testimony, in corroboration of that which I have submitted, but I desire that it may be appended by the reporter to these remarks. I allude to letters from Mr. Baer, of Maryland, Mr. John Chew Thomas, of Pennsylvania, Mr. Jarvis, of Vermont, (a friend and appointee of Mr. Jefferson,) Joseph L. Sprague, of Massachusetts, and Judge Paine, of Vermont.

Surely, sir, my father was entitled to somewhat more justice from a President to whose election he was mainly condusive, than a permanent record of one of those political calumnies, which will always arise during the excitement of party contests, and which should be permitted to perish with the excitement which gives them birth.

The second aspersion upon my father's memory more offensive, and equally groundless, is in the following words:

April 15, 1806.-"I did not commit these things to writing at the time, but I do it now, because, in a suit between him (Burr) 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 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, nor any answer authorized by me. And this fact General Smith affirms at this moment." -Jefferson's Works, Congressional Edition, page 209.

I do not read the context which relates to an interview between Colonel Burr and Mr. Jefferson, some time in March, 1806-it having no relation to my father; but confine my quotation to that part which embodies the charge affecting his char

acter.

The calumny involved in this charge is, that my father, in a deposition made by him under oath, falsely pretended that he had addressed to Mr. Jefferson, through General Samuel Smith, pending the election of 1801, certain inquiries in the nature of conditions to which an affirmative answer had been received by him from General Smith.

My evidence in reply to this charge is conclusive. I now read the deposition of my father, made in the case of Gillespie vs. Smith on the 3d of April, 1806, and that of General Smith, made in the same case on the 15th of the same month. I read also, the fifth interrogatory, omitting the others, as the depositions are perfectly intelligible without them:

FIFTH INTERROGATORY.

Fifth. Do you or do you not know, or have you heard so that you believe, of any negotiations, bargains, or agreements in the year 1800 or 1801, after the said equality became known, and before the choice of the President, by or on behalf of any person, and whom, with the parties called Federal or Republican, or with either of them, or with any individual or individuals, and whom, of either of the said parties, relative to the office of President of the United States? If yea, declare the particulars thereof, and the reasons of such your belief.

DEPOSITION OF J. A. BAYARD. Deposition of the honorable James A. Beyard, a witness produced, sworn, and examined in a cause depending in the supreme court of the State of New York, between James Gillespie, plaintiff, and Abram Smith, defendant, on the part of the plaintiff, follows:

To the first interrogatory, deponent answers and says: I do not know either the plaintiff or defendant.

To the second interrogatory he answers and says: I was personally acquainted with Thomas Jefferson before he became President of the United States, the precise length

To the fourth interrogatory he answers and says: The electoral votes for Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, for President of the United States, were equal, and that the choice of one of them as President did devolve on the House of Representatives.

To the fifth interrogatory he answers, and says: I presume this interrogatory points to an occurrence which took place before the choice of President was made, and after the balloting had continued for several days, of which 1 have often publicly spoken. My memory enables me to state the transaction, in substance, correctly, but not to be answerable for the precise words which were used upon the occasion. Messrs. Baer and Craig, members of the House of Representatives from Maryland, and General Morris, a member of the House from Vermont, and myself, having the power to determine the votes of the States, from similarity of views and opinions during the pendency of the election, made an agreement to vote together. We foresaw that a crisis was approaching which might probably force us to separate, in our votes, from the party with whom we usually acted. We were determined to make a President, and the period of Mr. Adams's Administration was rapidly approaching.

In determining to recede from the opposition to Mr. Jefferson, it occurred to us, that probably instead of being obliged to surrender at discretion, we might obtain terms of capitulation. The gentlemen whose names I have mentioned, authorized me to declare their concurrence with me upon the best terms that could be procured. The vote of either of us was sufficient to decide the choice. With a view to the end mentioned, I applied to Mr. John Nicholas, a member of the House from Virginia, who was a particular friend of Mr. Jefferson. I stated to Mr. Nicholas, that if certain points of the future Administration could be understood and arranged with Mr. Jefferson, I was authorized to say that three States would withdraw from an opposition to his election. He asked me what those points were. I answered, first, sir, the support of public credit; secondly, the maintenance of the naval system; and, lastly, that subordinate public officers employed only in the execution of details, established by law, shall not be removed from office on the ground of their political character, nor without complaint against their conduct. I explained myself, that I considered it not only reasonable, but necessary, that offices of high discretion and confidence should be filled by men of Mr. Jefferson's choice. I exemplified by mentioning, on the one hand, the offices of the Secretaries of States, Treasury, foreign ministers, &c., and, on the other, the collectors of ports, &c. Mr. Nicholas answered me, that he considered the points as very reasonable, that he was satisfied that they corresponded with the views and intentions of Mr. Jefferson, and knew him well. That he was acquainted with most of the gentlemen who would probably be about him and enjoying his confidence, in case he became President, and that if I would be satisfied with his assurance, he could solemnly declare it as his opinion, that Mr. Jefferson, in his administration, would not depart from the points I had proposed. I replied to Mr. Nicholas, that I had not the least doubt of the sincerity of his declaration, and that his opinion was perfectly correct, but that I wanted an engagement, and that if the points could in any form be understood as conceded by Mr. Jefferson, the election should be ended, and proposed to him to consult Mr. Jefferson. This he declined, and said he could do no more than give me the assurance of his own opinion as to the sentiments and designs of Mr. Jefferson and his friends. I told him that was not sufficient, that we should not sur render without better terms. Upon this we separated, and I shortly after met with General Smith, to whom I unfolded myself in the same manner that I had done to Mr. Nicholas. In explaining myself to him in relation to the nature of the offices alluded to, I mentioned the offices of George Latimer, collector of the port of Philadelphia, and Allen McLane, collector of Wilmington. General Smith gave me the same assurance as to the observance, by Mr. Jefferson, of the points which I had stated, which Mr. Nicholas had done. I told him I should not be satisfied, nor agree to yield, till I had the assurance from Mr. Jefferson himself; but that if he would consult Mr. Jefferson, and bring the assurance from him, the election should be ended. The General made no difficulty in consulting Mr. Jefferson, and proposed giving me his answer next morning. The next day, upon our meeting, General Smith informed me that he had seen Mr. Jefferson, and stated to him the points mentioned, and was authorized by him to say, that they corresponded with his views and intentions, and that we might confide in him accordingly. The opposition of Vermont, Maryland, and Delaware, was immediately withdrawn, and Mr. Jefferson was made President by the votes of ten States.

To the sixth interrogatory, the deponent answers and says: I was introduced to Mr. Burr, the day of Mr. Jefferson's inauguration as President. I had no acquaintance with him before, and very little afterwards, till the last winter of his Vice Presidency, when I became a member of the Senate of the United States.

To the seventh interrogatory, deponent answers and says: I do not know, nor did I ever believe, from any information I received, that Mr. Burr entered into any negotiation or agreement with any member of either party, in relation to the Presidential election, which depended before the House of Representatives.

To the eighth interrogatory, the deponent answers and says: Upon the subject of this interrogatory, I can express only a loose opinion, founded upon the conjectures at the time, of what could be effected by Mr. Burr, by mortgaging the patronage of the Executive. I can only say, generally, that I did believe, at the time, that he had the means of making himself President. But this opinion has no other

DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL SMITH. Deposition of the honorable Samuel Smith, Senator of the United States for the State of Maryland, a witness produced, sworn, and examined in a cause depending in the supreme court of the State of New York, between James Gillespie, plaintiff, and Abram Sinith, defendant, on the part and behalf of the defendant, as follows:

1st. I knew Thomas Jefferson some years previous to 1800. The precise time when our acquaintance commenced, I do not recollect.

24. and 3d. I was a member of the House of Representatives of the United States in 1800 and 1801, and know that Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr had an equal number of the votes given by the electors of President and Vicc President of the United States.

4th. Presuming that this question may have reference to conversations (for I know of no bargains or agreements) which took place at the time of the balloting, I will relate those which I well recollect to have had with three gentlemen, separately, of the Federal party. On the Wednesday preceding the termination of the election, Colonel Josiah Parker asked a conversation with me in private. He said that many gentlemen were desirous of putting an end to the election; that they only wanted to know what would be the conduct of Mr. Jefferson in case he should be elected President, particularly as it related to the public debt, to commerce, and navy. I had heard Mr. Jefferson converse on all those subjects lately, and informed him what I understood were the opinions of that gentleman. I lived in the house with Mr. Jefferson, and that I might be certain that what I had said was correct, I sought and had a conversation that evening with him on those points; and I presume, though I do not precisely recollect, that I cominunicated to him the conversation which I had bad with Colonel Parker. The next day General Dayton, (a Senator,) after some jesting conversation, asked me to converse with him in private. We retired. He said that he, with some other gentlemen, wished to have a termination put to the pending election; but he wished to know what were the opinions or conversations of Mr. Jefferson respecting the navy, commerce, and public debt. In answer, I said that I bad last night had conversation with Mr. Jefferson on all those subjects. That he had told me thatany opinion he should give at this time, might be attributed to improper motives. That to me he had no hesitation in saying that, as to the public debt, he had been averse to the manner of funding it, but that he did not believe there was any man who respected his own character, who would or could think of injuring its credit at this time. That, on commerce, he thought that a correct idea of his opinions on that subject might be derived from his writings, and particularly from his conduct while he was Minister at Paris, when he thought he had evinced his attention to the commercial interests of his country. That he had not changed opinion, and still did consider the prosperity of our commerce as essential to the true interest of the nation. That, on the navy, he had fully expressed his opinion in his Notes on Virginia; that he adhered still to his ideas then given. That he believed our growing commerce would call for protection; that he had been averse to a too rapid increase of our navy; that he believed a navy must naturally grow out of our commerce, but thought prudence would advise its increase to progress with the increase of the nation, and that in this way he was friendly to the establishment. General Dayton appeared pleased with the conversation, and, I think, said that, if this conversation had taken place earlier, much trouble might have been saved, or words to that effect.

At the funeral of Mr. Jones, of Georgia, I walked with Mr. Bayard, of Delaware. The approaching election became the subject of conversation. I recollect no part of that conversation, except his saying that he thought that an half hour's conversation between us might settle the business. That idea was not again repeated. On the day after, I had held the conversation with General Dayton, I was asked by Mr. Bayard to go into the committee room. He then stated that he had it in his power (and was so disposed) to terminate the election, but he wished information as to Mr. Jefferson's opinions on certain subjects, and mentioned, (I think,) the same three points already alluded to, as asked by Colonel Parker and General Dayton, and received from me the same answer in substance, (if not in words,) that I had given to General Dayton. He added a fourth, to wit: What would be Mr. Jefferson's conduct as to the public officers? He said he did not mean confidential officers, but, by way of elucidating his question, he said, such as Mr. Latimer, of Philadelphia, and Mr. M'Lane, of Delaware. I answered that I never had heard Mr. Jefferson say anything on that subject. He requested that I would inquire, and inform him the next day. I did so. And the next day (Saturday) told him, that Mr. Jefferson had said that he did not think that such officers ought to be dismissed on political grounds only, except in cases where they had made improper use of their offices, to force the officers under them to vote contrary to their judgment. That as to Mr. M'Lane, he had already been spoken to in his behalf by Major Eccleston, and from the character given him by that gentleman, he considered him a meritorious officer; of course, that he would not be displaced, or ought not to he displaced. I further added, that Mr. Bayard might rest assured, (or words to that effect,) that Mr. Jefferson would conduct, as to those points, agreeably to the opinions I had

stated as his. Mr. Bayard then said, we will give the vote on Monday, and we separated. Early in the election, my colleague, Mr. Baer, told me that we should have a President, that they would not get up without electing one or the other gentleman. Mr. Baer had voted against Mr. Jefferson until the final vote, when, I believe, he withdrew, or voted blank, but do not perfectly recollect.

5th. I became acquainted with Colonel Burr some time in the revolutionary war.

6th. I know of no agreement or bargain in the years 1800 and 1801 with any person or persons whatsoever, respecting the office of President in behalf of Aaron Burr, nor have I any reason to believe that any such existed.

7th. I received a letter from Colonel Burr, dated, I believe, 16th December, 1800, in reply to one which I had just before written him. The letter of Colonel Burr is as follows:

"It is highly improbable that I shall have an equal number of votes with Mr. Jefferson; but if such should be the result, every man who knows me ought to know, that I would utterly disclaim all competition. Be assured that the Federal party can entertain no wish for such an exchange. As to my friends, they would dishonor my views and insult my feelings, by a suspicion that I would submit to be instrumental in counteracting the wishes and the expectations of the people of the United States. And I now constitute you my proxy to declare these sentiments, if the occasion shall require."

I have not now that letter by me, nor any other letter from him, to refer to-the preceding is taken from a printed copy, which corresponds with my recollection, and which I believe to be correct. My correspondence with him continued till the close of the election. In none of his letters to me, or to any other person that I saw, was there any thing that contradicted the sentiments contained in that letter.

S. SMITH.

City of Washington, in the District of Columbia:

The deposition of the honorable Samuel Smith, written upon five pages, was duly taken and sworn to before us, two of the commissioners named in the annexed commission, at the Capitol, in said city of Washington, on the fifteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and six, and of the Independence of the United States, the thirtieth." GEORGE LOGAN. DAVID STONE.

This testimony needs no comment.

Mr. Jefferson vouches Mr. Smith on the 15th of April, 1806, as his witness to sustain the charge of false statements made by my father. The deposition of General Smith, made under oath on the same day, corroborates, substantially and fully, the statement made by my father in his deposition.

It is stated in the passage from Mr. Jefferson's works which I have last quoted, that the deposition was taken in the suit of Burr vs. Cheetham, and seemed to have no relation to the suit, nor to any other object than to calumniate him, [Mr. Jefferson.] The former part of this statement as to the title of the suit, is evidently an error, and as to the latter, I have neither knowledge nor the means of knowledge of the relevancy of the testimony to the suit of Gillespie vs. Smith. I have been able, after diligent inquiry, to ascertain nothing in relation to it, nor was there among my father's papers any paper or memorandum having reference to the subject. The material question, however, as regards my father is, that his answer is responsive to the interrogatory, and I have yet to learn that a witness has the right to determine the relevancy or irrelevancy of the matters to which he deposes to the subject in controversy in the case.

Sir, when my brother and I first read this charge we were at a loss for the means of refutation. We could not find, amongst my father's papers, any trace of his having made such a deposition, and a copy of his deposition in Burr vs. Cheetham, which we did find, (in which case Mr. Jefferson alleged the false deposition to have been made,) contained nothing of the kind.

In this state of ignorance, after many fruitless attempts at obtaining information, the documents I have just read were fortunately-or should I not rather say providentially?-discovered.

I went to New York, and, under the supposition that, having been a chief actor in the transaction, according to Mr. Jefferson's statement, Colonel Burr, who was then living, could give me some information, I called upon him. His memory of those times, and indeed generally, seemed to be much impaired, and it was only after many minute and direct inquiries that he at last told me he thought Bradley, of Vermont, had been a commissioner to take depositions in a suit relating to the events of the election of 1801. He had no further recollection of the matter.

I wrote to the representatives of Mr. Bradley, and the original depositions, of which I have read copies, were returned to me by his son or representative; having been retained amongst Mr. Bradley's papers, and thus preserved.

SENATE.

May I not, Mr. President, without aggression, be permitted to remark, that, rest where it may, the charge of calumny rests not upon my father's memory.

The deposition of Mr. Bayard was made during the lifetime of all the parties connected with, or having a knowledge of, the matters detailed in it, and made, too, before commissioners (Messrs. Bradley and Logan) opposed to him in political principles, and members of Mr. Jefferson's party.

The memoranda of Mr. Jefferson were secluded amongst his private papers, revised by him in 1823, eight years after Mr. Bayard's death, and left for posthumous publication to tarnish his reputation when the means of refutation might have been lost. Those means, however, have been preserved, and the object and intent of these "Anas," so far as relates to Mr. Bayard, utterly defeated-with what benefit to the reputation of Mr. Jefferson, is left to others to determine.

Sir, I freely admit, that Mr. Jefferson was a man of genius, and rendered great services to his country; and my object is not aggression. I have endeavored to make this statement merely defensive; nor have I wandered from the charges affecting the character of my father, for the purpose of commenting upon the opinions of Mr. Jefferson, or investigating the numerous charges contained in his "Memoirs" against the Federal party, its leading members, and the States in which it maintained a majority during his administration. These, together with the general views of Mr. Jefferson on religion and Government, and his character as a philosopher, statesman, or man, will be more impartially considered at a later day; more fairly weighed, and truly estimated, when those whose feelings are, in any way, connected with the contest in which he was so prominent, are not to be the arbiters. His most devoted

friends, however, cannot but regret that the enlightened judgment and benevolent feelings, which, in his letter to Mr. Adams, of June 23, 1813, dictated the sentiment, that he "should see with reluctance the passions of that day rekindled in this, while so many of the actors are living, and all are too near the scene not to participate in sympathies with them," did not look beyond the duration of his own life, and restrain the publication of much that is contained in the "Memoirs," which, whether with reference to his own fame, or with a proper regard for the opinions, sentiments, and characters of others, a wise discretion alone would certainly have prevented.

Mr. President, I have concluded my defense; but I trust I shall not be considered as trespassing too far upon the time and patience of the Senate, by the statement of a few facts-probably little known to the public-having relation to my father's course during the contest of 1801, and illustrative of his principles and character-a character which won the confidence of his political opponents, whilst it retained that of his friends.

On the 17th of February, 1801, the day on which the election was terminated in favor of Mr. Jefferson, mainly through the influence and exertions of Mr. Bayard, he was nominated by President Adams as Minister to the French Republic.

He was then thirty-three years of age. That nomination was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on the 19th of February; and, on the same day, Mr. Bayard addressed the following letter to the President, resigning the office:

WASHINGTON, February 19, 1801. SIR: I beg you to accept my thanks for the honor conferred on me, by the nomination as Minister to the French Republic. Under most circumstances, I should have been extremely gratified with such an opportunity of rendering myself serviceable to the country. But the delicate situation in which the late presidential election has placed me, forbid my exposing myself to the suspicion of having adopted, from impure motives, the line of conduct which I pursued. Representing the smallest State in the Union, without resources which could furnish the means of selfprotection, I was compelled, by the obligation of a sacred duty, so to act, as not to hazard the constitution upon which the political existence of the State depends.

The service which I should have to render, by accepting the appointment, would be under the administration of Mr. Jefferson, and having been in the number of those who withdrew themselves from the opposition to his election, it is impossible for me to take an office, the tenure of which would be at his pleasure.

You will, therefore, pardon me, sir, for begging you to accept my resignation of the appointment.

I have the honor to be, with perfect consideration, your very obedient servant, JAMES A. BAYARD, The President of the United States.

33D CONG....2D SESS.

The following extract is from a letter written three days afterwards to a near relative, one of the earliest and most intimate friends of Mr. Bayard. Those who knew him personally, will recognize his character in its sentiments. It contains the principles which governed his political course and ambition, then, and through the rest of his life. Principles which induced him to accept the mission to Ghent as a duty to his country, and when peace was concluded, to decline that to St. Petersburgh.

WASHINGTON, February 22, 1801.

You are right in your conjecture as to the office offered me. I have since been nominated Minister to France, concurred in nem. con.-commissioned and resigned. Under proper circumstances, the acceptance would have been complete gratification; but, under the existing, I thought the resignation most honorable. To have taken $18,000 out of the public Treasury, with a knowledge that no service could be rendered by me, as the French Government would have waited for a man who represented the existing feelings and views of this Government, would have been disgraceful.

Another consideration of great weight, arose from the part I took in the presidential election." As I had given the turn to the election, it was impossible for me to accept an office, which would be held on the tenure of Mr. Jefferson's pleasure. My ambition shall never be gratified at the expense of a suspicion.

I shall never lose sight of the motto of the great original of our name.

Sir, it must often happen that the extent of the services rendered by a statesman to his country, will remain unknown and unestimated, and such I believe has been peculiarily my father's fate, both in relation to the election of 1801, and the treaty of peace concluded at Ghent in 1814.

Such, certainly, was his own belief, when, on his death bed, he expressed his calm but mournful regret to the distinguished surgeon who attended him, during the short week which he survived after reaching his home: "Ah! doctor, my country will never know how much she owes me."

[ADDENDA.

FREDERICK, April 19, 1830. SIR: In compliance with your request, I now communicate to you my recollections of the events of the presidential election, by the House of Representatives, in 1801. There has been no period of our political history more misunderstood and more grossly misrepresented. The course adopted by the Federal party was one of principle and not of faction, and I think the present a suitable occasion for explaining the views and motives at least of those gentlemen who, having it in their power to decide the election at any moment, were induced to protract it for a time, but ultimately to withdraw their opposition to Mr. Jefferson.

I have no hesitation in saying that the facts stated in the deposition of your father, the late James A. Bayard, so far as they came to my knowledge, are substantially correct; and although nearly thirty years have elapsed since that eventful period, my recollection is vivid as to the principal circumstances, which, from the part I was called upon to act, were deeply graven on my memory. As soon as it was generally known that the two Democratic candidates, Jefferson and Burr, had the highest and an equal number of votes, and that the election would consequently devolve on the House of Representatives, Mr. Dent, who had bitherto acted with the Federal party, declared his intention to vote for Mr. Jefferson, in consequence of which determination the vote of Maryland was divided.

It was soon ascertained that there were six individuals, the vote of any one of whom could at any moment decide the election. These were your father, the late James A. Bayard, who held the vote of the State of Delaware, General Morris, of Vermont, who held the divided vote of that State, and Mr. Craik, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Dennis, and myself, who held the divided vote of Maryland. Much anxiety was shown by the friends of Mr. Jefferson, and much ingenuity used to discover the line of conduct which would be pursued by them. Deeply impressed with the responsibility which attached to their peculiar situation, and conscious that the American people looked to them for a President, they could not rashly determine either to surrender their constitutional discretion, or to disappoint the expecta. tions of their fellow-citizens.

Your father, Mr. Craik, and myself, having compared ideas upon the subject, and finding that we entertained the same views and opinions, resolved to act together, and accordingly entered into a solemn and mutual pledge, that we would, in the first instance, yield to the wishes of the great majority of the party with whom we acted, and vote for Mr. Burr, but that no consideration should induce us to protract the contest beyond a reasonable period for the purpose of ascertaining whether he could be elected. We determined that a President should be chosen, but were willing thus far to defer to the opinions of our political friends, whose preference of Mr. Burr was founded upon a belief that he was less hostile to Federal men and Federal measures than Mr. Jefferson. General Morris and Mr. Dennis concurred in this arrangement.

The views by which the Federal party were governed were these: They held that the Constitution had vested in the House of Representatives a high discretion, in a case like the present, to be exercised for the benefit of the nation; and that, in the execution of this delegated power, an honest and unbiased judgment was the measure of their responsibility. They were less certain of the hostility of Mr. Burr to Federal policy than of that of Mr. Jefferson,

Vindication of the Late James A. Bayard.

which was known and decided. Mr. Jefferson had identified himself with, and was at the head of, the party in Congress who had opposed every measure deemed necessary by the Federalists for putting the country in a posture of defense; such as fortifying the harbors and sea-ports, estab· lishing manufactories of arms; erecting arsenals, and filling them with arms and ammunition; erecting a navy for the defense of commerce, &c. His speculative opinions were known to be hostile to the independence of the judiciary, to the financial system of the country, and to internal improvements.

All these matters the Federalists believed to be intimately blended with the prosperity of the nation, and they deprecated, therefore, the elevation of a man to the head of the Government whose hostility to them was open and avowed. It was feared, too, from his prejudices against the party which supported them, that he would dismiss all public officers who differed with him in sentiment, without regard to their qualifications and honesty, but on the ground only of political character. The House of Representatives adopted certain resolutions for their government during the election, one of which was, that there should be no adjournment till it was decided.

On the 11th, February, 1801, being the day appointed by law for counting the votes of the electoral colleges, the House of Representatives proceeded, in a body, to the Senate Chamber, where the Vice President, in view of both Houses of Congress, opened the certificates of the electors of the different States, and as the votes were read, the tellers on the part of cach House counted, and took lists of them, which being compared and delived to him, he announced to both Houses the state of the votes; which was-for Thomas Jefferson, 73 votes; for Aaron Burr, 73 votes; for John Adams, 65 votes; for Charles Pinckney, 64 votes; for John Jay, 1 vote; and then declared, that the greatest number, and majority of votes, being equal, the choice had devolved on the House of Representatives. The members of the House then withdrew to their own Chamber, and proceeded to ballot for a President. On the first ballot, it was found that Thomas Jefferson had the votes of eight States, Aaron Burr of six States, and that two were divided. As there were sixteen States, and a najority was necessary to determine the election, Mr. Jefferson wanted the vote of one State. Thus the result which had been anticipated was realized.

The balloting continued throughout that day, and the following night, at short intervals, with the same result, the twenty-sixth ballot being taken at eight o'clock on the morning of the 12th of February. The balloting continued with the same result, from day to day, till the 17th of February, without any adjournment of the House. On the previous day (February 16) a consultation was held by the gentlemen I have mentioned, when, being satisfied that Mr. Burr could not be elected, as no change had taken place in his favor, and there was no evidence of any effort on the part of himself or his personal friends to procure his election, it was resolved to abandon the contest. This determination was made known to the Federal members generally, and excited some discontent among the violent of the party, who thought it better to go without a President than to elect Mr. Jefferson. A general meeting, however, of the Federal members was called, and the subject explained, when it was admitted that Mr. Burr could not be elected. A few individuals persisted in their resolution not to vote for Mr. Jefferson, but the great majority wished the election terminated and a President chosen. Having also received assurances from a source on which we placed reliance, that our wishes with respect to certain points of Federal policy in which we felt a deep interest would be observed in case Mr. Jefferson was elected, the opposition of Vermont, Delaware, and Maryland, was withdrawn, and on the thirty-sixth ballot, your father, the late James A. Bayard, put in a blank ballot, myself and my colleagues did the same, and General Morris absented himself. The South Carolina Federalists also put in blank ballots. Thus terminated that memorable contest.

Previous to, and pending, the election, rumors were industriously circulated and letters written to different parts of the country, charging the Federalists with the design to prevent the election of a President, and to usurp the Government by an act of legislative power. Great anxiety and apprehensions were created in the minds of all, and of none more than the Federalists generally, who were not apprized of the determination of those gentlemen who held the power, and were resolved to terminate the contest when the proper period arrived. But neither these rumors, nor the excitement produced by them, nor the threats inade by their opponents to resist, by force, such a measure, had the least influence on the conduct of those gentlemen. They knew the power which they possessed, and were conscious of the uprightness of their views, and of the safety and constitutional character of the course they had adopted. I was privy to all the arrangements made, and attended all the meetings of the Federal party when consulting on the course to be pursued in relation to the election, and I pledge my most solemn asseveration that no such measure was ever, for a moment, contemplated by that party; that no such proposition was ever made; and that, if it had been, it would not only have been discouraged, but instantly put down by those gentlemen who possessed the power, and were pledged to each other to elect a President before the close of the session.

I am, respectfully, sir, your most obedient servant, GEORGE BAER. RICHARD H. BAYARD, Esq.

LEIPERVILLE, 4th of 5th month, 1830. ESTEEMED FRIEND: I have carefully considered the contents of thy letter of the 16th ultimo, and can fully appreciate the object in view, which appears to be the vindication of the character of thy father, James A. Bayard, in consequence of certain "injurious imputations" affecting it, contained in the writings of Jefferson, lately published, in reference to his conduct in the presidential election of 1801. I must be excused from attempting anything like a circumstantial account of the transactions of so remote a

SENATE.

period. The depositions shown me by thee, which were made by thy father in 1805, and the statement recently drawn up by George Baer, (my colleague in Congress,) of the occurrences which then happened, I believe to be substantially correct-and I may add that, as a Federal member of the House of Representatives, I attended the meetings of the Federalists, held for consultation at that deeply interesting crisis-and know of no cause to doubt the sincerity of the professed object of the party, which was to execute the important duty devolved upon them, by exercising a constitutional discretion for the benefit of the nation, according to the dictates of their best judgment at the time. Of any project or determination inconsistent with these views I am utterly ignorant, as I am of any fact or circumstance which ought, in the slightest degree, to lessen the high respect which, in common with the American people, I have uniformly entertained for the integrity of thy father, as well as for his preeminent talents, zealously devoted to the service of his country.

RICHARD H. BAYARD.

JNO. CHEW THOMAS.

I, William Jarvis, of Weathersfield, in the county of Windsor, and State of Vermont, do testify and declare that, in the friendly intercourse which took place between the late honorable Lewis R. Morris, and myself, among various other topics, politics often became the subject of conversation. In one of these conversations, the contest which took place in the House of Representatives in the year 1801, for the election of Mr. Jefferson or Mr. Burr, to be President of the United States, was adverted to; when General Morris remarked that several Federalists of high standing wished for the election of Mr. Jefferson in preference to Mr. Burr, naming the late honorable James A. Bayard, of Delaware, as being one; and stated that Mr. Bayard came to him (General Morris) and urged him to vote in favor of Mr. Jefferson, or to absent himself when the ballots of the State delegations were taken. Mr. Bayard remarking to him, that as he (Mr. Bayard) represented a Federal State, he could not, with propriety, vote for Mr. Jefferson, but as the State of Vermont was friendly to the election of Mr. Jefferson, no objection of the kind precluded him (General Morris) from giving his vote to Mr. Jefferson, or from absenting himself from the poll. As the delegation of Vermont in Congress consisted of two members, one of which had voted for Mr. Jefferson, and he (General Morris) had voted for Mr. Burr, the vote of the State had previously been lost; but upon the representations of Mr. Bayard, with whom General Morris said he was on terms of the most friendly intimacy, and for whose talents he entertained the highest respect, and had the most entire confidence in his honor and integrity, he was induced, prior to the last ballot, to absent himself from the House, and the other member being in favor of Mr. Jefferson, the vote of Vermont was accordingly given to him. After a lapse of ten or twelve years I do not pretend to recollect the precise language of General Morris, but I am satisfied that the preceding declaration contains the true and faithful sense of his communication to me relative to that question.

WILLIAM JARVIS. WEATHERSFIELD, 29th April, 1830.

COUNCIL CHAmber, Boston, June 2, 1830. SIR: I inclose you the statement of my brother, William Jarvis, of Vermont, and it gives him and myself great pleasure to be in any way instrumental in vindicating the character of your father.

One such witness as Mr. Jarvis is sufficient. He was appointed consul at Lisbon by Mr. Jefferson, and was Was there as consul and chargé d'affaires many years.

also appointed by Mr. Madison commissary general of the Northern Army, which he declined; was one of the presidential electors of the State of Vermont at the last election, and has repeatedly declined the Gubernatorial chair of that State. With great respect, your obedient servant, JOSEPH E. SPRAGUE. RICHARD H. BAYARD, Esq.

POLITICAL HISTORY.

Letter from Judge Paine, of Vermont, to the Editor of Niles's Register.

WILLIAMSTOWN, (Vermont,) June 1, 1830. DEAR SIR: Noticing, in the papers of the day, the memorandum made by the late President Jefferson, of the communication of Mr. Livingston, of Louisiana, in relation to a conversation said to be held by the late Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, with General Smith, of Maryland, pending the presidential election in the House of Representatives in 1801, I determined immediately to communicate to you my knowledge of the views and sentiments of Mr. Bayard, in relation to that election. But, from a reluctance to appear in the public prints at my time of life, I changed my determination. However, by the advice of friends, on whose judgment I rely, I now concisely communicate to you my knowledge on that subject.

And first, permit me to say, that probably I possess more knowledge on the subject, as it relates to Mr. Bayard, than any person now living. Mr. Bayard, as is well known, was, at the time, the sole Representative from Delaware, and could cast the vote of that State as he thought proper. The late General Morris and Matthew Lyon were the Representatives from this State-Vermont; for, at that time, Vermont had but two Representatives. General Morris voted for Mr. Burr, and Mr. Lyon for Mr. Jefferson. In consequence the vote of Vermont was lost. At the same time I was in the Senate, and was on intimate and confidential terms with General Morris, and had been so for many years. He held conversations with me every day during the ballotings in the House of Representatives, in relation to the business before them.

General Morris was very intimate with Mr. Bayard; and, in consequence of this intimacy, I became very well acquainted with the latter gentleman. And I do know that Mr. Bayard was much dissatisfied that the balloụng should