This contest in Congress produced, almost immediately, strong feelings of dissatisfaction between some of the friends of Mr. Jefferson and Colonel Burr. Jealousies and distrust had previously existed. Mr. Jefferson was anxious that Mr. Madison should be his successor in office. The Clinton and Livingston families were prepared to unite in a crusade against Colonel Burr; the chieftains of each section hoping to fill the station from which he was to be expelled. General Hamilton was in favour of the election of Mr. Jefferson, as opposed to Colonel Burr. The result afforded him a triumph, and be was prepared, when opportunity should present, to prostrate his late successful opponent. Such was the state of parties, and such the feelings of leading and distinguished partisans, when Colonel Burr entered upon the vice-presidency, on the fourth of March, 1801. He was hemmed in on every side by political adversaries, ready for the onset so soon as it should be deemed expedient to make it. Every movement, every expression at the convivial board or in the social circle, and every action, was carefully watched and noted for future use, if, by the exercise of ingenuity and misrepresentation, such expression or action could be so tortured as to operate injuriously to him. These several sections, each acting within its own sphere, impelled by conflicting motives, were untiring in their efforts to accomplish the great object—the ruin of the vice-president. They combined wealth, talents, and government patronage.

The following short extracts from letters, written as early as 1794 and 1795, will show what were the wishes of Mr. Jefferson (so far as any reliance can be placed on professions) in relation to Mr. Madison.

THOMAS JEFFERSON TO JAMES MADISON.

"Monticello, December 28, 1794.

"DEAR SIR,

"I do not see in the minds of those with whom I converse a greater affliction than the fear of your retirement; [1] but this must not be, unless to a more splendid and more efficacious post. [2]

There I should rejoice to see you; I hope I may say, I shall rejoice to see you. I have long had much in my mind to say to you on that subject; but double delicacies have kept me silent. I ought, perhaps, to say, while I would not give up my own retirement for the empire of the universe, how I can justify wishing one, whose happiness I have so much at heart as yours, to take the front of the battle which is fighting for my security."

THOMAS JEFFERSON TO JAMES MADISON.

"Monticello, April 27, 1795.

"DEAR SIR,

"In mine, to which yours of March the twenty-third was an answer, I expressed my hope of the only change of position I ever wished to see you make, and I expressed it with entire sincerity, because there is not another person in the United States who, being placed at the helm of our affairs, my mind would be so completely at rest for the fortune of our political bark. The wish, too, was pure, and unmixed with any thing respecting myself personally. * * * * * *

"If these general considerations were sufficient to ground a firm resolution never to permit myself to think of the office (president), or be thought of for it, the special ones which have supervened on my retirement still more insuperably bar the door to it. My health is entirely broken down within the last eight months; my age requires that I should place my affairs in a clear state; these are sound, if taken care of, but capable of considerable dangers if longer neglected; and, above all things, the delights I feel in the society of my family, and in the agricultural pursuits in which I am so eagerly engaged. The little spice of ambition which I had in my younger days has long since evaporated, and I set still less store by a posthumous than present name."

It is a remarkable fact, that, previous to the balloting in Congress, all parties and sections of parties concurred in the opinion that the election would finally be determined, as it was, by New-York, New-Jersey, and Maryland. These three states would render the election of Colonel Burr certain; two of them could elect Mr. Jefferson. The vote, of New-York was to be decided by Theodorus Bailey, of Dutchess county, and Edward Livingston, of the city of New-York; the vote of New-Jersey by Mr. Linn, and the vote of Maryland by Mr. Dent or Mr. Baer.

In the Commercial Advertiser of the thirteenth of February, 1801, a paper opposed to the election of Colonel Burr, there is published an extract of a letter from a member of Congress, dated Washington, February 10, which states that, upon the second ballot, it is expected that New-York, New-Jersey, and Maryland will vote for Mr. Burr.

On the sixth of February, 1801, a leading and influential republican member of Congress writes to his correspondent a letter, from which the following is extracted:—

"I have not time to answer your letter as fully as I could wish, as it would have been my desire to communicate to you not only facts, but some of the reasons which have induced us to adopt the steps we have heretofore taken. But, at all events, it is important that you should have an immediate knowledge of the present situation of affairs.

"It is reduced to moral certainty, so far as any reliance can be placed on the solemn determinations of men, that either Mr. Jefferson will be chosen, or that there will be no choice made. The republican majorities of eight states (including Linn [3] of New-Jersey, and the New-York representation, [4] the republican half of Maryland, including Mr. Dent, [5] and Lyon of Vermont, are pledged to persevere in voting for Mr. Jefferson to the end, be the consequence what it will."

Colonel Burr, soon after his election, gave his enemies an opportunity to cavil. It would be impossible to enter into all the details connected with this subject; but the principal charges which were made against the vice-president, and assigned as reasons for opposing his renomination, will be briefly presented. The replies to or explanations of them, by the parties implicated, will also be given.

Late in November, 1801, when Mr. Burr was on his way to Washington to take his seat in Senate as vice-president, he was addressed by certain citizens of Baltimore, on which occasion he remarked, "Time will not allow me to return you a written answer, but I must be permitted to state my disapprobation of the mode of expressing public sentiment by addresses." This gave offence to some, and, by the artful and designing, was misrepresented. Mr. Burr, during the years 1798 and 1799, had beheld, with mortification and disgust, the adulatory, if not sycophantic addresses presented to President Adams. This reproof, therefore, of his friends, evinced his natural independence of character as well as the purest republican notions.

In the month of January, 1802, a bill to repeal what was termed by the republicans the federal midnight judiciary act, was pending before the Senate. On the 27th of January, a motion was made to refer the bill to a committee for the purpose of amendment. On this motion the votes were, ayes, 14; noes, 14. The vice-president, Colonel Burr, was in the chair. He said—"I am for the affirmative, because I never can resist the reference of a measure where the Senate is so nicely balanced, and when the object is to effect amendment that may accommodate it to the opinions of a large majority, and particularly when I can believe that gentlemen are sincere in wishing a reference for this purpose. Should it, however, at any time appear that delay only is intended, my conduct will be different."

This decision afforded the enemies of Colonel Burr an opportunity to break ground more openly against him. He was now charged with aiding the federal party in their efforts to embarrass the administration, and with the design of defeating the wishes of the American people. As yet, the charge of intriguing and negotiating with the federalists to obtain the presidency in opposition to Mr. Jefferson had not been made. The allies had not yet sufficiently poisoned the public mind against the vice-president, nor had they subsidized the requisite number of presses for carrying on the work of destruction. While the grand assault was meditating, and these feints were carrying on against the vice-president, he was constantly receiving approbatory letters from intelligent and well-informed citizens, many of whom cowered beneath the storm when, in the height of its fury, it burst upon the victim. From among a number the following are selected:—

FROM A. J. DALLAS.

Philadelphia, 3d February, 1802.[6]

DEAR SIR,

On the judiciary question, I wrote my sentiments to Mr. Wilson Nicholas early in the session. I am sorry our friends have taken so peremptory a position, as the very circumstance of having taken it will render it difficult to move them. I cannot concur with them in the policy or expediency of the measure. The business of the court will not allow me to give my reasons in detail, but you shall have my brief.

1. There never was a case in which a party could be more justified in expressing their resentment, on account of the manner of passing the act; the manner of organizing the courts; the nature of the opposition to the repeal, denying its constitutionality, and menacing a civil war.

2. The repeal would be constitutional, from a review of the principles, and terms of the constitution itself; of the peculiar situation of the country ; its growing population ; its extending prospects; its increasing wants, pursuits, and refinements, &c.; of the analogy to the Judiciary Institution of England, where independent of the legislature is not within the policy or provision of the statutes relative to the commissions of the judges; of the analogy to the Judiciary Institutions of the sister states, which have all been subject to legislative interference occasionally. In Pennsylvania particularly, the constitution declares that the judges shall hold their commissions during good behaviour; yet it expressly authorizes the legislature to abolish the Court of Common Pleas, &c.; and of the precedents in the existing act of Congress, which is an exercise of the power sub modo.

3. But notwithstanding the indignation I feel, in common with our friends, at the manner of passing the Circuit Court act; and notwithstanding my perfect conviction that Congress has the power of repealing the act, I think the repeal would be impolitic and inexpedient. If it would be impolitic acting on party principles, it would be inexpedient of course; but I mean, also, that it would be inexpedient on account of the use that Pennsylvania (and I presume the same as to other states) has derived from the institution:

1st. It is impolitic.

The republicans are not agreed on the constitutionality of the repeal. The people at large have imbibed strong prejudices on the subject of judicial independence. The repeal would be ascribed to party animosity; and if future amendments should be made, it would be considered as a personal proceeding, merely to remove the present judges: the hazard of loss in public opinion is greater than the hope of gain. There is a mass of the community that will not be fermented by the leaven of party passions. By persons of this description, the motive and effect will be strictly analyzed and purified. The mere resuscitation of the old system will either expose the administration of justice to inconceivable embarrassments, or demonstrate the motive to be abstractedly a party one, by calling for an immediate reform. The clamour of the federalists will at least have a reasonable foundation.

2. It is inexpedient.

The mere repeal will reinstate a system which every man of common sense and candour must deprecate. It will entirely destroy institutions susceptible of being modelled into a form economical as well as useful. It will deprive some states of tribunals which have been found highly advantageous, to the despatch of business. I allude particularly to Pennsylvania. In this state justice, as far as respects our state courts, is in a state of dissolution, from the excess of business and the parsimony of the legislature.

With this view of the subject you will perceive that I think—First, There ought not to be a total repeal. Second, There ought to be amendments.

If, however, a repeal should take place, I am clearly of opinion that it would be unjustifiable to make any provision for the ex-judges. On this point and on the introduction of amendments I will, if you desire it, amplify by a future post.

The zealous republicans are exciting some intemperance here, in opposition to a memorial from our bar, which, you will perceive, is confined to the operation of the law in this state as a matter of fact, and not to any controversy of a constitutional or political nature.

I shall be anxious to hear from you as often as you can spare a moment, and particularly while the judiciary bill is pending.

Yours, with great regard,

A. J. DALLAS.

FROM NATHANIEL NILES.

February 17, 1802.

DEAR SIR,

Permit me to thank you most sincerely for the vote you gave in favour of Mr. Dayton's motion to refer the judiciary bill to a select committee; not because I am by any means satisfied it is not best that bill should pass, but because I earnestly desire that republicanism should on every occasion display the spirit of conciliation, as far as can be done without the destruction of principle. I am every day more and more satisfied that the cause is more endangered by the want of such displays than by every thing besides. The fate of parties in and about Congress will ultimately be determined by the great body of the well informed in the middle walks of life. It is happy, in some respects, that these are generally so far from the scene of action as to be tolerably free from the blinding influence of those passions which the scene itself is calculated to excite. They wish for every thing that tends to convince the great public that republicanism, instead of being hostile, is friendly to moderation and harmony. Shall we not do well to mark with great care and precision the sunken rocks and shoals on which self-denominated federalism has dashed itself to pieces? Among these I would enumerate their too eager and violent pursuit of their object. Had they been patient and accommodating, the eyes of the public would have been still hoodwinked, until habit, gradually acquired, would have rendered an expensive monarchy the most agreeable government. But, thank Heaven, they, by overacting, exposed their own feelings and designs. Will not the same pertinacity and precipitation endanger the better—the opposite cause? It is a prevalent idea among us middling people, that a good government must be a moderate one; and we are exceedingly apt to judge of the spirit of the government from the spirit of our rulers. Every thing non-conciliating bears in its very front strong symptoms of a tyrannical spirit.

I am, sir, the more gratified by your moderation because (though I am ashamed to avow it) I have heard you was too impetuous. Pardon my mistake; and suffer me to entreat you to encourage a steady pursuit of republican measures in that way which will convince the bystanders that the actors are uniformly and irresistibly urged to pursue them by cool conviction, resulting from a candid, extensive, and philanthropic survey of the great object. Passion and caprice very illy become so awfully sublime an object as that for which well-informed republicans contend.

With sentiments of respect, your obedient servant,

NATHANIEL NILES.

FROM A. J. DALLAS.

Philadelphia, 3d April, 1802.

DEAR SIR,

The judiciary storm has passed away for the present. I perceive, however, that an effort is making to improve the old system without increasing the number of judges; and we are once more unanimous at the bar of Philadelphia in rejoicing that Paterson, and not Chase, presides in our circuit. I had begun an outline of courts and jurisdictions agreeably to your wish; but I lost the hope of its being adopted when finished, so I abandoned the labour. Perhaps it may be worth while to renew the scheme, with a view to a future session.

There are some rumours of jealousy and dissatisfaction prevailing among the republican leaders, in the executive as well as the legislative departments of the federal as well as of our state government. It will be disgraceful, indeed, if the rumours axe true. Very sincerely yours,

A. J. DALLAS.

Such were the sentiments and views of many of the most pure and intelligent of the republican party in relation to a repeal of the judiciary act of 1800. The preceding letters express the opinions entertained by thousands who were opposed to federal men and federal measures, but who wanted time for reflection; and yet, when Colonel Burr voted to recommit the repealing bill for the purpose of ascertaining whether it could not be rendered more satisfactory, the conspirators cried aloud, Crucify him—crucify him.

The plot now began to thicken. During the year 1801, a Scotchman by the name of Wood was employed to write "A History of John Adams's Administration." Ward & Barlas, booksellers in New-York, were the proprietors of the copyright, and printed 1250 copies. William Duane, editor of the Aurora, furnished the author a portion of his materials, and became the agent to negotiate with a London bookseller for the publication of an edition in England. In the summer or autumn of 1801 Colonel Burr was informed of the progress of the work, and procured a copy before it was ready for publication. On examining it, he came to the conclusion that it was calculated to do the republican party more injury than good. It abounded with misrepresentations, errors, and libels. Mr. Burr, through a friend, agreed to pay a stipulated sum for the suppression of the work, under the most solemn assurance that no copy or copies would be permitted to go into the hands of any third person, but that the whole edition should be delivered to the agent who was to pay the money. Before the time of payment arrived, it was ascertained that a copy or copies had been parted with, and would not be returned. The contract was, therefore, never carried into effect. Pending this negotiation, Mr. Duane, through Wood or Ward & Barlas, was made acquainted with the arrangements which were in progress. Cheetham, the editor of the American Citizen, was also informed of what was doing. This was considered a most favourable opportunity for assailing the vice-president, and charging him with the design of suppressing the History of John Adams's Administration for the purpose of keeping the people in ignorance of the wrong doings of the federal party. Although the assailants had a full view of the whole ground, yet the attack was commenced by innuendoes, indicating ignorance of the true state of facts. The charge operated most injuriously upon the republican character of Colonel Burr. The injury was irreparable, and the attacks continued with unexampled malignity.

This brief statement, it is hoped, will be found sufficiently explicit to be intelligible. And now for the conduct of Mr. Duane on the occasion. His object, and the object of his employers, was accomplished; but whether a short development of the whole case will or will not add to his fame, the reader must determine.

On or about the 27th of February, 1802, the editor of the Aurora, in his paper, states that a curious fact has lately been brought to light in New-York; that Wood had completed his engagement with Ward & Barlas to furnish a history of John Adams's Administration, and that 1250 copies were printed, but suppressed at the desire of some person. Mr. Duane then animadverts with harshness, and expresses a wish to get a clew to the names of the person or persons who suppressed the work.

On the 31st of May, 1802, the Aurora states that the American Citizen and the Evening Post have commenced a warfare, of which Mr. Burr is the object; that the principal matter of charge is the suppression of Wood's History of John Adams's Administration; and then adds—"We are fully possessed of one side of the subject, and have perused the suppressed book attentively."

On the 12th of July, 1802, the Aurora says—"So far as it relates to Mr. Burr, my opinions have been uniform and reiterated to his particular friends, that if the motives for the suppression of the book were not satisfactorily explained to the public, his standing with the republican interest was gone."

During the period between February and July, 1802, the Aurora reprinted the slanders of Cheetham against Mr. Burr in relation to the suppressed book, and continued, from time to time, his own attacks upon the vice-president. While thus publicly giving currency to these calumnies, would it be believed (if asserted) that Mr. Duane was privately writing Colonel Burr, and approving of his conduct in suppressing the work? One of his letters on this subject is deemed sufficient to a right understanding of the case. It will now be given without comment. * * * * *

FROM WILLIAM DUANE.

Thursday, April 15, 1802.

DEAR SIR,

I think it fortunate that the pamphlet of Mr. Wood has not yet been published, and that it would be much more so if it were not ever to see the light. It has disappointed my expectations of finding in it at least some useful reflections and reasonings, however little novelty there might be in the facts. But, even in the narration of facts, I find numerous errors, and not a few misrepresentations of things notorious to every man who has attended with understanding to the course of public affairs. There is in it a something, too, of a character very different from what was represented to me; the adoption of the story of Hamilton [7] and Lafayette, if it is not the effect of an indifference to accuracy, or a coldness in pursuit of truth, is something much worse, and at least is suspicious: there is more of the same kind of matter, and less attention to the influence and views of such characters, than the subject required. I consider it, upon the whole, as a hasty, crude, and inconsistent production, calculated rather to produce evil than the least good—as it would be attributed to the republicans, with all its faults and inconsistencies, and a credit assumed from it as a party confession of merit, in a particular character, which is not founded, at least in the way stated in the pamphlet. Were some parts of it omitted, and false statements rectified, it might not do any harm; and perhaps it might be found advisable to adopt some plan of that kind, making a careful record of the omissions to insert any future misrepresentations, and a like record of such additions or alterations. This might be very easily done by printing the pages anew which contain the exceptionable parts, and, if necessary, substituting reflections or anecdotes, founded in fact, in their places. This might be done at a small expense. The thing, thus corrected, published; and, if any effort should be made to misrepresent, credit would be derived even by the defence, and the exposure of the motives for suppressing the misstatements.

This I have thought proper to write you, and I hope will, in its object and motives, find with you an excuse for doing so.

I am, with respect, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM DUANE.

Footnotes:

1. Mr. Madison was then a member of Congress.

2. President of the United States.

3. Appointed by Mr. Jefferson supervisor of internal revenue for the state of New-Jersey.

4. Edward Livingston and Theodorus Bailey; the former appointed United States district attorney for the district of New-York; the latter subsequently appointed postmaster of the city of New-York, and removed from the country, a distance of nearly one hundred miles, to take charge of the office. Cheetham, editor of the American Citizen, some time after Mr. Livingston's appointment, in referring to him, says—"Should Mr. Burr's confidential friend ever become dangerous, we will show what he has been and what he is."

5. Appointed United States marshal for the Potomac district of Maryland.

6. This letter is dated seven days after Mr. Burr's casting vote in the Senate.

7. The story here referred to is thus related by Wood in his history: "In the year 1780, he (Hamilton) was promoted to the rank of colonel, and at the siege of Yorktown commanded the attack on one of the redoubts, the capture of which decided the fate of Lord Cornwallis and his army. The conduct of Mr. Hamilton on this occasion was truly honourable, and, in the history of his life, ought to weigh against several of those scars that have since stained his character. Previous to the attack, the Marquis de Lafayette proposed to General Washington to put to death all the British troops that should be found in the redoubts, as a retaliation for several acts of barbarity committed by the royal army. The steady and nervous mind of Washington, which was ever known to yield to the virtuous prejudice of compassion, gave his assent to the bloody order. But Mr. Hamilton (the tenderness of whose feelings has led him into error), after the redoubts were subdued, took the conquered under his protection, and proved to his enemies that Americans know how to fight, but not to murder." [General Hamilton, in a letter referring to this same story, says—"Positively and unequivocally, I declare that no such or similar order, or any intimation or hint resembling it, was ever by me received or understood to have been given."