to choose him; or, more probably, to choose him themselves. Mr. Jefferson says, in a letter under date of February 15 (1801), to James Monroe, while the election was pending, (vol. iii. 452,) "If they could have been permitted to pass a law for putting the government into the hands of an officer, they would certainly have prevented an election. But we thought it best to declare, one and all, openly and firmly, that the day such an act passed, the middle states would arm; and that no such usurpation, even for a single day, should be submitted to. This first shook them; and they were completely alarmed at the resource for which we declared, viz., to re-organize the government, and to amend it. The very word convention gives them the horrors, as in the present democratical spirit of America, they fear they should lose some of the favorite morsels of the constitution." One would have thought this a favorable time for the "monarchists" to have made an attempt to set up a king. The government would have come to a natural and easy dissolution, by refusing to elect a President, and no better chance of scrambling for royalty could ever be expected.

Mr. Jefferson says, that he was frequently asked, during this time, to promise, that he would not do certain acts which the federalists feared he would do; that is, that he would preserve certain features of federal policy. He says he answered, that he would not go into office with his hands tied. It must be admitted that he acted with some firmness (if the fact was so) in refusing, what proved to be for him a crown (as he says) "on capitulation." Among other rumors was this: Hamilton is said to have been consulted; and that he was of opinion that it was better to choose Jefferson than Burr. He seems to have had an abhorrence of Burr, and to have believed it safer to trust to Jefferson's characteristic timidity, than to Burr's insatiable ambition. It was as embarrassing a question as could be proposed to an honorable and patriotic mind, which of these two men might do the most mischief! It might have made a favorable difference to this country if Burr had been preferred, whatever Burr may have been since that day;

and certainly, all the difference of life and death to Hamilton himself.

This election of President (in February, 1801, by the House of Representatives) is sufficiently interesting to be further noticed, for two reasons; first, to present a true account of the federal party in the House, whose adversaries attributed to them very reprehensible designs and attempts; secondly, to show the true character of Mr. Jefferson's "Anas," and records. Both these objects will be accomplished by the perusal of evidence contained in the Appendix. This evidence was published in the National Gazette, (Philadelphia,) January 1, 1830, by Richard H. Bayard and James A. Bayard, sons of a gentleman of the latter name, in refutation of two of Mr. Jefferson's statements. This is an instance, in which it was deemed a duty to a deceased parent, to inquire into the truth of Mr. Jefferson's assertions. It will be seen, by the perusal of that evidence, that Mr. Jefferson is plainly in error. Being proved to be so, in this case, a strong presumption arises, that if the truth of his statements, in other cases, could be tested in like manner, they would be found to be equally erro

neous.

James A. Bayard, the gentleman whom Mr. Jefferson mentions so improperly, was a descendant of the Chevalier Bayard, who died in 1524; and who is familiarly known as the man (sans peur et sans reproche) without fear and without reproach. In a letter written by Mr. Bayard in 1801, and which will be found in the Appendix, he says, I shall never lose sight of the motto of the great original of our name." This gentleman was an eminent lawyer in the state of Delaware. He was in both branches of Congress, and was second to no one in either branch. He was one of the envoys who made the treaty of peace at Ghent in 1814. He was a tall, well-proportioned, erect man, of light complexion, light hair, of handsome face, intelligent and manly expression, and of courteous and dignified manners. He was one, of whom it might be truly said, that nature, education, mind, heart and habit, had combined to make a gentleman. His eloquence was

lofty and commanding. He had, eminently, the first of its requisites, sincerity, and certainty that he was right. It was such a man, that Thomas Jefferson would declare, even from his own tomb, to be a political knave.

The two passages complained of by Mr. Bayard's sons are the following. The first of them will be found in vol. iv. p. 515.

«February 12, 1801. Edward Livingston tells me, that Bayard applied to-day, or last night, to General 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. Bayard, in like manner, tempted Livingston, not by offering any particular office, but by representing to him his, Livingston's, intimacy and connection with Burr; that from him he had everything to expect, if he would come over to him. To Dr. Linn, of New Jersey, they have offered the government of New Jersey. See a paragraph in Martin's Baltimore paper, of February 10, signed 'A Looker-on,' stating an intimacy between Harper and Burr."

Mr. Jefferson begins in page 520 of the 4th volume, under date of April 15, 1806, the record of an interview with Burr, which occurred, he says, about a month before, in which Burr (then Ex-Vice President) appears to have intimated that an office would be agreeable to him. Mr. Jefferson says that he said to Burr, "that if we believed a few newspapers, it might be supposed he had lost public confidence, but that I knew how easy it was to engage newspapers in anything." "That as to any harm he could do me, I knew no cause why he should desire it; but at the same time I feared no injury which any man could do me; that I had never done a single act, or been concerned in any transaction, which I feared to have fully laid open, or which could do me any hurt, if truly stated." He then adds, (same page,) "I did not commit these things to writing at the time, but I do it now, be

cause in a suit between him (Burr) and Cheetham, he has had a deposition of Mr. Bayard taken, which has no relation to the suit, nor to any other object than to calumniate me. Bayard pretends to have addressed to me, during the pending of the presidential election, in February, 1801, through General Samuel Smith, certain conditions on which my election might be obtained; and that General Smith, after conversing with me, gave answers for 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."

Now, so it is, that Mr. Bayard was one of the six persons in the House of Representatives, on whom the election of Mr. Jefferson depended; either of whom could have decided the election; and that Bayard had less repugnance to the election of Mr. Jefferson than to that of Mr. Burr; and that he could, at any balloting, have settled the question by his vote; and was resolved that there should be an election. It also happens, that on the same day when Mr. Jefferson made his record, General Smith, a personal and political friend of Mr. Jefferson, was engaged in giving his deposition in a case, in which he declares, that he undertook, being a resident in the same house with Mr. Jefferson, to inquire into his policy concerning commerce, the navy, and the funding system; that he did inquire of Mr. Jefferson, and did report his answers; and that the election was thereupon made. He and Mr. Bayard both testify, that no proposition was made to either of them, nor by either of them, to promote Burr's election. Mr. Bayard says, that at this time he had no personal acquaintance with Burr; and that he knew not of any effort made by Burr, to promote his own election; that no means to that end were taken among the members, but argument and persuasion, founded on the belief, that it would be less disastrous to the country to elect Burr than to elect Jefferson. It is furthermore a fact, that General Smith on the floor of the Senate denied, that Mr. Jefferson had recorded TRUTHS; and another fact that Mr. Livingston stated,

also, on the floor of the Senate, that he remembered no such TRUTHS, as Mr. Jefferson had recorded concerning himself.*

If Mr. Jefferson could so write, on facts which must have been within his own knowledge, and adapted to be strongly impressed on his memory, it casts a deep shade over his "tells me" assertions, and over his hearsay records, received from persons, who had, probably, learned how to gratify his sense of hearing.†

LETTER XXXVIII.

JUNE 23, 1833.

THE election of Mr. Jefferson was regarded with strongly contrasted feelings, by the two great parties of the United States. He had not been a prominent object of attention, while in retirement, between his resignation of the office of Secretary, and his Vice Presidency. While in the latter office, he was only a presiding officer, and had no call to express his opinions publicly. As soon as it was ascertained that he, or Burr, must be the President, it became highly interesting, to both parties, to investigate his character, and his political propensities. He was portrayed according to the perceptions of the two parties, and presented in striking colors.

See Appendix.

†The evidence collected by the sons of Mr. Bayard to vindicate the honorable fame of their father, against the calumnies of Mr. Jefferson, consists of two depositions given by Mr. Bayard, in cases of libel which arose out of the election of February, 1801; and of a deposition of Samuel Smith, in one of those cases;—also of letters from members of Congress, who were present at that election. This evidence is accompanied by some very becoming commentaries from Mr. Bayard's sons, and was made public January 1, 1830, through the National Gazette, (Phila delphia,) in consequence of Colonel Hayne's (South Carolina) having introduced Mr. Jefferson's record of facts, in a debate in the Senate. This evidence is historically important.