30 2. 
 .6 
 
 / 
 
 <M- 
 
 ^&&Si5P' ^ > : -<#?£■ £ 
 
 ^- U^>^y-7^P^ ^' / 
 
 %^; 
 
 REMARKS £^,L 
 
 / 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 % 
 
 JANUARY SI, 1255, 
 
 VINDICATING THE LATE JAMES A. BAYARD, 
 
 OF DELAWARE, 
 
 AND REFUTING THE GROUNDLESS CHARGES CONTAINED IN 
 THE "ANAS" OF THOMAS JEFERSON", 
 
 ASPERSING HIS CHARACTER. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 
 
 
 Ci^^' 
 
 orp^. 
 
 -<^C . '•~~lKtf&cy- 
 
 ?€ 
 
Class t3 C>£- 
 
 Book *_k 
 

 REMARKS 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 JANUARY 31, 1855, 
 
 VINDICATING THE LATE JAMES A. BAYAED, 
 
 OF DELAWARE, 
 
 AND REFUTING THE GROUNDLESS CHARGES CONTAINED IN 
 THE "ANAS" OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, 
 
 ASPERSING HIS CHARACTER. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 
 
 1855. 
 
VINDICATION. 
 
 Mr. BAYARD said : Mr. President, since I have 
 been a member of Jjk Senate, under no circum- 
 stances have I had^lasion 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 ground- 
 less aspersions upon the memory of my father, 
 (the late James A. Bayard, of Delaware,) con- 
 tained 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 com- 
 mencement of the present session; and, in running 
 over them, I found that two charges, reflecting 
 upon the character of my father, which were pub- 
 lished in the first edition of Mr. Jefferson's works", 
 were retained in the edition published by the au- 
 thority 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 
 
 Eublication. I mean to imply no censure upon 
 im for retaining them, though I might have ar- 
 rived 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 
 retained without the slightest notice of that refu- 
 tation, renders it more appropriate — indeed, im- 
 perative — that I should thus publicly repel any 
 statement contained in that publication aspersing 
 the character of one of the most distinguished citi- 
 zens 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. 
 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 con- 
 tained 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- 
 sentation is founded, and it was then, by their 
 testimony, publicly refuted. 
 
 Thesecond misrepresentation, however, escaped 
 his notice, but the publication of what had occur- 
 red 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 an- 
 other 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. Jeffer- , 
 son having been republished under the authority 
 of Congress, it is requisite that the refutation 
 should be made in a more public and more endur- 
 ing form. 
 
 The first charge will be found in the ninth vol- 
 ume of the congressional edition of Mr. Jeffer- 
 son'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 com- 
 ing 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." 
 
 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 
 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. Foot respecting survey." of the public lands. 
 
 " Mr. Benton being entitled to the floor — 
 
 " Mr. Clwton said, that he desired the permission of 
 the Senator from Missouri, [Mr. Benton,] who was enti- 
 tled to the floor, to call the attention of two of the honor- 
 able members of this body, Mr. Smith, of Maryland, and 
 Mr. Livingston, ol Louisiana, to a passage in a book which 
 had been cited in this debate by the Senator from South Car- 
 olina, [Mr. Hayne,]8S 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 in- 
 tention 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 lesolution, 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 por- 
 tion 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 repre- 
 sented, with atrocious corruption, of which, he was con- 
 vinced 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 
 at rest, he hoped he should be pardoned for referring to the 
 ohjectional 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 : 
 
 iC, Februory the ]2</i., 1801. — Edward Livingston tells me 
 that Bayard applied to-day, or I ist night, to General Sam- 
 uel Smith, and represented to him the expediency of coming 
 over to the States who vote for Burr ; that there was noth- 
 ing in the way of appointment which he might not com- 
 mand, 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 Liv- 
 ingston, and to W. C. Nicholas, whoconfirms it to me,' &c. 
 
 " He then called upon the Senators from Maryland and 
 Louisiana, referred to in this passage, to disprove the state- 
 ment here made. 
 
 "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 prop- 
 osition to him. Mr. Bayard, said he, and myself, though 
 politically opposed, were intimate personal friends, and he 
 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 pre- 
 cise question which had been put to him by the Senator 
 from Delaware, he must say, that having taxed his recol- 
 lection, 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 issu- 
 ing out of the supreme court of judicature in the State of 
 New York, to John Vaughau, directed lor the examina- 
 
 tion of the said James A. Bayard, in a cause there de- 
 pending between Aaron Burr, plaintiff, and James Cheet- 
 ham, 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 in- 
 troduced 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 ses- 
 sion of Congress, when a personal acquaintance com- 
 menced 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 conse- 
 quence, 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 bal- 
 loting 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. 
 
 5th. To the fifth interrogatoty this deponent saith: I 
 know of no measures but those of argument and persuasion 
 which were used to secure the elec^n of Mr. Burr to the 
 Presidency. Several gentlemen of ^R^ederal party doubted 
 the practicability of electing Mr.^rorr, 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 pro- 
 fessions, 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 
 ihe election of Mr. Burr. The general sentiment of the 
 party was strongly in his favor. Mr. Huger; I think, could 
 not he brought to vote for him. Mr. Craik and Mr. Baer, 
 of Maryland, and myself, were those who acquiesced with 
 Vie greatest difficulty and hesitation. I did not believe Mr. 
 Burr could he elected, and thought it vain to make the at- 
 tempt. 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 parly 
 without consulting Mr. Burr, to make the experiment, 
 whether he could be elected. Mr. Ogden never was author- 
 ized 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 
 depending. I spent one or two evenings in his company 
 at Stiller's hotel, in small parties, and we recalled an ac- 
 quaintance 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 he 
 would serve as President if elected. I never questioned 
 hi in on the subject. Although I considered Mr. Burr per- 
 sonally better qualified to fill the office of President than 
 Mr. Jefferson, yet for a reason above suggested, [ 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 with- 
 out any application from me. But Mr. Ogden or any other 
 person never did make any communication to me from Mr. 
 
5 
 
 Burr, nor do I remember having any conversation with him 
 relative to the election. / never had any communication 
 directly or indirectly with Mr. Burr in relation to his elec- 
 tion to the Presidency. I was one of those who thought 
 
 — 
 
 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 
 
 «u» to ,.„e rrenaency. l was one of tkose who thought j it would be desirable to them to protract it I never Hiri 
 %Z,* eb y^*%^"^y M *;^?™« 0t r<»- drover thafMr. Burr used the Se£t influence to promote 
 
 ticable. The sentiment was freely and openly expressed. 
 1 remember it was generally said by those who wished a 
 perseverance in the opposition to Mr. Jefferson, that se/eral 
 Democratic States were more disposed to vote for M/C Burr 
 than for Mr. Jefferson. That out of complaisance to the 
 known intention of the party they would vote a decent 
 length of lime for Mr. Jefferson, and as soon as thev 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 
 ew York, New Jersey, Vermont, and Tennessee. I never 
 however, understood lhat 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 
 
 — ce to promote 
 
 tne object-we had in view. And being completely per- 
 suaded that Mr. Burr would not cooperate wild us, I de- 
 termined 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 
 admitted that Mr. Burr could not be elected; but some 
 thought it was better to persist in our vote, and to go with- 
 out^ President rather than to elect Mr. Jefl'eison. 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. 
 
 subject, and intimated that, having it in mv power to term-' 
 mate the contest, I should do so, unless lie could give me j 
 some assurance that we might calculate upon a change in | 
 the votes of some of the members of his party. Mr. Liv- 
 ingston stated that he felt no great concern as to the event I 
 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 Hamil- 
 yton 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. Jetterson, and not for Mr. Burr. The letters con- 
 tain 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 sairh : I 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 nocommunication with him, directly or indirectly ; and 
 as to the expectation of a change of votes from Mr. Jeffer- 
 son to Mr. Burr, I never knew of a betterground for it than 
 the opinions and calculations of a number of members. 
 
 8th. In answer to the eighth interrogatory, the deponent 
 saith : I know ot 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 de- 
 ponent answers: Having yielded with Messrs. Craik and 
 Baer, of Maryland, to the strong desire of the great body of 
 the party with whom we UMially acted, and agreed to vote 
 lor Mr. Burr, and those gentlemen and myself being gov- 
 erned 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 tile 
 judgment of a great majority of our poliiical friends, who 
 differed from 08 in opinion, but we determined lhat no con- 
 sideration should make us lose sight for a moment of the 
 necessity BY a President being chosen. We therefore re- I 
 solved 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 Slates had 
 uniformly been eight States for Mr. Jefferson, six for Mr. ' 
 Burr, and two divided. Mr. Jefferson wanted the vote of j 
 one State only ; (hose three gentlemen belonged to the I 
 divided Slates, 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 inter 
 est of my State to have a President, and knowing (he sin- 
 cerity ot my determination to make one, left it to me to fix 
 We time when the opposition should cease, and to make 'I 
 - m"™?' » H " y could be accomplished, with the friends of 1 
 iUr. Jefferson. I took pains to disclose this state of things " 
 in such a manner, thai 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 j 
 
 or to promote his own. 
 
 LETTER FROM J. A. BAYARD TO A. HAMILTON. 
 
 Washington, 1th January, 1801. 
 Dear Sir : I have been but a few days in this city, but 
 since my arrival have had the pleasure to receive the letter 
 which you did me the honor to write on the 27th ultimo. I 
 am fully sensible of the great importance of the subject to 
 which it relates, and am, therefore, extremely obliged by 
 the information you have been so good as to communicate. 
 
 It is considered that, at least in the first instance, Georgia, 
 North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Pennsyl- 
 vania, 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 gentle- 
 men, that a persevering opposition to Mr. Jefferson would 
 bring over New York, New Jersey, and Maryland. What 
 is the probability relative to New Vork? 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. Dentfof 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 vole which the representa- 
 tion of a State enables me to give, would decide the ques- 
 tion in favor of Mr. Jefferson. v At present, I am by no 
 means decided as to the object of preference. If the Fed- 
 eral party should take up Mr. Burr, I ought certainly to be 
 impressed with the mo>t 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 
 doubiful views, and before I resolve on the part ['shall take, 
 I will await the approach of the crisis which may probably 
 bring with it circumstances decisive of the event. 
 
 The Federal parly 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 hind 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 tjie House. I have not con- 
 tidered myself at liberty to show your letter to anyone, 
 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 obpdient ser- 
 vant, 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 
 
6 
 
 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 Mary- 
 land, 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 per- 
 sonal 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 commu- 
 nication with him, directly or indirectly. It fur- 
 ther shows that, from the commencement of the 
 struggle, as to the election, my father was op- 
 posed 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 
 
 J arty was abandoned, and the election of Mr. 
 efferson effected. His letter of January 7th, 
 1801, written in the confidence of friendship to 
 General Hamilton, confirms this conclusively. 
 Further, the charge made by Mr. Jefferson in- 
 volves the gross absurdity of an entire stranger to 
 Colonel Burr, making an authorized offer of office 
 on his behalf, with a view to the corruption of one 
 of his (Burr's) intimate friends and correspond- 
 ents, who had been selected by him as his proxy, 
 to defeat the very object for which the alleged 
 offer was made. This relation of Colonel Burr 
 to Mr. Smith, appears in his letter to the latter, of 
 the date of December 16, 1800, which letter was 
 a matter of notoriety before the alleged conversa- 
 tion between my father and General Smith, is 
 Stated to have occurred, having been published in 
 the newspapers as early as December 30, 1800. 
 
 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 ap- 
 pended 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 friendand appointeeof 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 con- 
 tests, 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: 
 
 j}p>il 15, 1806 — " I did not commit these tilings to 
 
 writing at the time, but I do it now, because, in a suit be- 
 tween him (Burr) and Cheetham, he has hart 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 pend- 
 ing 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. v 
 
 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 hehad 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 conclu- 
 sive. 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 ynu or do you not know, or have you heard 
 so that you helievp, of any negotiations, bargains, or agree- 
 ments in the year 1800 or 1801, after the said equality be- 
 came 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. Bsyard, 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 
 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 interrogator) he answers and says: T was a 
 member of the House of Representatives of the United 
 States, during the fifth, sixth, and seventh Congresses, from 
 the 3d of March, 1797, to the 3d of May, 180J. 
 
 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 savs : I pre- 
 sume 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 I 
 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 vole 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 men- 
 tioned, 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 under- 
 stood 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 mention- 
 ing, 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 inten- 
 tions 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 assur- 
 ance, he could solemnly declare it as his opinion, that Mr. 
 Jefferson, in his administration, would not depart from the 
 points 1 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. Jef- 
 ferson. 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 Lati- 
 mer, 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. Jeffer- 
 son, 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 1 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 men- 
 tioned, and was authorized by him to say, that they cor 
 responded 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. Jeffer- 
 son's inauguration as President. I had no acquaintance 
 with him before, and very tittle 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 1 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 
 ground than conjecture, derived from a knowledge of means 
 which existed, and, if applied, their probable operation on 
 individual characters. In answer to the last part of the 
 interrogatory, deponent says : I know of nothing of whioh 
 Mr. Burr was apprised, which related to the election. 
 
 J. A. BAYARD. 
 District of Columbia, Washington : 
 
 The deposition of the honorable James A. Bayard, con- 
 sisting of six pages, was taken and sworn to before us, this 
 3d day of April, A. D., 1806. 
 
 STEPHEN R. BRADLEY. 
 
 GEORGE LOGAN. 
 
 DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL SMITH. 
 
 Deposition of the honorable Samuel Smith, Senator 
 of the United States for the State of Maryland, a wit- 
 ness produced, sworn, and examined in a cause depend- 
 ing in the supreme court of the State of New York, 
 between James Gillespie, plaintiff, and Abram Smith, 
 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 com- 
 menced, I do not recollect. 
 
 2d. and 3d. I was a member of the House of Represent- 
 atives of the United States in 1800 and 1801, and know 
 that Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr had an equal num- 
 ber of the votes given by the electors of President and Vice 
 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 gentle- 
 men, 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 genllemen 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 Pres- 
 ident, particularly as it related to the public debt, to com- 
 merce, and navy. I had heard Mr. Jefferson converse on 
 all those subjects lately, and informed him what I under- 
 stood 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 correet, I sought and had a conversa- 
 tion that evening with him on those points ; and I presume, 
 though I do not precisely recollect, that I communicated to 
 him the conversation which I had had 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 pend- 
 ing election ; but he wished to know what were the opin- 
 ions or conversations of Mr. Jefferson respecting the navy, 
 commerce, and public debt. In answer, I said that I had 
 last night had conversation with Mr. Jefferson on all those 
 subjects- Thathe 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 con- 
 duct while he was Minister at Paris, when he thought he 
 had evinced his attention to the commercial interests of his 
 country. Thathe 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 com- 
 merce, 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 Day- 
 ton 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 be- 
 came the subject of conversation. I recollect no part of 
 that conversation, except his saying that bethought that an 
 half hour's conversation between us might settle the bust- 
 
8 
 
 ness. 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 dis- 
 posed) to terminate the election, but he wished information 
 as to Mr. Jefferson's opinions on certain subjects, and men- 
 tioned, (I think,) the same three points already alluded to, 
 as asked by Colonel Parker and General Dayton, and re- 
 ceived 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 confiden- 
 tial officers, but, by way of elucidating hisquestion, he said, 
 such as Mr. Latimer, of Philadelphia, and Mr. M'Lane, of 
 Delaware. I answered that I never had heard Mr. Jeffer- 
 son say anything on that subject. He requested that I 
 would inquire, and inform him the next day. I did so. 
 Jlnd 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 mad e improper use of their offices, to force the offi- 
 cers tinder 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 be 
 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 Pres- 
 ident, that they would not get up without electing one or the 
 other gentleman. Mr. Baer had voted against Mr. Jeffer- 
 son until the final vote, when, I believe, he withdrew, or 
 voted blank, but do not perfectly recollect. 
 
 5ih. 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, respect- 
 ing 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 be- 
 lieve, 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 num- 
 ber 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 in- 
 strumental 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 be 
 lieve 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 ihe honorable Samuel Smith, written 
 upon five pages, was duly taken and sworn to before us, 
 two of the commissioners named in the annexed commis- 
 sion, at the Capitol, in said city of Washington, on the fif 
 teenth 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 depo- 
 sition 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. Jeffer- 
 son.] 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 re- 
 gards 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 supposi- 
 tion that, having been a chief actor in the trans- 
 action, according to Mr. Jefferson's statement, 
 Colonel Burr, who was then living, could give me 
 some information, I called upon him. His mem- 
 ory 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 com- 
 missioner 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 repre- 
 sentative; having been retained amongst Mr. 
 Bradley's papers, and thus preserved. 
 
 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 rep- 
 utation 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 defen- 
 sive; nor have I wandered from the charges affect- 
 ing the character of my father, for the purpose of 
 commenting upon the opinions of Mr. Jefferson, 
 
9 
 
 or investigating the numerous charges contained 
 in his ' 5 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 en- 
 lightened judgment and benevolent feelings, which, 
 in his letter to Mr. Adams, of June 23, 1813, dic- 
 tated 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 publica- 
 tion 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 char- 
 acter 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 exer- 
 tions of Mr. Bayard, he was nominated by Presi- 
 dent 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 con- 
 ferred 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 situa- 
 tion 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 self- 
 protection, 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 accept- 
 ing 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, vour 
 very obedient servant, JAMES A. BAYARD. 
 
 The President of the United States. 
 
 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 mis- 
 sion to Ghent as a duty to his country, and when 
 peace was concluded, to decline that to St. Peters- 
 burgh. 
 
 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. — coinoiissioned and resigned. Un- 
 der proper circumstances, the acceptance would have been 
 complete gratification ; but, under the existing, I thought 
 the resignation most honorahle. To have taken .$18,000 
 out ofthe public Treasury, wiih a knowledge thatnoservice 
 could be rendered by me, as the French Government would 
 have waited for a man who represented the existing feel- 
 ings and views of this Government, would have been dis- 
 graceful. 
 
 Another consideration of great weight, arose from the 
 part I took in the presidential election. As I had given 
 the him to the election, it was impossible for me to accept 
 an office, which would beheld on the tenure of Mr. Jeffer- 
 son'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 peculiarly 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. v 
 
 Frederick, Jpril 19, 1830. 
 
 Sir: In compliance with your request, I now communi- 
 cate to you my recollections of the events of the presiden- 
 tial election, by the House of Representatives, in 1801. 
 There has been no period of our political history more mis- 
 understood and more grossly misrepresented. The course 
 adopted by the Federal party was one of principle and not 
 of taction, and I think the present a suitable occasion for 
 explaining the views and motives at least of those gentle- 
 men 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 lhat 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 hith- 
 erto acted with the Federal party, declared his intention to 
 vote for Mr. Jefferson, in consequence of which determ- 
 ination 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, Gen- 
 eral Morris, of Vermont, who held the divided vote of that 
 Slate, and Mr. Cralk, 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 responsi- 
 bility which attached to their peculiar situation, and con- 
 scious that the American people looked to them for a Pres- 
 ident, 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, arid myself, having compared 
 ideas upon the subject, and finding lhat we entertained the 
 
10 
 
 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 pur- 
 pose 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 lesj 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, 
 which was known and decided. Mr. Jefferson had identi- 
 fied himself with, and was at the head of, the party in Con- 
 gress 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 depre- 
 cated, 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 supporred 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 ad- 
 journment 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 each 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. Ou 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 
 majority 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 12ih of February. The balloting continued 
 with the same result, from day to day, till the 17th of Feb- 
 ruary, 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 ex- 
 plained, 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 v/e 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 in- 
 dustriously 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 Gov- 
 ernment 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 made 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 con- 
 stitutional 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. 
 
 [ am, respectfully, sir, your most obedient servant, 
 
 GEORGE BAER. 
 Richard II. Bayard, Esq. 
 
 Leiperville, Ath of '5th month, 1830. 
 Esteemed Friend: I have carefully considered the con- 
 tents of thy letter of the 16th ultimo, and can fully appre- 
 ciate the object in view, which appears to be the vindica- 
 tion 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 
 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 sub- 
 stantially correct — and I may add that, as a Federal mem- 
 ber of the House of Representatives, I attended the meet- 
 ings of the Federalists, held for consultation at that deeply 
 interesting crisis — and know of no cause to doubt the sin- 
 cerity of the professed object of the party, which was to 
 execute the important duty devolved upon them, by exer- 
 cising a constitutional discretion for the benefit of the na- 
 tion, 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 peo- 
 ple, 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. 
 
 JNU. CHEW THOMAS. 
 Richard H. Bayard. 
 
 f, William Jarvis, of Weathersfield, in the county of 
 Windsor, and State of Vermont, do testily and declare that, 
 in the friendly intercourse which took place between the 
 late honorable ijewis R.Morris, and myself, among various 
 other topics, politics often became the subject of conversa- 
 tion. In one of these conversations, the contest which 
 took place in the House of Representatives in the year 
 1801, tor 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 pref- 
 erence 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 bal- 
 lots of the State delegations were taken. Mr. Bayard re- 
 marking to him, that as he (Mr. Bayard) represented a Fed- 
 eral State, he could not, with propriety, vote for Mr. Jeffer- 
 son, but as the State of Vermout was friendly to the election 
 
11 
 
 of Mr. Jefferson, no objection of the kind precluded him 
 (General Moiris) from giving his vole to Mr. Jefferson, or 
 from absenting himself trom 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 often or twelve 
 years I do not pretend to recollect the precise language of 
 General Morris, but I am satisfied that the preceding declar- 
 ation contains the true and faithful sense of his communi- 
 cation 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 myselfgreat pleas- 
 ure to be in any way instrumental in vindicating the char- 
 acter of your father. 
 
 One such witness as Mr. Jarvis is sufficient. He was 
 appointed consul at Lisbon by Mr. Jefferson, and was 
 there as consul and charge d'affaires many years. Was 
 also appointed by Mr. Madison commissary general of the 
 Northern Army, which he declined ; was one of the presi- 
 dential 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 mem- 
 orandum made by the late President Jefferson, of the com- 
 munication 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, ppnding the 
 presidential election in the House ofRepresentalivesin 1801, 
 [ 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 determ- 
 ination. However, by the advice of friends, on whose judg- 
 ment I rely, 1 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 solevRepresentative from Delaware, 
 and could cast the vote of that State as he thought proper. 
 The late General Morris and M.-athew Lyon were the Rep- 
 resentatives 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. Incon- 
 sequence 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 bal- 
 lotings 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 ac 
 quainted with the latter gentleman. And I do know that 
 Mr. Bayard was much dissatisfied that the balloting should 
 have been so long protracted, and th;it, the day before the 
 last ballot, he declared, among his political friends, it should 
 be brought to a close the next day. He thought that the 
 delay would caii^e a dangerous excitement in the country. 
 
 The evening before the last ballot was taken, General 
 Morris informed me that he should not be tii the House the 
 next day, and, in consequence, Mr. Jefferson would be 
 elected. He said he was induced to secede by the repre- 
 sentations and at the request of Mr. Bayard, who thought 
 that he — General Morris — could secede with greater pro- 
 priety than a person who was the only Representative of a 
 Federal State, and Vermont, at the time, was nearly equally 
 divided on the subject; so that I always considered Mr. 
 Bayard as the means"of Mr. Jefferson's election, and I be- 
 lieve be was so considered by many others. 
 
 That Mr. Bayard might have sportively said to General 
 Smith what is attributed to him , is possible ; and, if so, 
 General Smith would not probably remember it. But if 
 such conversation was held with corrupt views, for the pur- 
 pose of influencing him, it is impossible he should have 
 forgotten it. I have no belief that Mr. Bayard would se- 
 riously have made what amounts to a proposition to corrupt 
 another. 
 
 I am, with great regard, your obedient servant, 
 
 ELIJAH PAINE.] 
 
 Mr. PEARCE. Mr. President, the Joint Com- 
 mittee on the Library, of which I am a member, 
 were directed by an act of Congress to cause the 
 Jefferson papers to be published. These papers, sir, 
 were very voluminous. They consist of one hun- 
 dred and thirty-four large bound volumes of man- 
 uscript, besides an immense mass of loose papers. 
 It was manifestly impossible for the Committee on 
 the Library, individually, to perform the duties of 
 editor. They therefore employed a gentleman of 
 talent and character, and directed him, generally, 
 to make such a selection from the papers of Mr. 
 Jefferson, as were necessary and proper to exhibit 
 fairly and fully his opinions, character, and public 
 course. 
 
 I regret very much that, during the course of 
 that publication, the attention of the committee 
 was notcalled to the items in the " Ana," to which 
 the Senator from Delaware has referred. Cer- 
 tainly, sir, if that had been the case, I should have 
 deemed it my duty, and, I presume, the commit- 
 tee would have deemed it theirs, to direct the 
 editor, either to omit the charges referred to, or, 
 what would perhaps have been better, to accom- 
 pany them with the refutation which had been 
 given to the public. I well recollect the exposi- 
 tion made in the Senate of the United States, to 
 which the Senator has referred, and I have read 
 more than once the pamphlet issued by the Sena- 
 tor and his brother. I considered the accusation 
 of Mr. Jefferson as being as fully refuted as it was 
 possible for any accusation to be refuted by human 
 testimony. Without the authority of his name, it 
 would have rapidly sunk into oblivion. With the 
 authority of his name, it has utterly failed to im- 
 pair the reputation of one who was eminent as a 
 statesman and citizen, and distinguished, not only 
 for ability, but for enlightened and earnest patriot- 
 ism, and for a public and private honor which was 
 without a stain. That character Mr. Bayard 
 maintained, not only in his own State, where such 
 a reputation as I have described was always ac- 
 corded to him, but throughout the Union. The 
 tribute due to exalted character was not only paid 
 to him by his own political party, but in the cor- 
 dial acknowledgements of those to whom he was 
 politically opposed. His ability and patriotism 
 could not have been more highly indorsed than 
 they were by the chief of his political opponents, 
 Mr. Madison, who appointed him one of the com- 
 missioners to Ghent, to negotiate peace with Great 
 Britain. 
 
 I have only to repeat, sir, my regret, that I was 
 not informed, during the progress of this publi- 
 cation, that these accusations were about to be 
 included in the congressional edition of Mr. Jeffer- 
 son's papers. 
 
 Mr. CASS. Mr. President, I have listened, 
 with great interest, to the vindication which we 
 have heard from the honorable Senator from Del- 
 aware, and I am sure that, if Mr. Jefferson were 
 now here to hear the statements made by that 
 honorable Senator, he would be the first to say 
 
12 
 
 that the memory of the distinguished statesman 
 who has been alluded to, had been unjustly re- 
 flected on. Mr. Jefferson's high character, his 
 truth, and his frankness, would have led him, as 
 Boon as any other man, to disavow any erroneous 
 reflections. The reports, on which the Senator 
 from Delaware has commented, undoubtedly orig- 
 inated in that period of excitement which attended 
 the presidential election of 180L I bear the cir- 
 cumstances in perfect recollecffon; and, sir, per- 
 haps never, in the whole history of our country, 
 from the 4th of July, 1776, to the moment when 
 I am addressing the Senate, were the American 
 people more excited than at that time. Independ- 
 ent of the radical difference in the character of the 
 two men who were presented to them, well known 
 and well appreciated, there was a great principle 
 involved in that controversy — the principle of the 
 distinct enunciation of the determination of the 
 American people that Thomas Jefferson should be 
 their President. Now, sir, when the event has 
 passed by, with all its feelings and passions, his- 
 tory has ratified and commended the action of the 
 House of Representatives. There is not a man 
 at this day who, in looking back to the history of 
 that period, and the subsequent events, will pre- 
 tend to say that Colonel Burr should have been 
 chosen President, and Mr. Jefferson set aside. No 
 man, knowing the character of Colonel Burr, as 
 evinced in his conflict with General Hamilton, can 
 tell what would have been the consequences of 
 Buch an event. Mr. President, you cannot look 
 at the publications of European statesmen — and 
 they are coming to us every day, in the most 
 authentic form, in the papers left behind them — 
 without finding similar errors into which they 
 have been led. Mr. Jefferson was led into this 
 error in the same way as they were into similar 
 ones in regard to their countries. I repeat, how- 
 ever, the vindication of the Senator from Dela- 
 ware to-day is complete and satisfactory; and, if 
 Mr. Jefferson were here, he would be the first to 
 say so. 
 
 Mr. President, I add my full concurrence to 
 what has been said by the honorable Senator 
 from Maryland. I had the honor, when a youth, 
 to see Mr. Bayard often. I lived, for a while, in 
 his own town. The impression which I derived 
 then, and it was the universal sentiment of the 
 country, was, that he was a man of the highest 
 honor and probity, of great talents, integrity, and 
 intelligence, and of the purest patriotism. 1 con- 
 sider that one of the most glorious acts of his life 
 when, in opposition to the feelings of his own 
 party, he brought over the State of Delaware to 
 the support of Mr. Jefferson. If a different result 
 had followed that controversy, this Union would 
 have been shaken to its very center. I do not 
 recollect that my honorable friend from Delaware 
 alluded to the man who now dwells on my mem- 
 ory, Lewis Morris, of Vermont, who, according 
 to the best of my recollection, had a principal 
 share in the arrangement on the part of that State. 
 I am not sure that he voted at all; but if he did it 
 was for Mr. Jefferson. This, it will be recol- 
 lected, was the action of distinguished Federalists, 
 in opposition to the sentiments of a great portion 
 of their own party. 
 
 Mr. President, there is a beautiful passage in 
 the life of Mr. Bayard — a lesson for every Ameri- 
 can. He belonged to, I may almost say he was 
 
 the head of, that great party which , from the foun- 
 dation of the Government, has contended with 
 the Democratic party for the administration of the 
 affairs of this country. He was among the most 
 prominent and honored men of that party which 
 opposed the war of 1812, no doubt from very con- 
 scientious motives. But, sir. in the darkest crisis of 
 the war, when it was thought best by Mr. Madison 
 to send an embassy to England, who was selected ? 
 This very man, against whom these imputations 
 were circulated and sent to the ears of Mr. Jeffer- 
 son. Mr. Jefferson's friend and successor, and 
 confidential adviser, Mr. Madison, selected him 
 to accompany Henry Clay, Albert Gallatin, and 
 the other eminent men who negotiated the treaty 
 of peace. That was the stamp of his contempo- 
 raries on his character. He went there in the 
 view of the whole world, and, to my knowledge, he 
 had an honorable share in the preparation of the 
 articles of peace. Those commissioners con- 
 ducted themselves like Americans. They would 
 not give up one inch of territory. When England 
 proposed to run a line south of Sandusky bay, 
 taking off a part of the State of Ohio, and all north 
 of it to the Mississippi river, under the pretense 
 that they wanted that territory for Indian country, 
 what did the commissioners say ? That they had 
 not power to yield one foot of the territory of the 
 United States, and that one inch of it they never 
 would yield. That ought to be a lesson to Ameri- 
 cans in all time to come. Sir, the memory of such 
 men is the treasure of our country. Let us pro- 
 tect it with sacred vigilance. 
 
 Mr. HUNTER. Mr. President, the Senator 
 from Delaware has discharged a pious duty, and 
 discharged it well. He has rescued the memory 
 of his father from an imputation which might 
 have tarnished it, and shown that he was guiltless 
 of any such offense. His, sir, was such an of- 
 fering as filial affection might be glad to render 
 to the dead. It was not only his right, but hia 
 duty, to have risen, and to have done what he haa 
 thisday done. 
 
 But, sir, while he feels it to be his duty to take 
 care of the reputation of his father, I may be al- 
 lowed, perhaps, to say a word in reference to a 
 great name, which is deservedly cherished in my 
 own State. That Mr. Jefferson believed what he 
 recorded, I think no man can doubt who has ever 
 studied his character or his history. That he was 
 led into an error, and very naturally led into an 
 error, under the excitement and the passions of 
 the day, I think has been very clearly shown. 
 But, sir, that he is chargeable with culpability for 
 preserving and for presenting to posterity such 
 memorials as those which he has left behind him, 
 I think, cannot be justly maintained, when we 
 come to consider the importance and the value 
 of such historical documents. That they should 
 contain errors is natural and probable enough; and 
 that no man would have regretted those errors 
 more than Mr. Jefferson, if he had been aware of 
 them, I believe I may say, and expect to be sus- 
 tained by the evidence of his life and his career. 
 
 Sir, to say that it is wrong for such a man 
 as Mr. Jefferson, who figured in scenes so im- 
 portant, to leave behind him any memoirs of a 
 personal character, or a daily record of the pro- 
 ceedings of the times, would be to say that we 
 should have denied to the world'such memoirs as 
 those of Sully, and Clarendon, and De Retz, and 
 
13 
 
 Burnett, and many others to which I could allude, 
 and which we would not willingly lose. Sir, of 
 all sorts of historical documents, these are among 
 the most important. I may say, also, that this 
 kind of history is especially liable to error, and to 
 errors which are not easily avoided. That such 
 mistakes are to be found in Mr. Jefferson's 
 writings, I admit. That the Senator from Dela- 
 ware has proved that he was mistaken and deeply 
 erred in this case, I admit; but whilst I say so, I 
 must be allowed to declare that I do not believe 
 Thomas Jefferson ever recorded that which he did 
 not believe to be true, either in reference to the 
 character of a fellow-man, or in regard to any 
 event of historical importance. I must, also, be 
 allowed to say that, although writings of this char- 
 acter may be liable to such errors, yet it does not 
 follow that it was improper in a man who saw 
 what he saw, and who bore such a part in the 
 public affairs of the world as he did, to leave such 
 records as must be amongthe most valuable monu- 
 ments of human history; for the good more than 
 compensates for the evil which may be thus done. 
 Sir, they will be recurred to hereafter by posterity, 
 and they will be received as one of the legacies from 
 him for which he will be honored and remem- 
 bered. 
 
 Mr. MASON. Mr. President, I listened, as did 
 all the Senate, with deep interest and emotion to 
 the explanation which fell from the very able Sen- 
 ator from Delaware, in vindication of the memory 
 of his father. 1 must be permitted to say, sir, 
 even in his presence, that, while it illustrated the 
 filial virtues of his own heart, it betrayed an able 
 and well-balanced intellect. I can appreciate the 
 painful necessity under which he was placed while 
 discharging this duty, achieved, I will add, with 
 Buch signal success in our presence. It would be 
 gratuitous in me to say that the evidence, which 
 he has been enabled to adduce from the mouldy 
 records of time, has been conclusive. 
 
 Sir, it is unfortunate that there was such a ne- 
 cessity. I agree with my friend and colleague, 
 and with the honorable Senator from Michigan, 
 that, if we could recall the actors of those days, 
 the distinguished statesman who recorded those 
 pages would have been the first to obliterate them. 
 The feelings which he carried to his grave in his 
 latter days are strikingly depicted in the letter 
 which was read by the Senator from Delaware, 
 one of his last letters to Mr. Adams, who pre- 
 ceded him in office. The passious of the day had 
 then subsided, and the excitement of feeling had 
 subsided with them. 
 
 But now, sir, so far as history is concerned, we 
 know how utterly impossible it is, with the clear- 
 est and least impassioned mind, clearly to ascer- 
 tain the truth when there is excitement and preju- 
 dice mingled with it. Mr. Jefferson, undertook, 
 unfortunately, as I think, to record conversations 
 at some time after they had passed, and he under- 
 took it when the passions of the day had not yet 
 subsided, and when none, from the necessity of 
 his position, had mingled more freely in them than 
 he had done; and all can understand, who know 
 anything of the difficulty of getting at truth, how 
 natural it was that even such a man should have 
 misinterpreted and misapprehended. 
 
 Sir, Thomas Jefferson has left his impression 
 upon the age in which he lived, not only in this 
 broad land, but at home, in his native State. No 
 
 man did more to mould, to cast into shape, and 
 form the Government which now prevails in thia 
 country — a Republican Government, resting upon 
 popular institutions. ' The traces of his mighty 
 intellect are everywhere in the history of the coun- 
 try. At home, after he had retired from public 
 life, he gave his whole time, and all his thoughts 
 to the institutions of his native State, and to the 
 promotion of her welfare. 
 
 Sir, the James A. Bayard of that day has passed 
 into history, and it may be said of him, that he 
 bore with a winning grace that high and lofty 
 name, which the Bayard of Dauphiny, had sig- 
 nalized in the fifteenth century — the chevalier who, 
 with the virtue of Scipio blended the graces of 
 Alcibiades, who lived without fear, and died with- 
 out reproach. 
 
 Now, sir, one word as to what has fallen from 
 the Senator from Maryland, in reference to the 
 publication of the papers of Mr. Jefferson. It 
 was at my instance, I think, chiefly, that the very 
 learned and able gentleman who was appointed by 
 the committee to edit this publication, was selected; 
 a citizen of Virginia, then and still a professor in 
 old William and Mary — our renowned and earliest 
 seat of learning — Professor Washington. He con- 
 versed with me frequently and freely while he had 
 this work under his charge; he conversed equally, 
 I believe, freely with the honorable Senator from 
 Maryland, who was then, as now, chairman of 
 the Committee on the Library, to whom the duty 
 of publication was intrusted. Professor Wash- 
 ington considered it his duty, and in that, I believe, 
 he was sustained by the honorable Senator from 
 Maryland — certainly he was by me — to publish 
 everything which would contribute materials for 
 future history, or which would show the political 
 opinions and tenets of Mr. Jefferson. I presume 
 there was no consultation with anybody as to the 
 publication of the anas. I never heard of it. My 
 impression is, however, that these anas had been 
 published in the private collection that was printed 
 by Mr. Jefferson's representatives after his death, 
 and had gone to the world in that form, and if the 
 inquiry had been made of me, or of the honorable 
 Senator from Delaware, now before me, [Mr.. 
 Bayard,] upon the propriety of a reprint of this 
 book, it would have been a question of difficult 
 solution; because, if they had been withheld, at a 
 future day it might have been supposed that they 
 were suppressed from tenderness to the memory 
 of thegentleman who was assailed. A most unjust 
 and unfounded inference might thus have arisen, 
 had they been suppressed. I take it for granted, 
 and if I am wrong the Senator from Maryland 
 [Mr. Pearce] will correct me, that the attention, 
 neither of the committee or of any other, wae 
 called by Professor Washington to the propriety 
 of publishing the anas with the other papers. I 
 therefore am not in possession of his reasons for 
 having included them; but I can very well under- 
 stand, knowing that gentleman, as I do, to be a man 
 not only of correct taste, but of sound and judicious 
 head, that if the question occurred to him as to the 
 propriety of a reprint, he would have solved it 
 by saying, " If it is withheld, the act may be 
 deemed equivocal, and unfounded inferences may 
 be drawn." 
 
 Mr. President, let none fear that what is re- 
 corded in those anas, after the refutation we have 
 received to-day, will leave the slightest shade upon 
 
14 
 
 the memory of Bayard with posterity or in his- 
 tory; and equally let none fear, who is interested 
 for the memory of Mr. Jeffers/>n , that it will leave 
 upon the public mind , or upon the unwritten future, 
 
 any other impression than regret, that so great a 
 man should have left the world before he was dis- 
 abused of this grave misconception, and had, him- 
 self, an opportunity to disclaim it. 
 
g® 
 
 t-Jw 1 
 
 
 (