P CALIFORNIA 
 
 LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 CALIFORNIA LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 M^j 
 
 s 
 
 F CALIFORNIA 
 
 LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIF! 
 
 9 g ^^ 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIF 
 
 <5\u-/7t> 
 
 i 
 
 
 9S 
 
 ^40 
 
 : IKIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIF 
 
NINE LETTERS 
 
 & ON THE 
 
 SUBJECT 
 
 OF 
 
 AARON BURR S 
 POLITICAL DEFECTION, 
 
 WITH AN" 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 BY TAMES CHEETHAM* 
 
 orlt t 
 
 PRINTED BY DENNISTON & CHEETHAM, NO, 149, 
 STREET. 
 
DiftriR of New-Fork, fs. 
 
 -BE IT REMEMBEREDj that on the fourteenth 
 
 (L. s.) day of February, in the twenty-fevefith year of 
 
 the Indpendence of the United States of America, 
 
 James Cheetham, of the faid Diftrift, hath depofited in 
 
 this office the title of a book, the right whereof he -claims 
 
 as author, in the words following, to wit, 
 
 " Nine Letters on the Subjeft of Aaron Burr s 
 Political Defection, iitith an Appendix . By James 
 Cheetham." 
 
 IN CONFORMITY "to the aft of the Congrefs of ihe United 
 States, entitled tc Ail al for the encouragement of Learn 
 ing, by fecuring the Copies of Maps, Charts and Books to 
 the Authors and Proprietors of fuch Copies, during the 
 times therein mentioned." 
 
 EDWARD DUNSCOMB, 
 JClerk of the Diftrict of -New-York, 
 
CS 
 
Letter from Gov. Bloomfield to Col. Burr. 
 
 TRENTON, Sept. 17, 1802. 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 J-T cannot have efcaped your knowledge, that two 
 pamphlets, entitled, " The Nairative" and The View? 
 publimed in your city, have engaged much of the public 
 attention. 
 
 What regards the fuppreffion of Wood s " Hiftory of 
 tie Adminijl ration of John Adams? has become of no mo 
 ment fmce the book itfelf has been publimed , for it feemj 
 to be univerfally agreed that the book, fo far as any effecl: 
 could be produced by it, was calculated to do more inju 
 ry than benefit to the republican caufe. But the bold al 
 legations which purport that you combined with the fede 
 ral party to defeat the election of Mr. Jefferfon, occafion 
 fome folicitude among thofe to whom you are unknown. 
 
 Thofe, indeed, who have witnefled your various and 
 uniform exertions in the caufe of liberty, and the firmnefs 
 and independence of your conduct on every occafion, are 
 not to be fhaken in their confidence or efteem by anony 
 mous calumnies j* but they can only exprefs their own 
 
 * Governor Bloomfield, certainly -without due reflection, 
 pronounces the facts contained in the " Narrative" and the 
 
 44 View," calumnies, fince, we prefume, thofe works are 
 anonymous. This, although a freedom frequently taken 
 "with anonymous writings, is incompatible with that dignity of 
 deportment and cultivation of mind which are requifne cha- 
 
 racleriflics of a Chief Magiftrates. The Editors of the AME- 
 
 M571815 
 
E 4 g 
 
 I 
 
 opinions, and repeat the declarations which they are in 
 formed you have made. This leaves room for our com 
 mon enemies to cavil. If fome one were authorifed from 
 you to make thefe declarations, it would, I think, remove 
 the apprehenfions which are entertained by fome honed 
 men, warm in the caufe of freedom, jealous of their 
 rights, and watchful of thofe who have the honour to be 
 their fervants. 
 
 JRICAN CITIZEN, the writers of thefe letters, flatter themfelves 
 they have evinced, through, every ilage of this intcvelling dif- 
 cuffion, that the principal fadls contained in thofe two 
 pamphlets are true. Thofe fails have been affailed by four 
 perfons, firfl by Mr. Abraham Bifhop of Connecticut. 
 In page 44 of the View" it is Hated, that to further 
 his projects in Pennfylvania, Mr. Burr fent Mr. \ ifhop 
 to the Seat of Government of that State during the feffion 
 of the Legiflature. Mr. Bifhop has been pleafed to deny 
 this ilatementin two letters which were publiihed in the Ame 
 rican Citizen, But in the difcuffion it appeared, firft, that 
 Mr. Bifhop was at Lancafter while the Legiflature was in fef 
 fion ; fecond, that Mr. Burr procured for him letters of re 
 commendation ; and third, that he manifefted great intereft in 
 the journey of Mr. Bifhop. In the controverfy with the 
 "writers of thefe letters Mr. Bifhop yielded every point but 
 one ; he infilled that he was not fent to Lancafter by Mr. 
 Burr, but acknowledged that he was there. It was impoffible 
 to prove that he \va.$ font in the ftrict fenfe of the word, and 
 yet it was fhewn that Mr. Bifliop vifitcd Mr. Burr frequently 
 before his departure, that Mr. Burr fent for Ezekiel Robins to 
 his own houfe to write r fign letters of recommendation for 
 Mr. Bifhop, arid from the train of Mr. Burr s machinations, 
 which have been developed in the View and in thefe letters, 
 it is far from being doubtful that, in whatever light Mr. Bi 
 fhop looked upon himfelf, Mr. Burr viewed him as 7m agent, 
 Second, in page 48 of the "View" the intrigues of Mr. 
 Burr in South Carolina are noticed, and it is ftatedthat he dif- 
 patclied zn agent to Columbia alfo, the feat of government of 
 that place, during the feflion of the Legiflature, to promote 
 thofe intrigues. See the "View." It is added that Mr, 
 
f 5 3 
 
 Our intimacy in our youth and in the army, is general^ 
 ly known in this (late. My addrefs to the people of Bur~ 
 
 .Green wrote to Mr. Burr regularly from Columbia under co- 
 TCV to Mr, John Swartwout, the JVTarlhal of this diftnci. 
 
 Mr. Green acknowledges, firfr, that he was at Columbia as 
 ftated in the " View/ but denies that he \n*difp9tcked thither 
 by Mr. Burr. He confcfies that he was felicitous for an equality 
 of votes between the uvoPrefidential candidates (the only ob- 
 jecl: ot his million as Hated in the View) that he \vroie to his 
 friend and the confidant of Mr. Burr, Mr. Sv;artwout, but 
 denies that he wrote letters to Mr. Burr directed lor him un. 
 tier cover to Mr.Swartwout. The objeft of the View in Hat 
 ing that Mr. Green wrote at all from Columbia under any 
 modification or arrangement, was merely to fhew thst lie trani- 
 mitied information to Mr. Burr of theprogrefs of his niiftion. 
 Whether, therefore, that information was directed to JV Ir. Burr 
 or not under cover to Mr, Swartwout, or not directed to him 
 at all, is immaterial to the mam point, provided Mr. Burr re 
 ceived that information through a confidential channel. And 
 that he did, is not nor cannot be denied. Mr. Swartwout was 
 the medium between Mr. Green and Mr. Burr, and thus Mr. 
 Burr obtained the requifite information from Mr. Green.. 
 Mr. Swartwout regularly conveyed Mr. Green s letters to Mr. 
 Burr. 
 
 Third. Mr. Swartwout communicated for publication in the 
 AMERICAN CITIZEN an affidavit which was duly noticed by 
 the Editors. In this he dfez>*that Mr. Green wrote letters to 
 Mr. Burr wrapt in covers directed to himfelf. But as he takes 
 care not to touch the chief point, as he does not fay that he 
 did not receive letters from Mr. Green and carry them ilily and 
 carefully to r. Burr, the affidavit is of no avail. 
 
 Fourth. Mr. Burr s denial of the ncgociation with the fede 
 ral party. It is unnecefiary to iay any thing on this difavowal 
 here. The following letters will abundantly fhew that he has 
 endeavoured to let ray his party, and that the declarations con 
 tained in his letter to Governor Bloomneld, are not entitled t* 
 Iclitf. 
 
 If, then, after fo fevere a trial even the fufardinate fags con 
 tained in the two pamphlets are found unavailable, W Gov. 
 Bloojnfielcl juftified in denominating the "Narrative" and the 
 " View" anonymous cafanixics? 
 
C 6 3 
 
 iington, in September, 1800, wherein I flated your fer- 
 vices in the field and in the cabinet, and recommended 
 you forVice-Prefident, is not forgotten ; & thefe circum- 
 fiances have occafioned more enquiries of me rcfpe&ing 
 the calumnies againll you, than would otherwife have 
 been made. 
 
 I have no other apology to offer for this intrufion, than 
 to aflure you that it proceeds from motives founded in pa- 
 triotifm, anil in that cordial friendfhip which has ever fub- 
 fifted between us. 
 
 I avail myfelf of this opportunity to renew the afluranccs 
 of my refjpe6t and efteem \ and that I am, 
 
 Moil truly, your Friend, 
 
 ROBERT BLOOMFIELD. 
 fks PIcn. Aaron Burr, Vice-Prefident ") 
 cf the United States. 5 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 NEW-YORK, Sept. 21, 1802. 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 You are at liberty to declare from me, that all thofe 
 charges and infinuations which aver or intimate that I ad- 
 Tfifed or countenanced the oppofition made to Mr. Jeffer- 
 fon pending the late election and balloting for Prefident ; 
 that I propofed or agreed to any terms with the federal 
 party, or with any individual of either party ; that I aflent- 
 ed to be held up in oppofition to him, or attempted to 
 4vithdra<w [with-hold] from him the vote or fupport of any 
 man, whether in or out of Congrefs , that ALL SUCH 
 ASSERTIONS ARE FALSE AKJ> GROUNDLESS. 
 
 I have [had] not thought that calumny, unfupported by 
 proof; tr the author ity of a namc t could fo far receive at* 
 
C 7 ) 
 
 tention from the public as to require an anfwer, or even % 
 denial : yet if you fhall imagine that any declaration from 
 me can be necefiary to remove doubts from the mind of 
 one honeft man, you may confider this letter as fubmitted 
 to your difcretion, to publifh if you fliall think proper. 
 
 Accept, I pf ay you, my thanks for your friendly folicU 
 tude, and assurances of the higheft refpeft and confidera- 
 tion with which I am, Your obedient fervant, 
 
 A. BURR. 
 
 Hit Excellency Gw. Bloomfield. 
 
 To Aaron Burr, Efq. 
 
 LETTER 1. 
 
 * Appearances juflif/ fufpicion : and when the fafety of a 
 nation is at ftake, fufpicion is juft ground of enquiry." 
 
 [UNIUS. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 We make no apology for addreffing thefe letters to 
 you. Between Citizen and Citizen none is neceflary. We 
 approach the office you fill with that diffidence a proper 
 refpecl: for public opinion infpires. Nature fometimes 
 makes fit and vifible diftin&ions between an office and the 
 incumbent. Your cafe is an admonitory inftance of this 
 kind. Confidering ourfelves, as it refpetts char after ^ not 
 inferior to you ; viewing your conduct, which forms the 
 fubjet of thefe letters, as that of a mere citizen, we^bf- 
 fer no apology for them. We fhall treat you with refpect 
 becaufe of your office ; with decency bec^aufe you are a 
 
man. Your anfwer to the letter of Governor Bloomfield, 
 has rendered thefe letters neceffary. 
 
 You have at length pierced through the fable cloud in 
 which you have been fo long, and fo conveniently envelop- 1 
 cd, and exhibited yourfelf before your fellow-citizens on 
 an important accufatlon preferred againil you in the "View 
 of your Political ConduG." It is not unknown to us 
 that you have for fome months been endeavouring to ap 
 pear before the public in an attitude eflentially different 
 from the one in which we now behold you. No pains, 
 no exertions, no importunities have been fpared to 
 enable you to appear in your defence fupported by 
 teilimony other than your own. Your efforts were not 
 crowned with correfponclent fuccefs. In this, were you 
 an innocent man, you would be an objedt of commifera- 
 tion ; your guilt, however, was the caufe of your failure. 
 Your refined arts failed in the production of their wiflied- 
 for and wonted fuccefs. The testimony of two refpeted 
 Clergymen in this city, which you folicited in a manner 
 not honorable to yourfelf, to contradict a statement in the 
 " View" refpecl:ing your negociation with the federalists 
 pending the Prefidential election, was peremptorily fefuf- 
 ed. You felt and manifested all that mortification which, 
 in your fituation, io prompt and manly a repulfe was cal 
 culated to excite. This mall be explained in its proper 
 place. i 
 
 You deny the capita! charge exhibited againfl you in the 
 " View." If we miftake not you will regret this timerity 
 before we take our leave of you. You carefully abftain, 
 however, from difavowing the general charges brought 
 againil you in the " Narrative" and the View." You 
 fimply declare that you did not enter into tfa 
 
( 9 ) 
 
 mentioned with the faleralijls^ nor make ufe of any arts to 
 " withdraw" from Mr. Jeff erf on the vote or fupport of any 
 man. The other charges contained in the " View," and 
 which are of a highly important nature, you leave un 
 touched. Your denial of the principal charge was to 
 have been expe&ed. It imputes to you fuch a depth of 
 wickednefs, fuch unheard of treachery, that few men 
 could believe you would either fancliion it by your 
 filence or confirm it by your pen. Your negative declara 
 tion can have but little effecl:. It is not ufual for men vo 
 luntarily to acknowledge offences which would at once 
 itrip them of every title to refpecl, and render them odi 
 ous to their fellow-citizens. Thofe who beft know you 
 will not implicitly believe your denial ; and thofe who 
 know you lead will enquire before they accredit it. 
 
 We aflc for no more than this enquiry ; we folicit only 
 a candid and patient hearing. We have accufed you of 1 - 
 offences, which ought, if you are guilty of them, to banijh 1 
 you forever from the affections of ALL parties, but efpecially\ 
 the REPUBLICAN. That you are guilty of thofe acts which 
 we have laid to your charge, we {hall, in the courfe of 
 thefe letters, notwithflanding your denial, endeavour to 
 prove by the teftimony of men refpe&able for their years, 
 their approved good {landing in fociety, and for their ta 
 lents. It, however, beft comports with our views firft to 
 give a general hiftoric {ketch of your political conduct, 
 and then to offer proof in contradiction to your denial. 
 We therefore, a fecond time, beg the reader to accompany 
 us with attention through our remarks The fubjecl: is 
 important j it involves the deareft interefts of the 
 
nit jr. We mall purfue you with diligence and care thro* 
 your various windings. We (hall note you when 
 
 " Often on the brink of fome difcovery 
 " You ftood tottering, yet ftill kept your ground 
 " So well, that the bufieft fearches ne er could follow 
 * Thoie fubtle traces which puzzled all fufpicion." 
 
 LETTER IL 
 
 tl The eminence of your ftation gave you a commanding prof- 
 " ped of your duty. The road, which led to honor, was open 
 " to your view. You could not lofe it by miftake, and you had 
 " no temptation to depart from it by detign." 
 
 JUNIUS. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 JUNIUS had a charader like yours in his "mind s 
 eye" when he penned the above lines. They are defcriptive 
 of your conduct and your ftation. The "road which led" 
 to "honor" was indeed before you; but it fuited not the way 
 ward difpofition of your mind to march with fidelity to it. 
 The firft function of the Republic tempted your ambition, 
 and, purfuing thejufuitical maxim that the end will juftify 
 the means, you grafped at the prize before it had been a- 
 warded to you by your country. You rofe in the political 
 world without merit ; the elevated object was indeed feen, 
 but the caufe of the exaltation was infcrutable. Your 
 adventitious fame ftood not on folid ground. It was fplen- 
 did only when viewed at a diftance : it yielded to the 
 touch of inveftigation. There is no point in your charac 
 ter on which a reflecting mind can reft with fatisfaction*. 
 
( II ) 
 
 Strip you of the falfe glare with which you are furrouiid^ 
 ed, and we pronounce that, fince the revolutionary war, 
 there is not an action of your life that has been eminent, 
 ly ufeful to your country. Lrke the appendages of a kite, 
 you afcended with the well-earned fame of others. He 
 who will examine your character will be aftoniflied at your 
 elevation. What is there in it that entitles you to the con 
 fidence of the people ? What are your claims ? In what 
 have you diftinguimed yourfelf as a flatefman ? As a po 
 litician you have been wavering and inconftant. You 
 have veered with every gale that promifed you a harbour 
 to gratify your boundlefs ambition. Fickle in difpofition* 
 you have (hifted with every adverfe blaft. Emphatically, 
 you have been " all things to all men." The federalifts 
 have viewed you as an enemy in the republican camp. We 
 fhall (hew that they were not miftaken. They well un- 
 derftood your character. To the REPUBLICANS, until 
 lately, it has been enveloped in myftery. Sir, you never 
 diftinguifhed yourfelf as a WRITER. Your inelegant let 
 ter to Governor Bloomfield abundantly proves that you 
 are ignorant even of the art of compofition. The public 
 have no hold of you you have given them no pledge 
 you appear intangible. Yet with all your art ta conceal 
 your defels, with all your cunning to undermine public 
 opinion and fet at naught the very SUFFRAGE of the COM 
 MONWEALTH, we have grappled you ! We hold you faft, 
 nor fhall you efcape. We will drag you to the altar of 
 public opinion j" and, when we have done this our duty, 
 
call on our fellow-citizens, in language too impreliive to be 
 refilled, to perform theirs. 
 
 Permit us now, Sir, to fketch your political likenefs, 
 and be patient while we perform the irkfome talk. Every 
 prominent feature (hall be noticed, that the LEADING one, 
 which you renounce, may be recognized as your own. 
 
 You filled in the revolutionary army afubordinate poft ; from 
 which you retired long before the clofe of the war. From 
 the restoration of peace to the year 1789, you were fo lit 
 tle heard of in the world that it may be faid you died a 
 political death. Nor was the trump of the federal conftitu- 
 tion fuilicient to raife you up from your torpid flate. To 
 the importance of the time, you were liftlefs ; to the 
 eloquence of our wife men, immovable. The chords of 
 your heart refufed to vibrate in unifon with the fliouts of 
 the mofl important and joyful period the world ever be 
 held. This is a trait in your character difficult to deline 
 ate. If you were then AMBITIOUS, there was room 
 enough to gratify it. If PATRIOTIC, your country called 
 and freedom demanded your exertions. But if you were 
 neither ambitious nor patriotic, you adcd confidently in 
 folding your arms and refilling every kind emotion in fa 
 vour of your country. 
 
 In 1789 you made your firft appearance on our politi 
 cal theatre. Here we fhould imagine you would have 
 taken your political ground. Hence it is important to 
 contemplate the commencement of your career. You 
 firft attached yourfelf to ti\z federal party, and ated with 
 
( 3 ) 
 
 them \vith zeal and energy. You arrayed yourfelf in op- 
 pofition to that found patriot and eminent ItatefmanMe- 
 lan&on Smith, and thofe witli whom he had uniformly 
 aded. You were a coadjutor of General Hamilton, and 
 united with him in federal committees to oppofe the elec 
 tion of governor Clinton. This was your firit ftand. But 
 from the federal party you had no hopes of gratifying your 
 ambition: Like Csefar, but without his talents, you would 
 rather be the " firft in a village than the fecond in Rome." 
 The fuperior luilre of Hamilton, an orb of inferior magni 
 tude, threw a (hade on your character. You were jealous 
 of the high eftimation in which he was held by the federal- 
 ills. And no fooner was it afcertained, after an election 
 uncommonly contefted, that the republicans were predom 
 inant in the itate, than you abandoned the federal and at 
 tached yourfelf to the republican party. This tranfition 
 was viewed at the time by the enlightened men of both 
 parties, as the eiFecT: of jealoufy on the one hand and un 
 warrantable ambition on the other. You were in hopes 
 that the republican party would fondly embrace you, and 
 gratify your ambition by conferring upon you an office. 
 
 You were gratified. In the year 1 791, the feat of Gen 
 eral Schuyler in the federal fenate became vacant. Gen 
 eral Schuyler is the father-in-law of General Hamilton, 
 and is known to have aided, if he did not firft recommend, 
 the Englifh funding fyftem, which General Hamilton, 
 with fo little wifdom but much zeal, propofed to Con- 
 grefs when fecretary of the treafury. Your jealoufy of 
 General Hamilton afterwards ripened into implacable ha 
 tred. You afpired to fill the vacant feat in the fenata, 
 
( 4 ) 
 
 xnd found means to intimate your wifhes to the ftate le- 
 giflature, which was then republican. General Schuyler s 
 predilection for the funding fyftem, rendered him deferv- 
 cdly unpopular with our ftate legiflature, and this diilike 
 of the father-in-law naturally extended to the fon, who 
 was of the two the more mifchievous inftrument. Your 
 hatred of Hamilton and the saufe of it were not unknown 
 to the Legiflature ; you were therefore deemed a proper 
 perfon to oppofe his funding and other ruinous meafures. 
 Still were your principles fufpe&ed -, for although you had 
 attached yourfelf to the republican party, your fidelity to 
 the caufe was doubted. After, however, aflurances had 
 been received from yonrfelf that you would fupport in the 
 federal fenate republican meafures, you were appointed to 
 fill the vacant feat. 
 
 Here, Sir, you " rofe like a rocket." In 1788 you 
 were unknown in the political world. In 1789 you ap 
 peared in oppofition to the republican party ; and in 1791 
 you found yourfelf in the Senate of the United States, 
 and owed your elevation to a republican Legiflatuie. You 
 were the mere child of Fortune. You had done nothing 
 to merit the diftinguifhed honor. You had neither mani- 
 fefted talents nor confiflency. You had given no pledge 
 Superior to a promife, and that promife was " as a broken 
 reed." 
 
LETTER III. 
 
 " The more he protefted, the more his countrymen thought 
 4< he ditfembled, accounting his feeming integrity to be but 36 
 * cunning face of faifchood. 
 
 SIDNEY. 
 
 WE never witnefied fo much anxiety in the pub 
 lic mind as is now manifeft refpecling the controverfy 
 between the friends of the adminiftration and the Vice- 
 Prefident. There are but few perfons even in this city/, 
 who think Mr. Burr innocent of the charges exhibited 
 agairtft him in the " View of his Political Conduft." 
 All, however, are folkitous to be furnifhed with proof of 
 hi&itt//. In DUE TIME as full and complete proof SHALL, 
 be laid before the public as the cafe will admit of. Pa?- 
 tience is recommended to our friends, and we promiie 
 them it {hall not be abiifed. Our mode of handling tne 
 fubjecl: has been adopted on mature reflection, and in the 
 fequel will be found fatisfa&ory. We wifh to lay before 
 our country fubfcribers a faithful flcetch of Mr. Burr s po 
 litical character. Of this, little has been faid in our pa 
 per, and of near feven hundred fubfcribers for the Watch 
 Tower, it is believed not more than fifty have read die 
 View." It is proper that fo large and refpe&able a body 
 of republicans mould be made acquainted with the character 
 of theVice-Prefident previous to laying proof of his offences 
 before them. On all hands the fubject is allowed to be of 
 immenfe interefts to the country, and a knowledge of it 
 fhould be equal to its importance. Our Cits ought to re 
 member that if they are acquainted with the intrigues of 
 
c i6 ) 
 
 Mr. Burr, the union at large is not ; that if they are ripe 
 for proof of his guilt, our fellow-citizens in the country 
 have not had the fame opportunities to acquire the previ 
 ous requifite information. 
 
 It is our intention, and we will not permit ourfelves to be 
 diverted from it, to unfold the prominent intrigues of the 
 Vice-Prefident. When this is done it will then be appa 
 rent that thofc machinations with which he is charged, 
 which he has denied, and of which we mall offer fatJsfac- 
 tory teftimony, are confident with his general character. 
 Seeing, therefore, as our fellow-citizens no doubt do, the 
 importance of the fubjet, we afk for nothing more than 
 permifiion to manage it in fuch a way as to produce, in 
 our opinion, the greateft poffible good. In this ft age of 
 the bufinefs we do not think it proper to go farther than 
 to fay that, in dire ft oppofition to Mr. Burr s denial > \VE 
 
 WILL PROVE THE NEGOCIA1 ION AS STATED IN THE 
 
 VIEW." Let this be remembered, and for the prefent 
 fuffice. 
 
 We refume the fubjecl; of Mr. Burr s chara&er. 
 
 We ftated, Sir, at the clofe of our fecond letter, that 
 you were elected a federal lenator for this ft ate at a pe 
 riod when you had not performed a fmgle at which dif- 
 tinguiflied you either as a man of talents, or political pro 
 bity. That " in 1788, you were unknown in the political 
 world. In 1789, you made your firft appearance in oppo- 
 fttien to the Republican party ; and in 1791? two years 
 only after your firil entrance into political life, you found 
 
yourfelf in the Senate of the Unked States, and owed 
 your elec?don to a republican legislature." 
 
 You felt no gratitude to the Republicans for this fignal 
 act of unmerited munificence. Although raifed to fo ele 
 vated an office by a magnanimous party, the fupremc ob 
 ject of your adoration was yourfelf. -Every (lep of your 
 political life -has been marked more by cunning than by 
 nvifdom. Inftead of attaching yourfelf with zeal and fr.ice- 
 rity to that party from whofc bounteous hand you had re 
 ceived in advance the diflinguimed honor you enjoyed, 
 you were wrapped up in felfJbne/S) and looked forward 
 only to the accoroplimment of unwarrantable clefigns. 
 But your views were too boundlefs for your talents, and 
 in grafping at the whole you overlooked the means ne- 
 ceffary to fecure a part. If the ultimate point of your am 
 bition was the Presidency, your wavering deportment was 
 ill calculated to attain it. The Federal party could have 
 no confidence in fo verfatile a genius, and thofe of the Re 
 publican who watched your motions could not but fuf- 
 pecl your views. 
 
 In 1 792, one year after your Senatorial appointment, the 
 election for Governor of this ftate recurred. Here, with 
 that art and diiTimulation which have accompanied you 
 through life, and which you plajed oiF fo admirably at the 
 late Prefidential election, you flily offered yourfelf a candi 
 date to the Federal party. You thus early afpired to the 
 feat of the ftate government. You firil tried ftratagems, in 
 tbe invention of which you are fo fruitful, to get yourfelf 
 
 C 
 
nominated, by the party to whom you had attached yoiif-* 
 felf, in oppcfition to the Republican Candidate agreed up 
 on, but finding the Republicans were not fo fond of you 
 as you were of yourfelf, your friends, few in number and 
 with your confent, very modeftly tendered your fervices to 
 the federal party. From them, alfo, you met with a repulfe. 
 They had no confidence in the man] who, for an office, 
 attached himfelf to the Republican party, and who, in one 
 year aftei his ambitious defire was gratified, made overtures 
 to join the Federal party for one of a higher grade. The 
 Federalifts nominated Mr. Jay, and then with your ufual 
 diffidence, you formally declined being confidered a can 
 didate ! [See Greenleaf s paper, February 2pth, 1792.3 
 
 Your character, Sir, is vifible in all your walks. Your 
 convenient temper in the year 1792, comports with your 
 accommodating difpofition at the Prefidential election of 
 1800. In 1792, you manifefted a wiliingnefs to abandon 
 your party for the office of Governor of the State. In 
 1800, as we (hall prove, you negociated to SELL your 
 party to attain the Prefidency of the United States ! You 
 have always been the fame intriguer the fame felfifh 
 mortal the fame afpiring genius. Stability is not nor 
 was it ever an attribute of your character. 
 
 In 1792, as in 1800, you worked with ropes and pul- 
 lies." You continued behind the curtain, and was feen 
 to peep through it only by thofe who kept their eyes fled- 
 faftly upon you. Your agents were then as vifible as now. 
 The farce of your declining to be confidered a candidate, 
 when you had found that neither the Republicans nor Fe- 
 
C 9 ) 
 
 deralifts would take you up, was acted at a fecrct confer 
 ence held with you at Princeton, New-Jerfey, by a few of 
 your friends, and accordingly with great pomp and for 
 mality announced to die public. 
 
 You were not diftieartened by your defeat. You ftill 
 kept your eye on the Governormip of the ftate. The re 
 jection by the federalists of the proffer of your fervices in 
 1792, convinced you that you had nothing to expect from 
 them. Your hopes were now centered in the Republican 
 party ; and you were fenfible that unlefs the then Governor 
 could be perfuaded to refign, and make an early annunci 
 ation of his intention to do fo, you had no chance for fuc- 
 cefs. To this point you directed your attention. In 
 trigues were fet on foot but to no purpofe. Your agents 
 and yourfelf were every where bufy. Mifreprefentations 
 were induftrioufly circulated. Three of your friends in 
 this city prefumptuoufly wrote a circular letter to various 
 influential republican characters in the ftate, reprefenting 
 the neceffity of the Governor s declining. The felfifh de- 
 fign was, however, generally perceived. In every move 
 ment you were yifibie, and meafures were accordingly 
 taken to defeat your machinations. The Governor s ill 
 health rendered his refignation neceflary for his own com 
 fort, but he very prudently took care not to announce his 
 intention to refign until a late period. After his refigna 
 tion was proclaimed, your friends, compofed of Federalifts 
 and Republicans, were as bufy as bees ; their buz was 
 heard throughout the city. A meeting of forty reprefenta- 
 tives and other influential gentlemen was held to nominate 
 a candidate for the office of Governor. This was the feat 
 
of alion for your friends. They cut, however, but a for- 
 ry figure. Of the forty votes, you had only fix ! Judge 
 Yates was the Republican candidate agreed upon. 
 
 + This gentleman you funported for the office of Gov- 
 " crnor in the year 1789 when you were on the Federal 
 fide with great zeal and activity. It was expedl ed that 
 you could do-no fefs in the year i 794, when you profeffpct 
 yourfelf to- be a Republican. But no, you were a difap- 
 pointed man ; you wifhed to* have been nominated your 
 felf in the room of Judge Yates, and as -\ou could gain no 
 thing by the cleHcn, you refolved to take no active part 
 in favor of your fuccefsful rival. If you could do no 
 thing for yourfelf, you would do nothing for the party to 
 whom you: were pfofejjedly attached." You were neutral j 
 you retired fullen to your clofet, and viewed the conteit 
 with perfect indifference. 
 
 In this flate of liftlefsnefs you continued until the end of 
 your Senatorfhip, March 3d, 1797. 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 THIS year (1797) you were a candidate for the Vice- 
 Frefidency. Your claims in that office were founded on 
 a general ignorance of your real character. You had 
 done nothing to merit the diftincYion. You were hardly 
 known in the country. Your pretenfions were rather a 
 fubjeft of ridicule than of ferious import. You were 
 
fufpefted too, of having tampered with forne of the fede 
 ral party in our flate legiflature. It is believed, on good 
 authority, that Mr. John Bird and Mr.- Thomas Morris 
 were in your intereft, and it was contemplated, and in 
 faft attempts were made, to hold up a ticket of federal < 
 eleftcrs, tv/o of whom, pointed out by your/elf, it was ex 
 pected would, from a mutual interchange of good offices, 
 and a prefumed congeniality of fentiment, vote for you; 
 As an evidence of your intrigue on this fubjeft, at that 
 period, the reader is referred to the Journals of the Aifem- 
 bly, which, to any one acquainted with the perfons then 
 in the Legiflature, will fufficiently indicate it. You were, 
 however, as was to have been expected, unfuccefsful. Of 
 the one hundred and thirty-eight votes for Prcfident and 
 Vice-Prefident, you had only thirty. Thofe who knew 
 you doubted your attachment to the republican caufe, and 
 thofe who knew you not were not likely to give you their 
 fupport. Some of the eleftors fupported you from a hope 
 that in company with Mr. Jefferfon you could do no ef- 
 fential injury to the caufe. Your fubfequent conduct has 
 evinced that this was a miftaken notion. 
 
 During your fenatorfhip, you fignalized yourfelf by one 
 aft only of magnanimity and firmnefs. You oppofed the 
 ratification of the Britifh treaty. For this folitary aft we 
 give you full credit. It is the more deferring of particular 
 notice as it (lands alone. 
 
 In tKe fame year (1797) you were elefted a member of 
 the Staie Aflembly for this city. Here, Sir, your conduct 
 was fuf^ucious. To thofe of the party to whom you at 
 
( 22 ) 
 
 tached yourfelf, and who had conferred upon you all your 
 political honours, your deportment wasfupercilious , to the 
 adverfe party pliant and ambiguous. You were inatten 
 tive to your duty as a Legiflator. You were rarely found 
 in your feat but when fomc bridge laiu^ or fome iuch 
 fcheme, was before the houfe, and which was principally, 
 defigned to feather the nefls of a few favorites. To thefc 
 things you were ever attentive. To whatfoever, indeed, 
 had a tendency, in your opinion, to benefit yourfdf\ you 
 were never indifferent. Bat where any great principle 
 was concerned, whenever a fabitary blow was to be ilruck 
 in favor of the caufe of freedom, you were either not to 
 be found in your place, or flood there tottering in your 
 ihoes. There is only one exception to thefe remarks ; 
 and that is on the queftion of the MafTachufetts amend 
 ment to the federal conftitution, principally aimed at Mr. 
 Gallatin. On that proposition you made an elaborate and 
 ingenious fpeech. You did yourfelf much credit -, but 
 you riflced nothing. The amendment was odious in the 
 fight of the republicans, and not very popular with the 
 federalills in the Affembly. There was a known majority 
 aguinft it. 
 
 Your conduct was very different on the Virginia and 
 Kentucky refolutions. On them you dilplaycd no energy 5 
 no eloquence. You appeared uninterefted in the iilue of 
 the momentous qucflion , you were indifferent to its fate. 
 You voted in favor of them it is true, but you fcavcely 
 fpoke in their defence. There was a majority of federal- 
 ills in the Affembly againft them, and this, inflead of ex 
 citing you to correfpondent exertions, fealed your lips. 
 The refolutions were cenfurcd fifty to forty-thre?. 
 
This trimr.nng conduct did not pafs without notice. It 
 was attributed to \hi\tprudcnt policy which, while it kd 
 not to an immediate rupture with your own party, had a 
 tendency to conciliate the afFc&ious of the oppofite feet in 
 your favor. It had the defired effect ; and their fenfe of 
 your general conduct manifefted iifelf at the Prefidentui 
 conteft in the Houfe of Reprefentatives. They viewed 
 you as a feeker of power under a falie exterior ; as being 
 fecretly with them. 
 
 But though you were indifferent to thefe great national 
 queftions, you were ever attentive to thofe which promifed 
 a gratification of your defircs. You devoted, without in- 
 terruiffion, fix months to the act to incorporate the Man 
 hattan company. Here, no exertion on your part was 
 wanting , you were not indifferent. From this you not only 
 expected to derive forty or fifty thoufand dollars, which 
 it is faid you actually made by the institution, but you an 
 ticipated a rich harvelt of popularity from both parties, 
 whom you took good care to intereil in it. Thefe were 
 objects fufficient to command your ferious attention, to 
 animate your endeavours. They did fo. The firit was 
 the principal caufe of your exertion, the fecond an object 
 not unwelcome to a man of your unbounded ambition. 
 The at to incorporate the Manhattan company, your 
 celebrated fcheme for the erection of a new oilice to fu- 
 perintend the exaction of efcheats, and a new infolvent 
 bill in all which you were perfonally interested com 
 manded your pfincipal attention while in the State Legif- 
 lature. To queftions of national moment, you were in a 
 great meafure liftlefs ; to your party, generally contume 
 lious. While you were eagerly purfuing projects of per- 
 fonal aggrandizement, you feem to have had neither the 
 urifdom, prudence, nor fuavity necefTary for its attainment. 
 
To your clofet friends, you were bland ; to the community 
 at large, your deportment was forbidding. 
 
 Such has been your conduct in and out of office from the 
 year 1788 to the year 1800 -j conduct that exhibits nei 
 ther talents, probity nor confiilency. There is nothing in 
 it to admire, nothing to applaud, but much to condemn. 
 It manifefts all that low cunning peculiar to little minds. 
 It is neither ufeful nor magnanimous. 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 " A great nan, in the fucccfs and even in the magnitude of 
 " his crimes, finds a iticuc from contempt. * 
 
 JUNIUS. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 WE have followed your footfteps from your firfl poli 
 tical walks in the year 1780 to the year 1800. The jour 
 ney, Sir, has been unpleafant to ourfelves but to the 
 country we hope not unproiitable. In every ftep we have 
 advanced, we have beholden you, like a Proteus, trans 
 forming yourfelf with facility into fhapes adapted to your 
 various pafTions and projects. AMBITION, as we have 
 fcen, has been the fpring to every political a& of your 
 life, and you have purfued it with the conftancy of time 
 and a zeal that no adverfity could mitigate. In the pur- 
 fuit of this haunting fpecbe of your mind, you have not 
 been fcrupulous about the means you have ufed to attain 
 the fupreme object of your heart, the chief magiftracy of 
 the union. Ambition, regulated by legitimate defires, is 
 not only laudable, but conducive to public freedom and 
 national magnanimity., But that ambition, Sir, that feeks, 
 by art and corruption) to fet at naught the combined fuf- 
 
f rages of tin commonwealth, to fap the foundation of the 
 itate, is more deftruiive than a peftilence. Of this na 
 ture is yaur AMBITION. Sir, you have not only neflleil 
 and profecuted with uncommon zeal and activity this a- 
 hrming paflion, but lo ! when your ambitious pro- 
 je&s were happily difcovefred and unfolded to your 
 countrymen, you had that effeminate boldneis, the 
 very image of a defperate character, to difavow them. 
 You have affixed your feal to a denial that you negotiated 
 with the federalifts to d\f appoint the: Country of the man of 
 its choice, and place yourfelf in the executive chair. That 
 denial, Sir, will feal your fate ! We will, in a few days, 
 prove that in this, as in every other adl of your political 
 life, you have fought to deceive your country. Let it be 
 repeated that, in the year 1788, you were a.federalifl. Jea- 
 loufy, ambition, and difappointment cauied you to leave a 
 party from whom you found nothing was to be gained. 
 You left that party and attached yourfelf to the republican, 
 From the republican party you obtained many favors. In 
 1790, one year only after you took a tranfient leave of 
 the federaJiits, you were appointed by the republicans At 
 torney-General of the ftate, and in the year 1791, a federal 
 Senator. Honors were heaped profufely upon you with 
 out any merit on your own. In 1792, one year after your 
 fenatorial appointment, you abdicated your republican 
 friends, and tendered your fervices to the federalijh 
 for the chair of the State Government. In thefc 
 mutations we perceive your genuine charader , that cha- 
 radfcer in which you appeared-to thofe who had their eyes 
 
 rivettcd upon you, at the Prefidential election At this 
 
 D 
 
election you offered your fervices to the federalifls, in the 
 fame fly and fecret manner, to obtain the Prefidency. In 
 this, therefore, when your char after is properly under- 
 flood, there is nothing marvellous. It is only a continua 
 tion of the fame thing > it comports with your uniform 
 conduct. 
 
 Your activity was uniformly apportioned to your felfifh- 
 nefs. You were never active but when you had perfonal 
 favors to expect. At the election for Governor in 1792, 
 after the federalifts refufed to accept you as their candi 
 date, you were not to be feen and fcarcely to be heard of. 
 In 1795, when the republicans made choice of Judge 
 Yates in preference to yourfelf, you retired in dudgeon, 
 and neither moved your lips nor lilted your pen in favor 
 of his election. In 1 796, you rendered no affiftance to 
 the republicans at the election for AfTembly-men. In 
 j 797, you manifefled fome concern for, and contributed 
 your might to the fuccefs of, the republican ticket j but 
 let it be remembered, that you were that year a can 
 didate for the AiTembly ! In 1798, the darkeft period 
 the union hae feen fince the revolution, you neither ap 
 peared at the republican meetings, nor at the polls ; you 
 neither planned in the cabinet nor acted in the field. If 
 you were then eloquent, it was the eloquence of the 
 grave. At that portentious period, when the greateft exer 
 tions were necelTary, you manifefted none. In 1799 you 
 were (till in your fhell : You were neither feen at the 
 ward aflemblies nor on the election ground. But in. 
 1800, you were all activity, all zeal. Every liga 
 ment of your frame was brought into action. You de- 
 
( 27 ) 
 
 voted night and day to the fucccfs of the Repub 
 lican ticket. You attended all our meetings, and har- 
 rangued the aflembled citizens at rnoft. You even flood 
 at the polls and challenged voters. All this was admired, 
 fince, without looking at the motive, it was ierviceabie. 
 We give you full credit for your zeal and activity on trie 
 occafion, efpecially as it was the firft time you exhi 
 bited either. But even here you were the fame man. 
 You were peculiarly inteieiled in the fuccefs of she elec 
 tion. You knew that you would be candidate for the 
 Vice-Prefulency, and you, with the country at large, 
 were of opinion that the faccefs of the Prefidential 
 election depended principally on our triumph in that 
 of our city. You had made nice calculations on 
 this fubjedt, and very clearly forefaw the neceflity 
 for herculean exertions. Accordingly you, were all ani 
 mation. You were firft at the meetings, firft at the 
 polls. While our citizens applauded your conduct, 
 they were ignorant of your motives - they knew little 
 of your real character : it had been carefully inveloped in 
 myitery. Like theirs, they fondly imagined that your zeal 
 and induftry were the effetl: of pure and difmterefled pa- 
 triotifm. Alas ! Sir, they knew you not. 
 
 LETTER VL 
 
 SIR, 
 
 We are now arrived at that important period when it 
 becomes nece&iry to take a more critical view of your in 
 trigues. 
 
We were triumphant in our city election of iBoo, and 
 that triumph fecured the elevation of Mr. Jefferfon and 
 yourfelf. Congrefs was then in feflion, and before its ad 
 journment it was necefiary to nominate two republican 
 candidates for the offices of Prefident and Vice-Prcfident. 
 The Republicans with one voice were, from one extreme 
 of the union to the other, in favor cf Mr. Jefferfon for the 
 former - r they thought, indeed, of no other man for it , in 
 him their hopes were centered. There was fome difficul 
 ty however in chufing a proper perfon for the office of 
 Vice-Prefidency. The members of Congrefs made choice 
 of Governor Clinton, but he declined the offer. While 
 the choice of a candidate for the Vicc-Prefidency was 
 thus fufpended, you vifited Philadelphia, where Congrefs 
 were then met, afibciated with the members, and converfed 
 with them on the fubje6L It was deemed proper that the 
 Vice-Prefident fliould cornc from New- York, and you were 
 ultimately agreed upon as the candidate. Mr. Jefferfon 
 however was the fupreme object: of the election ; you were 
 brought in only to complete the republican fyftem . 
 
 No fooner were you nominated than you fet in motion 
 a, moft refined and extenfive fyftem of intrigue. Your 
 mind embraced the union, and you had agents inmany of the 
 flates to promote your views. In this there was fomcthing 
 exceedingly fufpicious. Why thefe agents if your defigns 
 were honed ? The compenfation of the Vice-Pi efidency 
 could have been no temptation to you. One year s falary 
 of that office would hardly defray the cxpenfcs of your 
 
( 29 ) 
 
 numerous agents fcattered over die union to further your 
 ambitious projects. You had undoubtedly a higher object 
 in view ; you had fixed your eyes on the Prefidency, and 
 adapted your machinations to its attainment. The faiary 
 of the Vice-Prefidency could have been no adequate in 
 ducement to you to quit a profeffion which yield 
 ed double the annual amount , and every body knows that 
 yon depended on that profcflion for fubfiitcnce". The 
 iequel of the fad tale will mew that, to you, even thus 
 early, the Prefidency, in direct cppofnion to the unequivo 
 cal wifhes and expectations of the people, appeared an 
 attainable object. All yov:r intrigues, all your movements,, 
 fubfequent to your nomination, tended directly to its 
 attainment. 
 
 . 
 The ftate of New- York was ycur theatre of action, and 
 
 the choice of the electors commanded all your care. 
 When thefe were chofen you were a member of 
 the State Afiembly for the county of Orange . the choice 
 v/as made by the State Legiflature. On this occafion 
 you were all vigor and activity. You were felicitous 
 for the appointment of one of your bofom friends, 
 and you were eventually gratified. The electors met at 
 Hudfon. Sufpicions however had gone abroad that 
 fome foul play was intended. The period was a critical 
 one, and fufpicion, whether Jwell or ill-founded, uatu- 
 rally excited precaution. The method of voting by 
 ballot, though excellent in itfelf, is admirably calculated to 
 conceal treafon. It was neceflary, therefore, for one or 
 two of the ele&ors," whofe fufpicions were lively, and 
 who had converfed on their mutual doubts, to devife 
 
( 3 ) 
 
 a plan whereby the vote of each might be feen by 
 whole, without giving offence to any. This was done 
 in the following manner : 
 
 General Floyd was made chairman. Pierre Van Court* 
 iaadt, Efq. fat accidently at the table next to the pen, ink 
 and paper. This gentleman was requefted by one of the 
 electors to write him a ticket for Thomas Jefferfon and 
 Aaron Burr. Whether Mr. Van Courtlandt took the 
 hint or not we cannot fay , but he very re?dUy fell into 
 the meafure, wrote one for himfelf, and {hewed it to the 
 electors. He was then ailced by General Floyd to write 
 him a firuilar ticket : he did fo. This was rtp^ut-jd by 
 a third elector, and fo on until in this way Mr. 
 Van Courtlandt wrote nearly the whole of the electoral 
 tickets. If one of the electors entertained improper de- 
 ilgns, this method, to all appearances inadvertently adopt 
 ed, was well calculated to defeat them. Every ticket was 
 feen by the electors. 
 
 Timehas {hewn the wifdom of the precaution. One of the 
 electors,! nominated by Mr. Burr in the legiflature, after 
 wards faid, at the houfe of the Mayor of Hudfon, that 
 if he could have known that Mr. Jefferfon and Mr. Burr 
 would have had an equal number of votes, he would 
 have dropped iVJr. Jefferfon ! We ftate this fact on un- 
 queftionable authority. Left, however, an inference 
 unfavorable to the Mayor of Hudfon, fliould be drawn 
 from the fimple fat of the expreffion having been ufed 
 at his houfe, it is deemed proper to fay, that that gen- 
 
 f Mr. Lefp mwd* 
 
 
( 3 ) 
 
 tleman is and always was a warm and fincere friend of 
 Mr. Jefferfon. 
 
 Such is the fact from which the reader will make his 
 own inference, Let it be added, Sir, that the elector is 
 now devoted to you, and unfriendly to the adminiitration. 
 
 After the electoral affairs vere fixed to your mind in 
 New- York, you vifited Connecticut and Rhode-Iiland. 
 You returned from Khode-Hland with the moft flattering 
 accounts. You ftated that there was every probability 
 that Mr. jefferibn would have one if not two of 
 the votes of that (late, and yourfelf none \ This, 
 Sir, we repeat, was flattering, fmce there was not, 
 we will venture to fay, a faithful Republican in the union 
 who wifhed that equality of votes which was afterwards 
 deplored : it was hoped that Mr. Jefferfon would have one 
 or two votes more than yourfelf to avoid an appeal to the 
 decifion of the Houfe of Representatives. It is known 
 that Mr. Jefferfon had not one of the Rhode-Ifland votes ; 
 nor was there any probability that he would have. But 
 you had an object to accomplifh by the report. You wilhed 
 an equality of votes, without which you could do no 
 thing ; and you were afraid that a fouthern ftate would 
 omit your name on one or two votes, if the electors thereof 
 were not induced to believe that a Hate call of the Hudfoit 
 would give Mr. Jefferfon one vote at leaft more than your- 
 felf. Hence you not only propagated that report yourfelf, 
 but your confidential friends were alfo bufily employed 
 in writing letters to the fouthern dates, reprefenting it as 
 certain that Mr. Jefferfon would have two votes in Rhode*. 
 and yourfelf none. "We could mention the names 
 
( 3- ) 
 
 of peifqns.who wrote fuch letters ; but as they are now 
 y repentant it would be improper. 
 
 By fuch arts, an equality of electoral votes was effect 
 ed. It was defirabie to prevent the election of a federal- 
 ill to the Vice-Prefidency , and it was known that if ma - 
 ny votes were diverted from you, one of the federal candi 
 dates urn ft fucceed. It was enough therefore for the 
 fbuthern ftates to be aiTured, by perfons whofe infidelity. 
 K> the caufe was unknown and unfufpecled, that Mr. Jef- 
 feribn would have two votes more than yourfelf to the eaft- 
 xyard of the North-River. They werelaught to believe 
 i his, and- the confequence of the intrigue was that even 
 tually you had an equality of votes with Mr. JeiFerfun. 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 AFTER your return from Connecticut and Khodc- 
 Ifland, you turned your attention to the fouthern Hates. 
 It iff not neceffary todefcribe the fituation of Pennfylvania 
 reipe<5ting the Presidential election ; it is well known. 
 The . pertinacity of the " Spartan Band" was regretted 
 by. no man more than yourfelf. Had the fifteen 
 votes of that refpetable ftate been republican, you had 
 caufe to believe "your election to the Presidency would 
 have been certain. You were then, as you are now, ex 
 ceedingly intimate with Mr. Dayton. This intimacy 
 partqdk at that time as it does now, more of affcttionatc 
 tordiality^ and, was cementpd by more mutual good offices, 
 than are generally to be found among gentlemen of oppo- 
 
(33 ) 
 
 rite political fentiments. Your connexion had, at it 
 now has, a fufpicious afpccl. General Dayton declared 
 fmce the election, that if all the votes of Pennfylvania had 
 been republican, it was a fixed plan for New-Jerfey to give 
 you as many votes as would have made you Prefidcnt. 
 We have this important facl from authority that we can 
 not doubt. And who that witncflcd the conteft in the 
 Houfe of Reprefentatives will queftion the cxiftence of 
 fuch a projecl ? If the entire of the Pennfylvania vote 
 had been given to Mr. Jefferfon and yourfelf, federal op- 
 pofition would hav ceafed ; the fcderalifts could have had 
 no hopes of fuccefs. They would have endeavored to ef 
 fect that by 4ap which they could not atchievc by num 
 bers. They would, even according to General Dayton^ 
 have reforted to that expedient " to counteract the wiftiei 
 and expectations of the people" which eventually in the 
 Houfe of Reprefentatives they embraced. They were de 
 termined to go all lengths to prevent the election of Mr. 
 JefFcrfon. 
 
 In the full knowledge of that projecl you had an agent 
 at Lancafter, the feat of government of Pennfylvania, to 
 do every thing in his power to haften it. This agent went 
 from your houfe, he is one of your confidential friends, he 
 was f urniflied by you with letters of recommendation, and 
 in turn, there is reafon to believe, he fent you difpatchet 
 detailing the fuccefs of his miflion. We had faid that w 
 believed hit views were honeft ; we now repeat the af- 
 fcrtion ; but thii makei him not a jot the kfi your agent 
 
 
 
( 34 ) 
 
 it only acquits him, in our eftimation, of collufion with 
 yourfelf. But his agency was unproductive. No im- 
 preflion could be made on the federal members of the 
 3Pennfylvania fenate. The modern was more fuccefsful 
 than the ancient Spartan Band. The BriiiJJj mimjier wa* 
 there ! and the federalifts triumphed in their iniquity. 
 
 Meantime, Sir, you had your eye on South-Caroling. 
 You had an agent, Mr. Timothy Greene of this city, at 
 Columbia, the feat of government of that ftate. It was 
 queftionable whether South-Carolina would give you a 
 fmgle vote. At that period you were fcarcely known in 
 "the ftate. Mr. Greene was at Columbia at lead two 
 months. He was your eulogift ; your interceffbr. Be 
 fent difpatches regularly ; they were addrefled to Mr. 
 John S wart w out of this city under cover, and by him 
 "communicated to you. At length eight republican electors 
 were chofen ; and as they imagined that no harm could 
 refult to the country from your rifmg to power with Mr. 
 Jefferfon, they voted for you in company with this illuf- 
 trious ftatefman. 
 
 : The South-Carolina votes completed the equality, and 
 : thofe who had dreaded an appeal to the Houfe of Repre- 
 - fentatives now became alarmed. The plots of the federal 
 ifts were well known ; their defperation and vindi&ive- 
 nefs hot lefs fo. We had every thing to fear from their 
 machinations, and nothing to hope from their juftice, 
 
 On the 1 6th day of December, 1800, information from 
 your agent, Mr. Greene, was received in this city detailing 
 
( 35 ) 
 
 the names of the South-Carolina ele&ors, and dating, un 
 equivocally, that previons to their appointment^ 1 they were 
 pledged to vote for Mr. Jefflrfon and yourfelf. Ihis ren 
 dered our knowledge of the equality of votes between Mr. 
 JcfFerfon and yourfelf as certain as if known hy official an 
 nunciation, i he mail that brought the letter from Mr. 
 Greene, and which was publifhed in this city on the i6th 
 day of December, it is prefumable, brought you the fame 
 information, and from the fr.me perfon. Hence it may 
 be inferred that on the i6th day of December you were 
 certain that the electoral votes between Mr. Jefferfon and 
 yourfelf were equal. Yet on the fame day you wrote your 
 celebrated epiftle to General Samuel Smith of Baltimore, 
 in which you fay, we believe contrary to the information 
 received by you from Mr. Greene, and on which you un 
 doubtedly relied, It is highly improbable that I (hall have 
 an equal number of votes with Mi. Jefferfon." The fol 
 lowing is your letter to General Smith. It is peculiarly 
 proper at this time to give it circulation. 
 
 Extra ft of a letter from Colonel Burr to General Smith of 
 
 Baltimore^ dated Nenv-Tork, December i6th> 1801. 
 " It is highly improbable that I fhall have an equal 
 number of votes with Mr. Jefferfon : but if fuch (hould be 
 the refult, every man who knows me ought to know that 
 I would utterly difclaim all competition. Be affured that 
 the federal party can entertain no wifh for fuch an ex 
 change. As to my friends, they would difhonor my views 
 and infult my feelings, by a fufpicion that I would fubmit 
 to be inftrumental in counteracting the wifhes and ex 
 pectations of the United States. And I now conftitute 
 you my proxy to declare thefe fentitnents, if the occafion 
 (hall require." 
 
( 3* ) 
 
 This letter, which gave n$ authority to General Smith 
 to publifh it, but which he very properly did, afforded 
 fome fatisfaclion at the time to thofe wl o thought you a 
 faithful politician. But, Sir, if you had meant it for pub 
 lication, and in fact and with fmcciity to difclaim all 
 competition with Mr. Jefferfon," it was of a nature fo e- 
 quivocal as to be inefficacious. Had you " really meant 
 to difclaim all competition with l^r. Jefferfon," there is 
 one way, which muft have been obvious to yourfelf at 
 the time, in which you might have done fo effectually. 
 You ought, Sir, to have faid " it is evidently the wi(h of 
 the people to place X r. Jefferfon at the head of the gov 
 ernment ; and it is probable, from the ufual conduct of 
 the federalifts, that, to difappoint the people, they may at 
 tempt to place the adminiftration in my hands. I fliould 
 cordially contemn fo improper an aft. I will never ac 
 cept it from them. Should they by menace or by intrigue, 
 by force or by fraud, be enabled to commit the executive 
 power to my guidance, I will injiantly reftgn it to him t$ 
 whtm tkt people have txcluftvely ellotttd it. I will accept 
 no office contrary to their will." 
 
 But, Sir, it did not exactly fuit your views to be thus 
 explicit. You did mean to " counteract the wi(hes and 
 expectations of the people," it (hall be our bufinefg to 
 prove this in our next letter. 
 
( 37 ) 
 LETTER V11L 
 
 M The Miniftcr, who by fccret corruption invades the free- 
 * dom of citation, and the ruffian, \vho by optti violence oe- 
 41 ftroys that freedom, arc embarked in the fame bottom. 9 
 
 jUNiUS. 
 
 TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 WE arc aware of the importance of the fubjet in 
 which we have for fome time been engaged. We have 
 viewed it in all its afpecls, and contemplated all its pro 
 bable confequences. Since June, 1801, we have per 
 ceived fomething in Mr. Burr and in his a&s, that alarm 
 ed us. From the firft moment our fufpicions were ex 
 cited we watched him attentively until thofc fufpicions 
 ripened unto confirmed belief, that he was purfuing pro 
 jects difhonorable to himfelf and unfafe to his country. 
 Nor was this belief predicated on light furmifes, or vague 
 report. We knew that he poflefled fentiments hoftile to 
 the executive ; a fpirit intent on perfonal aggrandize 
 ment, and inflamed by improper defires. And yet, fenfi- 
 ble as we were that his conduct was a fit fubjet for 
 public inveftigation and difclofure, we could not but fore- 
 fee that to dp either without fucccfs would involve us in 
 pecuniary rum, .and draw upon us public difgrace. Had 
 we confulted perfonal intereft^ we (hould have beholden in 
 filent but forrowful amaze the Operation of fchemc* 
 which, iri our opinion, were dangerous to the freedom of 
 the country. But unaided and unfupported we refolved, 
 whatever might be the iflue, to unfold thofe plans and 
 affuil thofe actions which appeared to u alike unjuft and 
 
alarming. We did net, however, long ftand alone ; and 
 we difcovered that the more his conduct was examined, 
 the more odious it appeared. 
 
 We have entered fully into an examination of his con- 
 <lu6t, and found it uniform only in the purfuit of what 
 ever had a tendency to raife hirnfelf to power. As a po* 
 litician, he has been inconftant. In all his tranfitions from 
 one party to the other, his motives have been apparent. 
 At one period he was a federally at another a repub 
 lican, as belt fuited his views, or promifed to grati 
 fy his inordinate de fires. Ambition has guided all his 
 fteps ; cunning marked his career ; and that laxity of 
 principle which diftinguifhed the Cxfars, the Cromwells, 
 and the Bonapartesof the old world, has been apparent in 
 his walks. In 1789, he left the federalifls and joined the 
 republicans for a high office, and was gratified ; and in 
 1792 he madefecrtt overtures to rejoin the fedcralifts for 
 a higher office, but was not gratified, which has been 
 eftablifhed in a former letter. Is it then furprifing that, 
 in 1800, a third attempt was covertly made by Mr. Burr, 
 to attach himfelf to the federal party to compafs the Pre- 
 fidency ? In this we perceive a confiftency of character ; 
 an uniformity of conducl. 
 
 In a late pamphlet, entitled A View," &c. Mr. Burr 
 5s accufed with having negotiated with a federal gentleman 
 to place hJmfef/fin the executive shair at the late prefidential 
 eleHcn* After a long filence he has thought proper 
 publicly and in the fullefl and moft unqualified manner, 
 to deny the accufation. The facl is unqueflionable, dif 
 ficult as the proof may be of accefs. Mr, Burr, however, 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 and the writer of the " View" are now fairly at iilue ; and 
 as we know the charge to be well founded, we ha, e vo 
 luntarily undertaken to prove it. In doing this it will be 
 proper firft to lay the allegation before the reader, and fe- 
 condly, Mr. Burr s denigl. 
 
 The accufation is contained in the following words : 
 
 " Mr. Burr, whi e in the city of Ncw-Totk, carried on 
 " a negotiation with the heads of the federal party at Wa/h- 
 u ington, -with a view to his eleclion as Prefident of the U- 
 <c nited States* Jl perfon was authorifed by them to confer 
 " with him on the fubjeft, who accordingly did fo. Mr. Burr 
 " ajjented to the proportions of the negotiator and referred him 
 " to his confidential friend to complete the negotiation. Mr. 
 Burr Jlated that after the firjl vote taken in the Hcttfe of 
 " Reprefentativesy Nrw-Tork and Ttnnejfee would give in to 
 
 thefederali/ts." 
 
 View, p. 57 8. 
 
 Mr, Burr s denial of this charge is couched in the 
 fucceeding terms. 
 
 Ton are at liberty to declare from me, that all thofi 
 charges and inftnuations which aver or in timate that I ad- 
 fs iiifed or countenanced the oppofitien made to Mr. jftferfon 
 (( pending the late eleclion and ballotting for Prefident ; that 
 / propofed or agreed to any terms with ihe federal party > 
 * s that I ajfented to be held up in oppofition to him, or attempt- 
 ** ed to withdraw from him the vote or fupport of any man, 
 " whether In or out of Congrefs ; THAT ALL SUC& AS- 
 
( 40 ) 
 
 SERT10N9 AND INTIMAT10X3 AR& PAL3& AN9 
 " GROUNDLESS" 
 
 Mr. Burr s letter to Gorernor Bloom- 
 field, dated Sept. 21, 1802. 
 
 If Mr. Burr s denial be true he is innocent, as far at 
 it concerns this capital charge, and ought to receive from 
 his country a full and entire acquital ; but if guilty, then 
 ought that guilt to feal his political fate and banifh him 
 forever from the trull and affcUoni of the people. 
 
 Few men believe that Mr. Burr is innocent ; many 
 ftrongly fufpe& that he is guilty of the charge exhibit 
 ed, and almofl all are of opinion that he has manag 
 ed the negociation with fo much caution, dexterity, 
 and art, as to defy the production of proof. The 
 latter opinion is drawn from the known fubtilty of 
 his character, the general fecrecy of his movements, and 
 his fcrupulous avoidance to commit to writing any thing 
 which may, by pcffibility of accident, involve him in fe- 
 rious inconveniences. The known care and cunning too 
 of Mr. Burr, it is generally and juftly fuppofed, would be 
 increafed in proportion to the iniquity of the tranfatUon, 
 and the confequenc -s likely to refult from it to him- 
 felf in cafe of a difciofure. All thcfe confiderations, to 
 which Mr. Burr paid fuitable attention, and which he nw 
 doubt perceived before he embarked in the negociation, 
 render, it is true, the production of proof difficult. And 
 this difficulty becomes augmented when we confider that 
 the negociation took place and was completed folely be 
 tween Mr. Burr and the federalifts, and that it is equally 
 
( 41 ) 
 
 the hitereft of both parties to keep it a profound fecret. 
 From the nature of the tranfa&ion, and the motives and 
 objects of the two contracting parties, proof, muft be dif 
 ficult of accefs, fince this proof, it is fair to infer, is ex- 
 clufively in the pofleflion of Mr. Burr and the federal ne- 
 gociator. Nor can it be fuppofed that Mr. Burr would 
 be a felf accufer, or that the federalifts would be guilty 
 of an at that would enevitably injure their party. 
 They are fenfible that a divifion exifts among the re 
 publicans ; that this divifion is occafioned by the machina 
 tions of Mr. Burr; that it is propitious to their views, 
 and that to difclofe the teftimony which would compofe 
 thofe divifions, would injure their party, inafmuch as it 
 would unite the republicans not only againft that party, 
 but againft the man -who has in the moft alarming 
 manner attempted to betray their confidence. Mr. Burr, 
 therefore, and the federalifts feel every inducement that 
 can poflibly exift to keep back the proof. The federal party 
 {till hope to profit by Mr. Burr s convenient difpofition and 
 to triumph on our divifion. When thefe things are con- 
 fidered if will not be furprifing if we mould fail to lay be 
 fore our country the fulleft and moft fatisfaftory proof of 
 Mr. Burr s tiegociation ; and although it will not be deem 
 ed probable, under all the circumftances of the cafe, that 
 more than presumptive teftimony can be adduced, yet we 
 (hall prove fubftantially the negociation, and that it was 
 entered into by Mr. Burr to ciFed his eledion to thePre* 
 fidential chair. 
 
 F 
 
( 4* ) 
 
 The following communication is written by a 
 gentleman of unblemimed character , one who is a 
 member of the Rev. Mr. Abeel s congregation, and who 
 informs us and we place the utmoft confidence in his 
 information that the ideas and the language of it arc 
 precifely thofe of Mr. Abeel and Dr. Linn ; and although 
 its publication is not ftrictly authorifed by Mr. Abeel and 
 Dr. Linn, yet the fpirit and the language of it are em 
 phatically their own. Neither of thofe two gentlemen 
 will contradict in public or in private, the facts fiated in 
 the communication. And though Mr. Abeel and Dr. 
 Linn are not pledged to us to maintain thofe facts ; al 
 though indeed we have not had a perfonal interview with 
 cither, yet they are bound in honor and in truth to fup- 
 port the veracity of him who has been fo obliging as to 
 make to us the communication. If it be alked why the 
 communicator does not avow his name, we anfwer that 
 there is no occafion for fuch an avowal, fince Mr. Abeel 
 and Dr. Linn will not nor cannot contradict the facts it 
 contains. If, however, contrary to expectation, they 
 fhould contradict or endeavour to weaken thofe facts, 
 then the communicator is pledged to fupport them by 
 affidavit. Let it be remembered that Dr. Linn, Mr. A- 
 beel, and the communicator, refide in this city. 
 
 New-Fork, June 2$th, 1802. 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 Dr. Linn and the Reverend Mr. Abeel of this city 
 " told me, in a converfation I had with them, that they 
 believed Aaron Burr, Efq. had correfponded with feds- 
 
( 43 ) 
 
 < ral members of Congrefs to get himfclf elected Pre- 
 " fident of the United States, and that he had agreed to 
 come into their meafures. Some time after, I faw Mr. 
 " Abeel and he faid it was a miitake that Mr. Burr 
 " had correfponded with federal members of Congrefs, but 
 " he had made a verbal agreement with them, and 
 " that if I wanted an invefcigation of the bufmefs the 
 " perfon was then in town who would prove the fact." 
 
 " Note. I afked Dr. Linn his reafon for believing that 
 the correfpondence took place ? He replied that it 
 could be proved in a court of juftice, and Mr. Abeel 
 " fubjoined that he would vouch for its truth." 
 
 June 26. 
 
 I called on Mr. Abeel this day and told him that I 
 " was going to make public what he and Dr. Linn had 
 " communicated to me refpe&ing Mr. Burr. Mr. Abeel 
 faid that although the agreement which Mr. Burr had 
 made with the federalifts, was not told to him as a fecret, 
 c yet, as the gentleman who was his author had the cha- 
 * f raEler of Mr. Burr in bis hands, he would not perhaps 
 " wifh his name to be given up without his confent. Mr. 
 Abeel promifed to fee him between this day and Mon- 
 " day next." 
 
 June 28. 
 
 I called on Mr. Abeel and aflced him whether he 
 " had feen the gentleman above referred to ? He an- 
 fwered no, but that he had confidered the fubjecT: and 
 " did not think his informant would contradict 
 < what he had faid, but that he was afraid it would 
 produce a duel between him and Mr. Burr. I then 
 u told him that I would make public what he had 
 
( 44 ) 
 
 <* communicated to me. He faid, well ! but added that it 
 might be attended with difagreeable confequences." 
 
 Such is the communication of our friend. 
 
 It is probable that Mr. Abeel was made acquainted 
 with the negociation entered into between Mr. Burr and 
 the federal gentleman by the negociator himfelf , for fo 
 firmly was he perfuaded that Mr. Burr had cordially 
 received the negociator and aflented to his propofi- 
 tionSj that he authorised the gentleman, who communi 
 cated to us the above information, to repeat it to Mr. 
 Burr, and to add that {V r. Abeel was his arithor. The 
 gentleman did not, however, communicate the informa 
 tion to Mr, Burr, but he frankly gave it to us for the ufe of 
 the writer of the " View." Accordinly it was introduced 
 into that work, which Mr. Burr has read. [v,r. Abeel 
 snd Dr. Linn are the two clergymen mentioned in it, and 
 were generally known as fuch. Thus fituated, <X,r. Burr 
 could hardly do lefs than vifit Dr. Linn and Mr. Abeel 
 on the fubjecl:. The following fats are alfo from 
 Dr. Linn and Mr. Abeel, and, like the communication 
 jufl read, will not be contradicted. After confiderable 
 time had elapfed, Mr. Burr fent to Dr. Linn a friend, 
 who alked him to fign a certificate for Mr. Burr. This 
 certificate dated that the information given by Dr. Linn 
 to the gentleman who had communicated it to us for pub 
 lication in the " View," was derived from common report* 
 The bearer of the certificate fubjoined, that Mr. Burr 
 wifhed Dr. Linn to do no more than fimply to certify that 
 he got his information concerning the negociation from 
 
( 45 ) 
 
 Common report. Dr. Linn fent for Mr. Abcel to confult 
 him on the fubjeft. Mr. Abecl waited on Dr. Linn 
 accordingly Dr. Linn in the prefence of the bearer 
 of the certificate, afked Mr. Abeel whether he would fign 
 it ? Mr. Abeel replied no, Dr. Linn, you cannot ; the 
 information we gave of Mr. Burr s negociation <was not 
 obtained from common report. Dr. Linn then faid he 
 could not fign the certificate and the bearer of it took his 
 leave. 
 
 Mr. Burr afterwards wrote a note to Dr. Linn requeft- 
 ing a conference with him at his houfe alone When the 
 note was received, Dr. Linn again fent for Mr. Abeel to 
 confer with him on the folicited interview. Mr. Abeel 
 advifed Dr. Linn to avoid a conference with Mr. 
 Burr along) and exprefled a readinefs to accompany 
 him provided Mr. Burr would receive them together. 
 This was agreed upon, and they accordingly waited on 
 Mr. Burr at his ciun houfe, where an interview was had in 
 the prefence of a gentleman whofe name is to us unknown. 
 Mr, Burr addrefled hknfelf to Dr. Linn and very politely 
 enquired whether the information flated in the " View" 
 concerning his negociation with the federalifts, and faid 
 to have come from two refpe&able clergymen in this 
 city, was not derived by them from common report ? 
 Mr. Abeel faid no the information was not derived 
 from common report. Dr. Linn coincided with Mr. 
 Abeel. A paufe enfued. Mr. Abeel fays that he ex 
 pected IVfr. Burr would have immediately enquired 
 " from whom, gentlemen, did you receive the informa- 
 
( 46 ) 
 
 tion ? * but that no fuch enquiry was made ; no fucn 
 queftion afked. Mr. Burr manifefted no difpofition to 
 fift the matter fo clofely : he enquired no further about 
 it. & /! r. Abeel then obferved that himfelf and Dr. Linn 
 had given the information to the gentleman who com 
 municated it to us for publication in the " View" and 
 that they were bound to fupport his veracity : they were 
 lorry to fay any thing againft Mr. Burr, &c. Mr. Burr 
 thanked them for their politenefs and they retired. 
 
 This is a faithful narrative of this fingular interview, 
 011 which we hope we may be permitted to offer a few 
 remarks. 
 
 The extreme folicitude of Mr. Burr to procure a 
 certificate from Mr. Abeel and Dr. Linn, importing 
 that they had received their information concerning 
 his negociation with a federal gentleman from common 
 report, plainly indicates a difpofition to defend him 
 felf againft the principal charge exhibited in the * View" 
 in the moil conclufive manner. That he has not vindi 
 cated himfelf by teflimony ; that he has not given to the 
 world other and better proof than his own denial of 
 the negociation, is folely attributable to his incapacity to 
 do more. The charge is of fo ferious a nature, and, 
 from the known character of Mr. Burr, fo probable, as to 
 have induced him to call into action every power of his 
 mind to repel it. Accordingly he availed himfelf of the 
 only alternative that promifed fuccefs. Mr. Burr had 
 reafon to believe that Mr. Abeel, if not Dr t 
 
( 47 ) 
 
 Linn, had been informed of the negotiation by the 
 negeciator himfelf. Still he deemed it pojffible to ob 
 tain from them a certificate purporting that common 
 report was their authority. Even fuch a certificate 
 would have been confoling to Mr. Burr, and no doubt 
 publifhed with great ^triumph ; and this, knowing, 
 as he did, the conne&ion of Mr. Abeel and Dr. 
 Linn with the negociator, was the only one for which 
 he could alk. Hence thofe gloomy reflections which 
 fealed his lips, when the certificate was in facT: twice 
 refufed, may be readily accounted for. But why did 
 not Mr. Burr afk, when Mr. Abeel boldly faid we did 
 not receive the information from common report , from 
 whom, then, was it derived ? If the monitor with 
 in had not proclaimed his guilt, had he not negociat- 
 cd with federalifts to place himfelf in the Prefidency, 
 would he not have faid, with an air of innocent triumph, 
 if you received not your information from common re 
 port, from whom was it derived ? I deny that it ia 
 true , I defy the world to prove it ; I challenge in- 
 veftigation of it ; I infift that you had your informa 
 tion from common report, fince it has no foundation in 
 truth. Would not a guiltlefs man, accufed of an offence 
 fo enormous, have demanded from whom the two Rev 
 erend Gentlemen had obtained their information ? Mr. 
 Burr, however, made no fuch enquiry. 
 
 On the other hand, the refufal of Dr. Linn and 
 Mr. Abeel to give the required certificate, evinces 
 their implicit reliance on the fource of their informa 
 
( 4 ) 
 
 tion ; that they had good caufe to deem it correct ; that 
 they were in facl: almoft as certain that Mr. Burr had 
 negotiated to place himfelf in the Prefidential chair, as if 
 they had themfelves been the negociators. The refufal is 
 not, indeed, conclufive proof of the negotiation, but it 
 {hews, in a clear point of view, that Mr. Abeel and 
 Dr. Linn had fatisfaftory caufe to believe that Mr, 
 Burr had cordially received the negociator and enter 
 ed into his views. 
 
 That Mr. Abeel and Dr. Linn were convinced Vhr. 
 Burr had negociated with a federal gentleman, will be 
 {till more apparent when we ftate who that gentleman 
 is. We then declare that the FEDERAL GENTLEMAN 
 WHO NEGOCIATED WITH MR. BURR, and who was au 
 thorized to do fo by leading federal members of Con- 
 grefs, then aflembled at Washington, is DAVID A. 
 OGDEN, Efquire, COUNSELLOR AT LAW. Mr. OG- 
 DEN refides in this city, and is profeflionally connect 
 ed with General Hamilton ; we belive they are co 
 partners. They, however, both tranfaft profeflional 
 bufmefs in one office. Mr. Abeel and Dr. Linn arc 
 known to be intimate with Mr. Ogden and General Ha 
 milton. Hence when the two Reverend gentlemen 
 ftated to Mr. Burr that their information was not de 
 rived from common report, the allufion muft to him have 
 been very obvious, and the fource of their information, 
 though never that we know of by them mentioned, will 
 not appear to the public lefs fo. 
 
 More than eight months ago we knew that Mr. Ogdea 
 was the negotiator, and it is now ftated as an undeniable 
 truth. 
 
( 49 ) 
 
 There is reafon to believe that the ncgcciat wn with Mr. 
 Burr was firit planned in this city. This is, however, 
 merely a furmife, not very material in itfelf, but proper to 
 be mentioned. On the i6th day of December 1800, we re^ 
 ceived information that the electors of South Carolina 
 were chofen.From that day the fuccefs of Mr. Jefferfon 
 and Mr. Burr was no longer doubted by either party. 
 The laft refource of the federal party was to effecl: the 
 election of Mr. Burr to the Prefidency. Means were im 
 mediately devifed, and we think in this city, to accomplifh 
 that object. On the 27th day of December, eleven days 
 only after the South-Carolina news was received, Mr. Da 
 vid A. Ogden engaged a feat in the mail ftage for Phila 
 delphia. It is probable that previous to his going to Phila 
 delphia, he conferred with Mr. Burr on the fubjec~t of ef 
 fecting his election to the Prefidency by the efforts of the 
 federal party, and that he went to Wafhington to confult 
 with the leading federal members of Congrefs on the 
 fcheme. It is believed that Mr. Ogden had no profef- 
 fional bufmefs to tranfacl at Wafhington, and it is there 
 fore difficult to conjecture what induced him, at that bleak 
 feafon of the year, to vifit the feat of government, unlefs 
 to confult with the federal members of Congrefs on the 
 project: to negociate with Mr. Burr the terms of his elec 
 tion to the Prefidency. It is probable that Mr. Ogden 
 went to Wafhington exprefsly for that purpofe, and that hs 
 previoufly conferred with Mr. Burr on the defign. 
 
 We have dated that Mr. Ogden left this city in the 
 mail ftage for Philadelphia on the ayth day of December. 
 
 G 
 
LC following certificate, which proves that Mr. Burr 
 and himfelf rode together in the fame mail-flage^ eftablimes 
 the fad : 
 
 < New-York, Saturday, 27th December, 
 1800, one o clock. 
 
 Mail Stage. 
 
 Mr. Ogden, i feat to Philadelphia, .300 
 
 Col. Burr, 2 feats to Princeton, 3 15 o 
 
 I certify that the above is a true copy from the Stage- 
 Books. MATTHIAS C. LYON." 
 
 Mr. Burr and Mr. Ogden might have ridden together 
 in the mail without preconcert ; whether they did fo or 
 not every reader y/ill judge for himfelf. To us this fim- 
 ple acl: fpeaks a pertinent and eloquent language : it in 
 dicates much. 
 
 Mr. Ogden did not remain long at Wamington. 
 "While there, h* was authorized by leaders of the fe 
 deral party to negociate with Mr. Burr the terms on 
 which they propofed to elecl; him Prefident of the United 
 States. Thus commiflioned, Mr. Ogden returned to this 
 city early in January, j 80 1, had an interview with Mr. 
 Burr and fubmitted to him proportions which fhall by 
 and by be explained. To thefe Mr. Burr aflented. 
 
 Immediately after Mr. Ogden s interview with Mr. 
 Burr, a letter was written by a leading federalift in this city, 
 to an influential member of Congrefs at Wamington, giv 
 ing a full and accurate detail of the negotiation. The 
 
( 5 ) 
 
 following letter, addrefled to a gentleman in this city, and 
 written at Wafhington at the time, fully explains the 0112 
 penned by the leading federa -ifl juft mentioned. 
 
 " Wajbington % i$th January, 1801. 
 " It is not true that there is an inequality in the votes 
 of South-Carolina favorable to Mr. Jefferfon, and the 
 Union, I fear, will have deep caufe to lament it. The 
 profpetts are far lefs bright and decifive than could be 
 " wifhed, which makes it more interefting that the real 
 " friends of Mr. Jefferfon s election fliould be watchful 
 " againft the intrigues which are in train for the .purpofe 
 of defeating it." 
 
 " The following information comes through dif- 
 Cs ferent channels in which implicit confidence may be 
 "placed." - 
 
 " Mr. David A. Ogden of your city, when not long 
 * f fince at Washington, was authorifed by fome leading 
 " men on the federal fide in Congrefs, to have a confer- 
 <c ence with Col. Burr for the purpofe of ascertaining two 
 " things ; firft, what would be the conduct he \\-ould 
 " obferve if elected by the means of the federalifts, in re- 
 " fpecl: to certain cardinal points of federal policy ? Se- 
 cond, what co-operation and aid he could and would 
 " afford towards procuring fuccefs to his own election, if 
 the attempt (hould be made." 
 
 " Mr. Ogden, having made a communication accord- 
 <c ingly to Col. Burr, was anfwered by him in fubflance, 
 " that as to the firft point it would not be proper or ex- 
 
( s* ) 
 
 t( pedient to enter into explanation. That as to the fecond 
 * point, the federalifts might be aflured that New-York 
 " and Tenneffee on a fecond ballot would vote for him, 
 " and that probably Ncw-Jerfey and one of the fouthern 
 ** ftates might be induced to do the fame." 
 
 " In a fubfequent conference, he referred to a gentle- 
 man who he faid would be entrufted to fpeak more par- 
 " ticularly, and was to be his confidential friend at the feat 
 " of government." 
 
 " The material points of this negociation, though net 
 c < with all the particulars mentioned above, have been com- 
 t( municated in a letter from a high federal character in your 
 " city, and one who has long had a predominant controul 
 <f in his party, to an influential member of Congrefs." 
 
 " Thus is the well known wim of the people bartered 
 * to promote individual intereft, and a man elevated to 
 " the great office of ftate who has been raifed into notice 
 *< by the well earned popularity of him he would fup- 
 " plant/ 
 
 c This comes to me in a fliape which renders any com- 
 cc munication of it embarraffing in the extreme, and re- 
 * quires particularly that the name of the negociator 
 " fliould be kept a profound fecret ; but it appeared to 
 " me efTential that you mould be apprifed of it the better 
 " to enable you to obferve the future motion of the par- 
 " ties." 
 
 " Means of a very prompt and imperative nature mutt 
 " be adopted to counteract the fchcme. Ton ma$ remotely 
 
Sf f/mt the poffibility of fome overtures from the profligacy 
 * c and defperation of the party." 
 
 " Your delegation mould be urged from different quar- 
 " ters to remain firm, regardiefs of temporary appearances 
 " or the opinions of wavering or timid minds. The fede- 
 < ralifts difcover a concert flrongly indicative of fome im- 
 " portant object." 
 
 By adverting to the date it will be feen that the above 
 letter was written immediately after Mr. Ogden s negocia- 
 tion with Mr. Burr, and a letter had been received- at 
 Wafhington from a leading federal character in this city- 
 detailing the terms of that negochtion. It will alfo be 
 feen that the letter is of an highly confidential nature, and 
 that confiderations of peculiar delicacy prevented its 
 being made public. Nothing but the importance 
 of the fubje&, and the bold, unblufhing denial of 
 the negociation by Mr. Burr, could have induced the gen 
 tleman who wrote it to permit its publication. Nor 
 was his confent to give it publicly obtained until a 
 letter was written to him by a friend of ours for that pur- 
 pofe, to which the following is an anfwer. 
 
 5th October, iSoz. 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 " I was abfent on a vifit and did not return till this 
 morning after the mail had clofed. I perceive the im- 
 a portance of the requeft which is made of you, but I am 
 " under reftraints of peculiar delicacy." 
 
( 54 ) 
 
 "" Our intelligent friends would I think be fatisfied with 
 my permitting the fubjlance of my confidential commu- 
 <{ nication to you to be made known. The critical cir- 
 ** cumftances under which I gave it to you, have juftified 
 tf me to myfelf. To give the exact terms of my letter, 
 may involve me in very ferious perfonal inconveniences ; 
 <c but if you have reafon to expecl: collufion between Burr 
 " and Ogden, and that engagements of fecrecy have been 
 " made by others, you had then better authorife a literal 
 " publication, and in cafe Ogden denies the fads dated 
 " therein, you are authorifed from me to give the name of 
 " , as the high federal character I alluded to, as the 
 
 " writer of the letter to Wafhington, and on which mine 
 " was predicated. I made a memorandum at the time. 
 < I thought I had taken the date, but I well recollecl: 
 " it was in January. If Ogden mould prevaricate and 
 <f this become neceflary, it would conform with my wifhes 
 ** that you fignify to my name." 
 
 I am ably fully to eftablifh the fa<3. I can hardly 
 <f think he will lend his weight of reputation to counte- 
 f< nance fuch extreme profligacy. But we ought to fup- 
 * pofe nothing impoffible when we confider the flrong 
 * motives of party policy which may exift for difguifmg 
 " the tranfaction." 
 
 The public will now be anxious to know the name of 
 the " high federal charaEler" who wrote the letter from this 
 city, to an influential member of Congrefs, detailing the 
 negociation. That name is ftill a myflery. It is eminent 
 ly due to the gentleman to whom the two letters above 
 
( 55 ) 
 
 were addrefTed, and who has kindly put copies of them 
 in our poflefiion, to fay that he has not communicated 
 to us the name of the " high federal character." Yet we 
 are in pofleflion of a variety of fa&s, derived from a mul 
 tiplicity of correct fources, which do more than enable us 
 to conjecture^ with confiderable accuracy, the name of the 
 " high federal character." We therefore ftate it as our de 
 cided opinion, and on which we think the public may with 
 fafety rely, that GENERAL HAMILTON is that " high fede 
 ral character." His connection with Mr. Ogden, the ne- 
 gociator, is known to be of the moil intimate and endear 
 ing kind. His knowledge cf the negociation will not 
 therefore be doubted. He is alfo known as having long 
 held " predominant controul" in the federal party. The 
 actual influence of General Hamilton in that party corre- 
 fponds precifely with the defcription given in the two let 
 ters. Befides, there are other corroborating circumftancefe 
 which irrefiftibly impofe upon us the belief that General 
 Hamilton is the " high federal character" defcribed. We 
 will mention a powerful one. During the fitting of the 
 Supreme Court of this ftate at Albany, in the winter of 
 1 80 1. Jofiah Ogden Hoffman, Efq. General Hamilton, 
 Judge Troup, Judge B. Livingfton, and Judge Pendleton, 
 all of the city of New-York, dined together at the Hotel. 
 
 After dinner General Hamilton declared, openly, that 
 Mr. Burr, had intrigued with a federal gentleman to effect 
 his election to the Prefidency. When fpoken to on the 
 boldnefs of the declaration, General Hamilton added that 
 he could prove it, or it could bzprwed in a court ofjitftict! 
 
( 56 ) 
 
 The negociation was there made no fecrct of: General 
 Hamilton made the declaration aloud and without referve. 
 
 There are other facls in our poffeflion which authorize 
 us to Hate, unequivocally , that GENERAL HAMILTON is the 
 " high federal character" alluded to in the two letters. If 
 he is not, he will deny ifpublicly\ if he is, he has too much 
 honor and integrity to difavow an a of his own : 
 
 If thefe fads (land in need of corroboration, there are 
 concurring circumftances in abundance which ftrongiy 
 indicate the exiflence of the plot. The letter dat^d Waih- 
 ington, apth January, 1801, dates that Mr. Burr obferved, 
 in reply to the fecond proportion of the negociator, to wit, 
 <c what co-operation and aid he could and would afford to* 
 wards procuring fuccefs to his own election ?" that <c the 
 federalifts might be allured that New-York and Tenncflee 
 on a fecond ballot would vote for him, and that probably 
 New-Jerfey and one of the fouthern dates might be in 
 duced to do the fame." Such was the anfwer of Mr. Burr 
 to the fecond propofition of the negotiator. 
 
 The negociation was commenced in the city of New- 
 York about the 1 5th of January, iSoi. The letter of 
 General Hamilton to a leading federal member of Congrefs 
 detailing the negociation, was written about the 2oth of 
 the fame month. That which gives the fubilance of Gen- 
 neral Hamilton s letter, is dated Wafhington, January 29, 
 1 80 1. The negociation was complete before January 2oth. 
 On or about the 24th of January, Mr. Burr left this city 
 for Albany to take his feat in the (late aflfembly The fame 
 day or the day after, Mr. William P. Van Nefs, who was 
 
( 57 ) 
 
 not a member of the Legiflature, followed him to Al 
 bany. On the arrival of Mr. Burr, enquiries were made 
 pf him touching the Prefidential election. To every quef* 
 tion he anfwered, with the utmofl confidence and cheer- 
 fulnefs, that Mr. JefFerfon would certainly be elected, and 
 that no oppofition could or would be made in the Houfe 
 of Reprefentatives. He uniformly treated the idea of ma 
 terial oppofition in the Houfe as extravagant and chimeri 
 cal. This was precifely the conduct of Mr. Burr at Al 
 bany. And yet he knew that he had negociated with Mr. 
 Ogden to effect his own election to the Prefidency, and 
 that in confequence of that negociation every effort within, 
 the compafs of the federal party would be employed to ac- 
 complifli it. This conduct of Mr. Burr at Albany, was 
 fuch as every confummate and unprincipled intriguer 
 would adopt. It was a matter of importance to him to 
 prevent the tranlmiffion of letters from Albany to Walh- 
 ington urging firmnefs and perfeverance in our Reprefen 
 tatives in favour of Mr. Jefterfon s election j and Mr. Burr 
 vainly imagined his placid deportment calculated to com 
 pafs that object by allaying reafonable fears and compof- 
 ing alarming apprehenfion. His intrigues were, however, 
 perceived by a few individuals at Albany, and his reprefen-. 
 tations were therefore little heeded, 
 
 Let us now view the conduct of his confidential 
 friend Mr. William P. Van Nefa, of this city, who accom 
 panied Mr. Burr to Albany. Thofe who have read the 
 " Narrative" will perceive that this is the fame gentleman 
 who negociated for Mr. Burr the fuppreffion of the 
 ry of the Administration of Mr. John Adams. 
 
( $8 } 
 
 While Mr. Burr was openly declaring at Albany 
 that there was no foundation for apprehenfion con 
 cerning the election of Mr. Jefferfon, Mr. William 
 P. Van Nefs, obferved, in fe:ret> a conduct the re- 
 vtrfe. He was unremittingly employed in furthering 
 the negociation of Mr. Burr arid Mr. Ogden. While at 
 Kinderhook, he wrote a letter to our Reprefentative, 
 Mr. Edward Livingfton, then at Walhington, repre- 
 fenting it as the the fenfe of the republicans of this Jlate> 
 that, after the frft or feccnd vote in the houfe Mr. Jtffer* 
 fon Jhould be given up ! ! This correfponds with Mr. 
 Burr s reply to the fecond proportion of Mr. Ogden, the 
 negociator, namely, that " on a fecond ballot, New- York 
 would vote for him I" We do not affert on vague report 
 that Mr. Van Nefs wrote the letter to Mr. Livingfton ; it 
 is dated as an undeniable faff, one which, if not true, is 
 eafy of refutation. The name of Mr. Van Nefs the 
 writer, and of Mr. Livingfton the receiver of the letter^ 
 are mentioned , and both live in this city. 
 
 Mr. Burr alfo replied to the fecond proposition of Mr. 
 Ogden, that, " on a fecond ballot New-Jerfey might be 
 induced to vote for him." What covert meafures Mr. 
 Burr had taken to effect this, is not known ; but it is cer 
 tain that Mr. Van Nefs wrote a letter to an influential 
 republican who refides at Poughkeepfie, urging him in 
 ftrong terms to procure letters from New-Jerfey, advif- 
 ingthe New-Jerfey republican members in Congrefs to 
 drop Mr. Jefferfon on the fecond ballot in the houfe ! 
 
 Such were the proceedings of Mr. Burr and his confi 
 dential friend Mr. Van Nefs at Albany, proceedings which 
 
( 59 ) 
 
 xaUy accord with the terms of the negotiation conclud 
 ed between .Mr. Burr and Mr. Ogden. 
 
 Nor were the confidential friends of V r r. Burr either 
 filent or inactive in this city. Mr. Matliew L. Davis, one of 
 the depsfitories of the ftcrets of Mr. Burr, and on this ac 
 count only deferving of notice, ran about from Republican 
 to Republican during the balloting in the houfe, declaring 
 that the Republicans in Con grefs a&ed very improperly 
 in not giving up Mr. Jefferfon, avering that they muft e- 
 ventually abandon him, that perfevering oppofition would 
 injure the feelings of Mr. Burr, and that no one could fore- 
 fee the conffquenc.es of fuch ftubborn conduct if Mr. Burr 
 ihould at length be elected ! It is probable that Mr. Davis 
 at that time was apprifed of the negociation between Mr. 
 Burr and Mr. Ogden. 
 
 Our wonder at the pertinacity of the federalifts in thf 
 Houfe of Reprefentatives will henceforward ceafe. The 
 caufe of it may now be clearly perceived. That oppofi* 
 tion to Mr. Jefferfon in the houfe, which alarmed the 
 country and brought it to the brink of civil war, \NA founded 
 on the negociation concluded between Mr. Burr and Mr, 
 Ogden. Six and thirty times *was tJye tranquillity of the 
 country endangered to elevate an intriguer to office contrary to 
 the known ivill of a majority of the people. Americans / 
 You have infinite caufe to be thankful that the plot is dif- 
 covered. 
 
 The federalifts in the houfe of reprefentatives relied on 
 the declaration of Mr. Burr to Mr. Ogden that on the 
 fecond ballot New-York and New- Terfey would vote for 
 him. 5 * Hence at every ballot, they flocked round the bal 
 lot boxes of thefe two ftates, and with extreme folkitudc 
 
"enquired how the votes flood ? They were particularly 
 attentive to the ballot box of New- York ; for it was very 
 reafonably fuppofed that if the ftate of New-York gave 
 way, others would follow the example. On the fecond 
 ballot, however, this ftate as well as New-Jerfey was found 
 faithful Still were the federalifts in hopes, placing much 
 confidence in the promifes and machinations of Mr. Burr. 
 Finding that they were twice difappointed, they yet per- 
 fevered, deeming it probable that the Republican reprefent- 
 atives, on whofe infidelity Mr. Burr had made his calcula 
 tions, intended only to exhibit a (hew of firmnefs previous 
 to an unqualified furrender. In this vain hope (but one 
 though, by the by, not entirely without foundation) they 
 continued to vote until it was found, from whatever caufe y 
 that no impreffion could be made on thofe republican mem 
 bers on whofe unfaitlfulnefs Mr. Burr had predicated all 
 his expectations. The conteft was then, and not till then, 
 abandoned by the federalifts. 
 
 \Ve come now to notice the propofitions fubmitted by 
 Mr. Ogden to Mr. Burr and his anfwers thereto. On the 
 corre&nefs of thefe propofitions and anfwers the public 
 may implicitly rely ; and fhould they be contradicted, 
 either by General Hamilton, whom we fay is the writer 
 of the letter from this city to a leading member of Con- 
 grefs at Wamington, or by Mr. Ogden, the negociator, 
 the reader will perceive that the gentleman, who has done 
 the country fo much fervice in communicating thofe pro 
 pofitions and anfwers, {lands pledged virtually to " prove 
 the facts." We are perfuaded, however, that neither the 
 ne nor the other can or will be done\ 
 
The firft propofition of Mr. Ogden to Mn Burr is this : 
 *< What would be the conduct he would obferve, if ele&ed 
 w by the means of the federalifts, in refpetl to certain car- 
 d mal points si federal policy ?" To which Mr. Burr made 
 the following reply ; " As to the firft point it would not 
 " be proper or expedient to enter into explanation that 
 " the federalifts muft rely upon the fituation in which he 
 " would be placed if raifed to the Prefidency by their 
 " votes in oppofition to the adverfe party." 
 
 This anfwer is as full and fatisfa&ory, for aj7>y? inter~ 
 view, as could poffibly have been expected. Mr. Burr, 
 aware of his peculiar fituation, fays but in fuch a manner 
 as not in the leaft to indicate a repulfe that it would "not 
 be proper or expedient to enter into explanation." That is 
 . to fay, into minute detail ; and that fuch < explanation, or 
 minutenefs,wouldnotbe " expedient" for two reafons, firft, 
 becaufe of the delicacy of his fituation, and fecond, that fo 
 far as it was proper to fatisfy the federalifts as to < certain 
 cardinal points of federal policy" general remarks in that 
 Jlage of the negotiation would be fufficient. He then makes 
 thefe general remarks, and fays " the federalifts muft rely 
 upon the fituation in which he fhould be placed if raifed 
 to the Prefidency in oppofition to the adverfe party/ 
 Here Mr. Burr is too explicit to be mifanderftood. If 
 raifed to the Prefidency by the federalifts, he fhould owe 
 his election to them, and confequently that the cardinal 
 points of his adminiftration fhould accord with federal po~ 
 licy. This is a plain and fair interpretation of Mr. Burr s 
 reply to the firft propofition, which is ftronger, and con 
 cedes more to Mr. Ogden, than could well have been ex 
 pected on a firft interview. 
 
( 62 ) 
 
 15ut a fecond conference was had with Mr. Ogden in 
 which Mr. Burr referred to a gentleman who he faid 
 would be intruded to fpeak more particularly, and who 
 was to be his confidential friend at the feat of government. 
 This confidential friend was intrufted" by Mr. Burr to 
 complete the details of the general principles of the ncgocia- 
 iion, to which Mr. Burr had previoufly and fully afTented. 
 
 Mr. Burr s reply to dizfeco^ proportion of Mr. Ogden 
 clearly elucidates the meaning- if any elucidatton be ne- 
 ceflary of his anfwer to the firft. The firft propofition 
 is in thefe terms. " What co-operation and aid he could 
 and would afford towards procuring fuccefs to his own 
 election if the attempt fliould be made ?" To which A Ir. 
 Burr replied " The Federalifts might beaffured that New- 
 York and Tennefiee on a fecond ballot would vote for 
 him, and that probably New-Jerfey and one of the fouthern 
 ftates might be induced to do the fame." In this reply is 
 contained not only his aflent to be held up by the federal- 
 ifts in oppofition to Mr. Jefferfon, but a pofitivc aflertion, 
 alike confoling to himfelf and to the federal negociator, 
 that, on a fecond ballot New-York and Tennefiee would 
 vote for himfelf, and probably New-Jerfey and a fouthern 
 flate might be induced to do the fame." What is this 
 but entering fully into the views of the federal ne 
 gociator, and holding out to him the mod alluring 
 temptations to oppofe the election of Mr. Jefferfon, and 
 promifing him indeed, in the event, the completed fuccefs ? 
 ^ray, does not Mr. Burr s reply import that he meant to 
 ufe the moft refined arts of feduUon to effecl: his pur- 
 pofes ? He fays that probably New-Jerfey and a fouth- 
 
crn ftate might be induced to do the fame." The word 
 " induced" is uncommonly pertinent, and has a peculiar fig- 
 nification when uttered by a man negociating with an an- 
 tagonift to betray his caufe ! How were the two ftates 
 to be induced to vote for Mr. Burr ? Certainly not by the 
 conflituents of thofe reprefentatives who were believed to 
 be ardent for the ele&ion of Mr. Jefferfon. For we wit- 
 neffed an enthufiafm among the republicans at that period 
 ready to unmeath the fword, if neceffity required, in fa 
 vour of his election. No, the inducement was to be of 
 that peculiar kind which belongs exclufively to Mr. J5urr j 
 it was to employ undue means to allure the reprefenta 
 tives of the country from a difcharge of their duty. 
 
 But how came Mr. Burr to be fo certain that NEW- 
 YORK would, on a fecond ballot, vote for himfelf ? Had 
 THIS ftate manifefted a preference for Mr. Burr ? Certain 
 ly not. The ftate of New-York would have been among 
 the loft in the union to have made choice of Mr. Burr in 
 preference to Mr. Jefferfon. And fo confcious was Mr. 
 Burr himfelf of the predilection of this ftate for Mr. JefFer ] 
 fon, that the refiftlefs current of public opinion compelled 
 him to manifeft an affiimed exterior, indicative of affect 
 ion for Mr. Jefferfon, at the very moment he was fecretfy 
 negociating with Mr. Ogden to fupplant him. But we arc 
 treating on delicate ground. We draw the curtain over a 
 tranfa&ion on which we cannot dwell with fafety, not to 
 Mr. Burr, but to others. 
 
 How then ftands the account ? Firft, that Mr. Burr ne- 
 gociated, as dated in the " View of his political condudY* 
 with a federal gentleman to effect his election to the Prefi- 
 dency. Second, that Mr. DAVID A. OCDEN of this city 
 
( 64 ) 
 
 was the negotiator. If it be faid that becaufe Mr. Ogdea 
 has not certified this himfelf it will not be believed ; we an- 
 fwer that it cannot be expected that he would do fo, for 
 two reafons, firft, becaufe his own connection with Mr. 
 Burr in the novel tranfa6Uon would neceflarily forbid it \ 
 and fecond, fince his doing fo would at once heal that de- 
 vifion from which the federalifts expect to profit. But it 
 is neverthelefs as true that Mr. Ogden did negotiate with Mr. 
 Burr, as if he had made an affidavit of the negociation ; 
 and mould Mr. David A. Ogden publicly deny it, a thing 
 by no means expected, his denialytf // be difproved by tefli- 
 inony that will filence even calumny itfelf and impofe con 
 viction on the moft incredulous and incorrigible Burrite, 
 
 Third, Mr. Ogden went from this city to Wafhing- 
 ton to confult with the leaders of the federal party, at 
 the feat of government, on the 27th of December 1 800. 
 Mr. Burr and himfelf rode together in the mail ftage. Mr. 
 Ogden was authorifed at Wafhington to negociate with 
 ^ir. Burr the terms on which the federal party propof- 
 ed to elecl: him to the Prefidency. Mr. Ogden returned 
 with great expedition. About the I5th January 1801, 
 Mr. Ogden completed his negociation with Mr. Burr. 
 The connection between Mr. Ogden and General Ha 
 milton is fo well known in this city, as to warrant the 
 aflertion that the one could hardly be poflefled of a 
 political fecret without communicating it to the 
 other. It will be believed, as highly probable, that Mr* 
 Ogden informed General Hamilton of the negociation. 
 About the ^oth of January, <we fay that General Hamilt 
 ton wrote the letter on which the one herein inferted is 
 
( 65 ) 
 
 predicated, and which is dated " Washington, January 29 
 1801." This letter, which we ascribe to General Hamil 
 ton, details the negociation, the propositions submitted to, 
 and the answers of, Mr. Burr. If General Hamilton is not 
 t he writer of that letter, if he is not that " HIGH FEDERAL 
 CHARACTER" who has long held " predominant controul" 
 in the federal party, he will of course deny it. But ive are 
 persuaded he cannot. If, however, he should disavow 
 having written a letter of that nature, a thing not antici 
 pated, then will the writer s name be divulged by the gen 
 tleman who communicated the letter from Washington giv 
 ing an account of the negociation, and that negociation be 
 as completely brought home to Mr. Ogden as if the letter 
 which we ascribe to General Hamilton had been written by 
 him, 
 
 Fourth. It appears that Mr. Burr, on the first interview 
 With Mr. Ogden, entered fully and cordially into his views 
 and assented to his propositions: and that accordingly, 
 \vhile he himself affected to disguise his own projects at Al 
 bany, his confidential friend, Mr. Van Ness, was writing 
 letters, requesting one of our representatives, as the sense 
 of the republicans at Albany^ to drop Mr. Jefferson and 
 vo te for Mr. Burr j and that this conduct on the part of Mr 
 Van Ness corresponds with the terms of Mr. Burr s nego 
 ciation with Mr. Ogden. 
 
 Such is the state of this deep laid-plot, such the agents 
 who have been active in it ; and happy indeed is it for the 
 ountry that it is at length brought to light. 
 
( 66 ) 
 
 We have much more to say : we have still a very power 
 ful corps de reserve of testimony. But as the evening grows 
 late, and the developement must appear according to pro 
 mise, we close for the present with inviting, in the late lan 
 guage of Mr. Burr " AN UNION OF ALL HONEST, 
 MEN" to save the country. 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 " The people having referved to themfelves the choice of their 
 Reprefentativesi as the fence to their properties, could do it 
 lor no other end, but that they might always be freely chofeiij 
 freely aft, and advife, as the neceffhy of the Commonwealth, 
 and the public good fhould upon examination and mature de 
 bate be judged to require. But when ihe arts of perverted 
 men are made ufe of to deftroy all that ftand in the way of 
 bad defigns, and will not comply and confent to betray tke 
 liberties of their country, it will be paft doubt that fomething 
 is wrong. What power they ought to have in ibciety, 
 who thus employ it contrary to the truil went along with 
 it in its firil inftitution, is eafy to determine ; and one cannot 
 but fee that he, who has once attempted any fuch thing as 
 this, cannbt any linger be tntfiea." 
 
 LOCKE. 
 
 The following letters are extracted jrsm the Morning Chronicle of 
 
 November 25 : 
 SIR, 
 
 Though I have not the pleafure of a perfonal acquaintance 
 "with you, I flatter myself that this Jetter will preclude the ne- 
 ceffity of an apology for addreffing you. 
 
 It has been aflerted in various publications that Mr. Burr, 
 during the late election for Preiident aTid Vice-Preiident, entered 
 into negociations and agreed to terms with the federal party, or 
 with certain individuals of that party, with a view to advance 
 lumfelf to the office of Prefident, to the excluilon of Mr. jeffer 
 fon, Mr. Burr, in a letter to Gov. l>loomfield,dated the 2 lit Sept. 
 
C 67 ) 
 
 hfr, declared that all fuch allegations were falfe and ground- 
 lefs ; and the charges have been renewed in more recent publica* 
 tions, which point to you by name, as the perfon through whom 
 fuch negociations were carried on and terms concluded. It has 
 now bee me interefting to a great portion of the community to 
 be informed how far thefe aflertions and charges have been au 
 thorized by you, or are warranted by your knowledge of fa<fts. 
 Having received frequent anonymous communications for the 
 Morning Chronicle, relative to thefe matters, and being unwil 
 ling to occupy the paper with vague and unfubftantiated con - 
 jciftures or remarks on a fubje5t of fuch importance, I am induced 
 to apply directly to yourfelf as an authentic fource of information. 
 I do this with the more confidence, from a perfualion that you 
 can have no wifh to fuffer falfe reports to circulate under the au 
 thority of your name,. for mere party ptirpofes ; and that, in the ac 
 tual pofture of things, you cannot be averfe to declare publicly 
 and explicitly your agency, if any, in the bufinefs. I take the li 
 berty therefore of requeuing your written declaration to the points 
 above ftated, together with any circumftances you may be 
 pleafed to communicate, tending to eftablifh the truth or fallhood 
 * of the charges in queftion. 
 
 I have the hoaor to be, 
 Very refped fully, 
 Your obed t ferv t, 
 
 P. IRVING,, 
 New- York, Nov. 24, 1802% 
 David A. Ogden, efq. 
 
 New- York t Nov. 24, 1802. 
 SIR, 
 
 Though I did not conceive k to be incumbent upon me, or iri 
 itfei f proper to notice a publication in a newfpaper, in which my 
 name was ufed without my permiffion or knowledge, yet I have 
 no objection to reply to an enquiry wh-ich comes in the fhape of 
 that contained in your letter, and from a perfon of your (landing 
 in fociety. 
 
 I declare that my journey to the city of Waftiington, in the 
 year 1800, was purely on private bufinefs, and without any un- 
 derftandingor concert whatever with Col. Burr, whom I met at 
 the ftage-effice on his way to Trenton, not having had before the 
 leaft intimation of fuch a meeting; and that I was not then or 
 at any time, charged by him with any commiffion or errand of 
 
( 68 ) 
 
 a political nature. In the courfe of our journey no political con- 
 verfation took place but of a general nature, and in the prefence 
 of the paffengers. 
 
 When about to return from the city of Waftiington, two or 
 three members of Congrefs, of the federal party, fpoke to me 
 about their views as to the election of Prefident, defiring me 
 to con verfe with Col. Burr on the fubject, and to af certain whe 
 ther he would enter into terms. On my return to New-York, I 
 called on Col. Burr and communicated the above to him. He ex 
 plicitly declined the explanation, and did neither propofe nor 
 agree to any terms. I had no other interview or communication 
 with him on the fubjecl:, and fo little was I fatisfied with this 
 that in a letter which I foon afterwards wrote to a member of 
 Congrefs, and which was the only one I wrote, I diffuaded from 
 giving iupport to Col. Burr, and advifed rather to acquiefce in 
 the election of Mr. JefFerion, as the lefs dangerous man of the 
 two to that caufe with which I believed the public intereft to be 
 infeparably connected. 
 
 There are no facts within my knowledge tending to eftablifh 
 the truth of the charges fpecified in your letter. 
 With due refpeft, 
 
 I am, iir, your ob t ferv t, 
 
 DAVID A. OGDEN. 
 
 Dr. P. Irving. 
 
 Doctor Irving s letter was written, as stated in it, in 
 consequence of the accusations maintained in our eighth 
 on the subject of Mr. Burr s machination to compass the 
 Presidency in opposition to the wishes and expectations of 
 the people, and seemingly, with a view to ascertain whe 
 ther or not they were well founded ? In that letter we ad 
 duced a variety of proof in support of the charges prefer* 
 red against the Vice-President, which, although not of 
 the most positive kind the transaction not admitting of 
 point blank testimony was nevertheless so circumstan 
 tial and highly presumptive as to be entitled, without 
 weightier counter-evidence, to full credence. It was 
 
( 69 ) 
 
 stated, onthe reluctant authority of the Rev. Mr. Abeel 
 and Dr. Linn, first, that Mr. Burr had negociated 
 with a federal gentleman to effect his election to the Pre 
 sidency, which remains wicontradkted. Secondly, that 
 Mr. Burr, anxious to avail himself of whatever would 
 contribute to his defence, solicited, in person, of the two 
 reverend gentlemen, a certificate importing that the infor 
 mation they had received of his negociation. was derived 
 from common report ; which was refused : this has not 
 been denied. Thirdly on the same authority it was af 
 firmed that Mr. Burr, " assented to the measures of the 
 negotiator" This remains unimpaired.) as in the course 
 of our remarks we shall evince, notwithstanding the refi 
 ned evasions contained in the letter of the negociator. 
 
 Let us for a moment digress to attend to the probable 
 truth of the important declaration of Mr. Abeel and Dr. 
 Linn. The intimacy which subsists between these cler 
 gymen and him who has avowed that he was clothed by 
 leading federalists at Washington with powers to nego 
 tiate with Col. Burr the terms on which they proposed to 
 elect him President, is here well known to be great* 
 Dr. Linn, in all human probability, advised with Gen. 
 Hamilton before he wrote his " Serious Considerations : v 
 a work confessedly penned to prevent the election of Mr* 
 Jefferson j and they are known, even now, to confer on 
 political subjects. This familiar and confidential inter 
 course is alike holden between General Hamilton, the 
 negociator, and the two clergymen. It will probably bo 
 
deemed superfluous to repeat in this city facts so notorious, 
 but the information may, nevertheless, be useful in the 
 other states. 
 
 The two clergymen told Mr. Burr, emphatically, that 
 their information of his having negoeiated with a federal 
 gentleman with a view to his election to the Presidency, 
 was not derived from common report. May we then be 
 permitted to ask from whom was it derived ? From their 
 habits of intercourse with Mr. Ogden, is it not highly- 
 probable that they received it from him ? 
 
 How otherwise shall we account for their conviction 
 that Mr. Burr had negociated with Mr. Ogden and 
 " assented to his measures ?" This they have declared, 
 and take upon themselves the responsibility of the decla 
 ration. 
 
 Shall we say that, contrary to their assertions, they 
 have deliberately propagated and adhered to a fact on no 
 better foundation than light surmise ; or rather ought we 
 not to conclude that their information was correct, that 
 they received it from Ogden himself, and that his stu 
 died evasions do not clash with or impair their declara 
 tion, that Mr. Burr " Assented to the measures of the 
 negociator ?" 
 
 The propriety of commenting on the material assertion, 
 will form an adequate apology for his momentary depar- 
 
ture from consistent arrangement. We resume the enu 
 meration of the contents of our last letter. 
 
 Fourthly. It was stated that General Hamilton was the 
 " high federal character" alluded to in the letter dated 
 V Washington, January 29, 1801," detailing the negocia- 
 tion. This, however, was merely advanced as the opinion 
 of the Editors, who at that time were not authorized by 
 the writer of it to point to General Hamilton by name as 
 the person described. Fifthly That in case Ogden deni 
 ed the facts contained therein, the name of blank was to 
 be given to the public as ths u high federal character 7 * 
 alluded to by the writer. Sixthly That " If Ogden 
 should prevaricate, it would conform with the wishes of 
 the writer that his name be signified to blank" And 
 lastly, it was affirmed that, in accordance with Mr. Burr s 
 answer to the second proposition of the negociator, to 
 wit : " What aid he could and would afford toward pro 
 curing success to his own election in case the attempt 
 should be made by the federalists. " William P. Van 
 Ness, one of the confidential friends of Mr. Burr, wrote 
 to Mr. Edward Livingston, our then representative, ad 
 vising him, as the seme of the republicans, to relinquish 
 Mr. Jefferson after the first or second ballot in the house, 
 and vote for Mr. Burr \ This momentous fact, al 
 though the writer, Mr. Van Ness, and the receiver of 
 the letter, Mr. Livingston, reside in this city, 
 Wicontraditfetl / 
 
( 72 ) 
 
 Having recapitulated the heads of our eight letter we 
 proceed to fulfil-our engagements with the public ; but as 
 from their attentive and artful phraseology, the letters of 
 Dr. Irving and the negociator are calculated to deceive, 
 we shall previously notice their contents, convinced that a 
 slight examination will shew that Mr. Ogden s letter con 
 tradicts no one material fact advanced in our last. 
 
 Dr. Irving says " It has been asserted in various pub 
 lications that Mr. Burr, during the late election for Pre 
 sident and Vice-President, entered into negotiations AND 
 agreed to terms with the federal party, or with certain in 
 dividuals of that party, with a view to advance himself to 
 the office of President to the exclusion of Mr. Jefferson. 
 Mr. Burr in a letter to Governor Bloomfield, dated the 
 21st September last, declared that all such allegations 
 were false and groundless ; and the charges have been re 
 newed in more recent publications, which point to you by 
 name, as the person through whom such negotiations were 
 carried on and terms concluded" He adds, " I am induced 
 to apply directly to yourself, as an authentic source of in 
 formation I do this with the more confidence, from a 
 persuasion that you can have no wish to suffer false reports 
 to circulate under the authority of your name, for mere 
 party purposes, and that, in the actual posture of things, 
 you cannot be averse to declare publicly and explicitly 
 your agency, if any, in the business. I take the liberty, 
 therefore, of requesting your written declaration to the 
 points above stated^ together with any circumstances you 
 
may b.e pleased to communicate, tending to establish the 
 truth or falshood of the charges in question.* See the 
 letter above. 
 
 Now let us see how admirably the answer of Mr. 
 Ogden is adapted to the enquiries of Dr. Irving ? Per 
 sons more suspicious than ourselves would really con 
 clude, from the perfect harmony that reigns between the 
 Doctor s letter and the negociator s answer, that there 
 had been a previous arrangement ; a kind understanding 
 between them. We cannot, however, prove this in a 
 court of justice ! 
 
 Mr. Ogden says " When about to return from the 
 city of Washington, two or three [This convenient mode 
 of expressing an indefinite number may include twenty 
 as well as two or three] members of Congress, of the 
 federal party, spoke to me about their views as to the 
 election of President, desiring me to converse with Col. 
 Burr on the subject, and to ascertain whether he would 
 enter into terms. On my return to New-York I called 
 on Col. Burr and communicated the above to him.* He 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 * New-York, 26th, Nov. 1802. 
 
 In confequence of the appearance in the Morning Chronicle 
 of y efterday of the letter of the Editor to Mr. David A. Ogden 
 and his anfwer, I this day went to Sing-Sing-j* to converfe with 
 General DELAVAN who refides there, having underftood that 
 
 j- A village 09 the banks of the Hudson, 36 miles from the. city of 
 New-York, 
 
 K 
 
explicitly ffeclrned the explanation, and did neither pro 
 pose nor agree to any terms. I had no other interview 
 or communication with him on the subject, and so little 
 was I satisfied with this, that in a letter which I soon 
 afterwards wrote to a member of Congress, and which 
 was the only one I wrote, I dissuaded from giving sup 
 port to Col. Burr, and advised rather to the election of 
 Mr. Jefferson, as the less dangerous of the two to that 
 cause with which I believed the public interest to be in- 
 .separably connected." 
 
 Jince the publication of our Eighth Letter Mr. Burr had talk 
 ed with him concerning it. Mr. Joiiah Rhodes, who reiides at 
 SPARTA, one mile from Slag-Slog, accompanied me to General 
 Delavan s. The General ftated that Mr. Burr in a converiation 
 Xvith him adverted to the charges that had been preferred againft 
 his political conduct. Thefe he declared were falfe, and that 
 he intended to repel them in a manner that would be iatistaclory 
 to his friends, but could not fet up a defence in the AMERICAN 
 CITIZEN. Alluding to that part of our eighth letter where it 
 is iiated that Mr. Ogden was authorized by leading federalifis 
 at Waihington to call on Mr. Burr to negociate with him the 
 terms on which they propofed to elecl himPrefident, he affured 
 General Delavan that he did not know Mr, Qgden, meaning, as 
 the General fuppofed, that he knew him not in political affairs, 
 and had not the lead recollection of Ogden shaving ipoken to 
 liirn on the fubjecl. He fpoke of Air Ogden with great contempt, 
 as, faid General Delevan a fap-head \ thefe, the General added, 
 were not Mr. Burr s words, but, that was certainly his idea. 
 The above is a faithful relation of General Delavan s con 
 veriation with me in the presence of Mr. Rhode.?. 
 
 DAVID DENNISTOIST. 
 
 What shall we think of the veracity of Col. Burr? Ogden declares 
 that he called on him agreeably to the powers wilh which he was 
 clothed, at Washington arid at Ica^t conversed with him on the project 
 of leading federalists there to elect him to the office of President. Mr. 
 BilVr denies it, declares that he does not know Ogden, and has not the 
 least recollection of his having spoken to him on the subject ! Q 
 .times ! Q morals ! 
 
f ) 
 
 * There are no facts within my knowledge tending to 
 ^establish the truth of the charges specified in your letter ; * 
 So far Mr. David A. Ogden, 
 
 We cannot complain of the management Apparent in 
 these two letters ; they exhibit quite as much cunning as 
 we had imagined Dr. Irving and Mr. Ogden possessed. 
 The letter of the latter goes far to disprove Mr. Burr s 
 remarks when he calls him a sap-head; and if General 
 Hamilton had no hand in its composition certainly evin 
 ces that his title to that appellation is defective \ 
 
 An inattentive observer would conclude, after reading 
 Mr. Ogden s letter, that Mr. Burr is a much injured 
 man, and calumniated beyond example; that he is inno 
 cent as a lamb, and than whom a more immaculate pa 
 triot never breathed. Fatal conclusion 1 There lives not 
 in the union a man more faithless ; one less deserving 
 the confidence of the people* Lt us measure the solid 
 contents of the two letters $ 
 
 Dr. Irving says, " It has been asserted that the Vice* 
 President entered into negotiations AND agreed to terms 
 with the federal pa*rty to advance himself to the Presi 
 dency." He then adds, that ** The charges have been 
 renewed in more recent publications," and conclude* 
 with these words; " I take the liberty, therefore, of 
 requesting your written declaration to the points above 
 
stated" This is the quintessence of his letter, as the 
 reader will see by a reference to it. 
 
 It is hardly necessary to remark that the letter is so 
 loosely and yet so attentively worded as to afford an op 
 portunity to Mr. Ogden to give a negative answer to it 
 without at the same time contradicting a single material 
 accusation contained in our eighth. The vrords, " The 
 Vice-president entered into negotiations AND agreed to 
 terms" convey to the mind no precise Idea ; they are so 
 ambiguous as to admit of a two-fold construction ; so 
 indefinite as to permit Mr. Ogden to contradict the terms 
 of the letter, without at the same time affecting the 
 transaction about which they are employed. For ex 
 ample, Mr. Burr might have given Mr. Ogden satis 
 factory assurances of a disposition to act cordially with 
 the federalists without entering into precise terms. Ad 
 mitting ibr a moment that he did so which we shall by 
 and by prove Mr. Ogden might consistently say, in 
 reply to the unmeaning letter of Dr. Irving, that Mr. 
 Burr " Did neither propose nor agree to any terms," 
 and " That there are no facts within my knowledge 
 tending to establish the truth of the charges specified in 
 your letter," because, as is evident, there are in it no 
 charges specified. 
 
 Permit us to illustrate the subject by stating what real 
 ly occurred between Mr. Burr and Mr. Ogden who ac 
 knowledges that he was authorized, when at Washing- 
 
ton, by federal members of Congress, to call on and con 
 verse with him about their views as to the election of Pre 
 sident, and to ascertain whether he would enter into 
 terms; that is, in good old English, to tender to Mr. 
 Burr the specific terms on which the federal members of 
 Congress proposed to elect him President, in case he 
 would consent to betray his party and oppose the wishes 
 and expectations of the people. Mr. Ogden accordingly 
 calls on Mr. Burr and submits to him two propositions. 
 
 First. What, Mr. Burr, would be the conduct you 
 would observe, if elected by the means of the federal 
 party, in respect to certain cardinal points of federal po 
 licij ? To which he replies in gentle accents, " With 
 regard to. this question it would not be proper or expedient 
 to enter into explanation" In this answer, which is the 
 one he actually gave, although we perceive a solicitude 
 to avoid agreeing to definite terms^ because it would not 
 be proper or expedient^ yet it is apparent that he was dis 
 posed to favor the project, and to give such assurances to 
 Mr. Ogden of a willingness to act cordially with his par 
 ty, if elected by their means, as would to them be per 
 fectly satisfactory. This is as much considering the 
 nature of the transaction as could be expected ; and yet, 
 as Dr. Irving expresses it, it is not entering into, terms ! 
 
 Secondly. What co-operation and aid, Mr. Burr, 
 could you and would you afford towards procuring suc 
 cess to your own election, if the attempt should be made f 
 
( 5-8 ) 
 
 To which he answers, " ThaJ; as to this point, 
 ralists might be assured that New- York and Tennessee 
 on a second ballot would vote for him, and that probably 
 New-Jersey might be induced to do the same." Now 
 here Mr. Burr enters not into terms to use the elegant 
 and accommodating phrase of Dr. Irving, and yet it is 
 apparent that he gives the negociator such an unequivocal 
 earnest of his approbation of the scheme, as to leave not 
 -a .doubt en the mind of himself, or of those who had 
 vested him with diplomatic powers, of his disposition to 
 promote it ; so that although Mr. Ogden says Mr. Burr 
 * did neither propose nor agree to terms" it does not 
 thence follow that he did not give the most undeniable 
 assurances of willingness, nay of solicitude to a/Win car 
 rying the federal project into prompt and vigorous exe 
 cution ; on the contrary it is conclusive evidence of an 
 entire assent unencumbered with the inconveniences of 
 an agreement to specific terms. 
 
 From these remarks it follows that Irving and Ogden s 
 letters are mere nullities, and if not intended are certainly 
 calculated to deceive ; for although the former asks whe 
 ther terms were entered into by Mr. Burr, and the latter 
 denies that they were, yet it is palpable that he might ha.ve 
 entered fully into the views of the negociator without 
 agreeing to terms. Dr. Irving, therefore, risked nothing 
 or his friend Mr. Burr when he asked the negociator 
 whether he had entered into terms, and requested a 
 ^ Written declaration ts $\z points above stated." 
 
( 79 ) 
 
 And what are those points above stated? If the reader 
 will cast his eye on the Doctor s letter and read it over 
 with attention, he will find that it contains 710 points to 
 \fhich this inapl allusion is made. The only passage in 
 it called points above stated is included in the second 
 paragraph, thus expressed " It has been asserted/ &c. 
 that Mr. Burr " entered into negodatlon and agreed to 
 terms ;" if die reader can find in these words way precis* 
 points^ to which Mr. Ogden could satisfactorily reply, 
 then will we say that the Doctor s phraseology is correct^ 
 and that he had no intention to mislead. 
 
 To Dr. Irving s request of a written declaration to the 
 points above stated, the negociator answers, " There are 
 no facts within my knowledge tending to establish the 
 truth of the charges specified in your letter" The reader 
 is by this time no doubt convinced that there are no chqr- 
 gesin the Doctor s letter , and therefore Mr. Ogden might- 
 with truth say that there were no facts within his know 
 ledge tending to establish them ! 
 
 One word more. If the points above stated include the 
 negodatlon entered into, then has Mr. Ogden contradicted 
 himself, for he expressly declares that he was empowered 
 by federal members of Congress to converse with Mr. 
 Burr, and to ascertain whether he would enter into terms ; 
 that he accordingly waited on Mr. Burr and submitted to 
 him suitable propositions. 
 
( 80 ) 
 
 But if the points above stated mean terms, as the Doctor 
 very neatly has it, then have we shewn that there are na 
 points^ because Mr. Burr might have given, and did actu 
 ally give, every encouragement within his power to the 
 iniquitous scheme without agreeing to definite terms. 
 
 Let us now suppose that Dr. Irving, actuated by a lau 
 dable desire to ascertain the truth with regard to the ne- 
 gociation, wrote his letter to Mr. Ogden. What method 
 ought he to have pursued to accomplish this object ? We 
 have seen that his asking Mr. Ogden whether Mr. Burr 
 entered into negotiations and agreed to terms^ was as use 
 less, as Mr. Ogden s answer, that he did neither propose 
 nor agree to terms, was ridiculous. 
 
 He ought to have said Sir, 
 
 f< It has been publicly asserted that you were authorized 
 by leading federalists at Washington to negociave with 
 Mr. Burr the conditions on which they proposed to elect 
 him President ; that you accordingly waited on and sub- 
 xnittedto him two propositions. 
 
 w First, What would be the conduct he would observe, 
 if elected by the federalists, in respect to certain cardinal 
 points of federal policy f And secondly, What co-opera 
 tion and aid he could and would afford towards procuring 
 success to his own election, if ihe attempt should be 
 Blade" I 
 
( 81 ) 
 
 " To which it is subjoined Mr. Burr made the follow 
 ing answer in substance. 
 
 " That as to the first point, it would not be proper or 
 expedient to enter into explanation. That as to the se 
 cond point, the federalists might be assured that New- 
 York and Tennessee on a second ballot would vote for 
 him, and that probably New- Jersey might be induced to 
 do the same." 
 
 " Will you be so obliging as to inform me in writing 
 whether those propositions were made by you, and these 
 answers given by Mr. Burr" ? 
 
 The propositions and answers above are extracted 
 from our eighth letter, and if they had been put to Mr. 
 Ogden by Dr. Irving as here stated, and as they ought 
 to have been, Mr. Ogden would have had no loop-hole to 
 have crept out of. But instead of submitting these plain, 
 interrogatories to Mr. Ogden, he is asked whether Mr. 
 Burr entered into negotiations and agreed to terms ! 
 
 This was irrelative, since it is obvious that Mr. Burr 
 does not, in the above answers given by him, agree tat 
 terms, and yet who will say that they do not manifest 
 entire acquiescence in the project of the negociator? 
 If those questions had been asked, Mr. Ogden must have 
 told us whether Mr. Burr, by encouraging the opposi 
 tion tq Mr. Jefferson in favor of himself, did not say 
 
( 82 ) 
 
 that after the second ballot Ne%v -Tor k and Tennessee would 
 vote for him, and that probably New- Jersey might be in 
 duced to do the same ? This would have determined how 
 far Mr. Burr favored the opposition to Mr. Jefferson 
 and the views of the negociator, for Mr. Ogden could 
 not have availed himself of unworthy evasion. In saying, 
 therefore, in answer to Dr. Irving s letter, that Mr. 
 B urr did neither propose nor agree to ternis^ Mr. Ogden. 
 leaves the only material point untouched; for if Mr. 
 Burr told the negociator, in answer to his question, 
 what co-operation and aid he wild and ruiuIJ ajf-ird to- 
 ivards procuring success to his own election ? that after the 
 second ballot New-Tor k and Tennessee would vote for him+ 
 and probably New-Jersey might be induced to do the samc y 
 it was in fact meeting the views of Mr. Ogden as iully 
 sis if Mr. Burr had entered into specific terms. 
 
 We repeat that the ans wer of Mr. Burr to the second 
 proposition was the only point that called for the ir.ter- 
 ppsit on of Dr. Irving and the letter of Mr. Ogden. 
 We did not state in our eighth letter that Mr. Bun- either 
 entered into explanation or agreed to terms with the ne 
 gociator. It suited, however, the views of the friends 
 of Mr. Burr in this city that Dr. Irving s letter should 
 be couched as if we had so stated, that a denial from 
 Mr. Ogden might appear, to the less thinking part of 
 the community, as a contradiction of the facts contained 
 in our eighth letter. It was a shallow artifice;- a branch 
 4>f the necromancy of the niachinalora* 
 
.( 83 ) 
 
 Let us see how far Mr. Ogden s letter and our eighth 
 
 differ. 
 
 Iii that letter we stated, first, that Mr. Ogden ^yas 
 authorized by leading federalists at Washington to ne- 
 gociate with Mr. Burr the terms on which they pro 
 posed to elect him president; that to the first proposi 
 tion, namely, " What would be the conduct he would 
 observe, if elected by the means of the federalists, in 
 respect to certain cardinal points of federal policy .?" he 
 answered, that " it would not be proper or expedient to 
 enter into explanation" See the eighth letter. That 
 to the second, to wit, " What co-operation and aid he 
 could and would afford towards procuring success to 
 "his own election, if the attempt should be made?" He 
 replied, that " the federalists might be assured that 
 New- York and Tennessee, 011 a second ballot, would 
 vote for him, and probably New-Jersey might be induced 
 to do the same." These were the propositions and an* 
 awers as stated in our eighth letter, which see. 
 
 Let us now compare them with Mr. Ogden s letter,. 
 and see whether the two differ in any essential point. 
 
 Mr. Ogden says that he called on Mr. SUIT accord 
 ing to the powers with which he was clothed and of 
 course, submitted to him his propogition, out tnat he> 
 
 explicitly declined the explanation? So far vre 
 
( 84 ) 
 
 we say he replied to the first proposition, that " it 
 would not be proper or expedient to enter into explana 
 tion" But Mr. Ogden states that Mr. Burr " didnelther 
 propose nor agree to terms." WE NEVER SAID HE 
 DID; so that here there is no difference between us. 
 Nor was it, to enter fully into the views of Mr. Ogden, 
 essential that he should agree to terms, as we have al 
 ready shewn. His declaring that the states enumerated 
 would relinquish Mr. Jefferson after the second ballot 
 and vote for him, evinces that, without entering into 
 previse terms^ he assented to the propositions of the ne- 
 gociator, and entered fully into his views. 
 
 Mr. Ogden, however, differs from us in this : we say 
 he had two interviews with Mr. Burr; he says only one; 
 but this is quite immaterial. We shall nevertheless give 
 an extract from a letter -written by General Hamilton^ to 
 prove that he had two interviews with Mr. Burr. 
 
 So much for the letters of Dr. Irving and Mr. Ogde* 
 which, it may be emphatically said, are mere " Traps to 
 catch Woodcocks. * 
 
 There is one remark, however, in Mr. Ogden s letter 
 that ought to be noticed. He says, " I had no other 
 interview or communication with Mr. Burr on the sub 
 ject, and so little was I satisfied with this, that in a let 
 ter which I soon afterwards wrote to a member of on- 
 
( 85 ) 
 
 gress, and which was the only one I wrote, I dissuaded 
 from giving support to Col. Burr," &c. 
 
 It is to us problematical whether Mr. Ogden s zeal 
 to co-operate with a handful of Mr. Burr s friends in 
 this city to throw a matter of doubt over the transac 
 tion has not induced him, at this period, to misrepre 
 sent the past convictions of his own mind concerning 
 his negociation with Col. Burr, and the cordiality with 
 which he was received by him. Since the presidential 
 election, Mr. Ogden has expressed an opinion the re 
 verse of that which we have just quoted. In a conver 
 sation which he had with Dr. TILLOTSON, secretary of 
 state, of this state, he declared himself as follows. " If 
 it had not been," says Mr. Ogden, " for a foolish letter, 
 or d d foolish letter, Col. Burr wrote to General Smith 
 of Baltimore, he would now have been President of the 
 United States." This declaration, for the truth of which 
 the reader is referred to Dr. Tillotsoa, Mr. Ogden made 
 in Albany. He has since repeated it to Dr. Tillotson in 
 the presence of Mr. RIKER, of this city, the district at 
 torney. We have shewn the words in inverted commas 
 to Mr. Hiker, who says they are correct. 
 
 Now on what was Mr. Ogden s opinion founded, that 
 if it had not been for a foolish letter written by Mr. 
 Burr to General Smith he would have been President 
 of the United States? Was it not on the arrangements 
 he had made with Mr, Burr ? Was it it not QJI Mr. Burr s 
 
prospect, as Mr. Ogden thought, of success if it had 
 not been for a. foolish letter he afterwards wrote ? Mr. 
 Ogdtn no~jj says, " And so little was I satisfied wi:h 
 that interview, that in a letter I afterwards wrote I dis 
 suaded, &c." And yet sometime before he wrote his 
 famous epistle to Dr. Irving, so well satisfied was lie 
 with the arrangements he had made with Col. Burr, 
 that he declared if it had not been jf#r a foolish letter Mr. 
 Jjurr wrote t3 General Smith , he would have been Presi 
 dent of the. United States ! We leave the reader to deter- 
 e whether lie will believe Mr. David A. Ogden after 
 the Presidential election, or Mr. David A. Ogden in 
 his letter to Dr. Irving ? If his remarks to Dr. Tillotson 
 were correct which is most probable those contained 
 in his letter to the Editor of the Morning Chronicle just 
 quoted, are not ; and on the other hand, if those which 
 he communicated to Dr. Irving are true y we need not 
 denominate the complexion of the declaration he made 
 to Dr. Tillotson, and confirmed in the presence of Mr. 
 Hiker. Mr. David A. Ogden may take his choice of the 
 dilemma, and reconcile if he can the contradictions ! 
 
 We are, however, persuaded that Mr. Ogclen has been 
 induced, by much solicitation and importunity, to write 
 his letter to Dr. Irving, and to couch it in such terms as 
 leave no favorable impressions of his heart. Grains of 
 allowance, perhaps, ought to be made on account of the 
 artfulness of the do&hlc*meani*.g letter te which he replied. 
 He was asked for information only on " negotiations ea- 
 
( 87 ) 
 
 terecl into and terms* concluded between himself and 
 Col. Burr ; and being confined to this limited, and, as it 
 respects the word " terms," unknown enquiry, no terms 
 having been agreed upon, he was in a manner compelled, 
 by the curious phraseology of Dr. Irving s letter, to say 
 cn/y that Mr. Burr entered not into terms. Had Mr. Og- 
 tlen stated the encouragement held out to him by Col. Burr, 
 such as his mentioning the states who would relinquish I Jr. 
 jcffcrson. after, ths second ballot, and his opinion of Mr. 
 Burr s perfect acquiesence in his propositions, although lit; 
 did not agree to terms, he would have transcended the 
 clear design of Dr. Irving s letter, which was to confine 
 him to terms agreed upon. Still he is not blameless ; for 
 en a subject of so much importance he ought to have told 
 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, how 
 ever ill it might have comported with the object of him 
 who affected to make enquiries appropriate to ths accusa 
 tions with regard to the negociation, viz. the propositions 
 of Mr. Ogden, and the answers given by Mr. Burr. 
 
 Circumstances, however, concur to favor the opinion, 
 that between General Hamilton, Col. Burr, the negoci- 
 ator, Mr. J. O. Hoffman, late attorney general of this 
 state, and Dr. Irving, there was a previous understanding. 
 
 The coincidence of phraseology between the letter of 
 Dr. Irving, and the answer of Mr, Ogden, is calculated 
 to awaken suspicions of a previous understanding. Dr. 
 Irving, evidently solicitous to avoid particular*, asks Mr, 
 
C 83 ) 
 
 Ogdenif Mr. Burr agreed to terms, and in his reply, the 
 negotiator, equally anxious to shun detail, avails himself 
 of the same generality of expression, as if by preconcert, 
 and says Mr. Burr did neither propose nor agree to terms. 
 
 In the second paragraph of his letter Dr. Irving ob 
 serves, and the CHARGES have been renewed in more 
 recent publications, &c. and in the last paragraph he says, 
 / take the liberty therefore of requesting your -written 
 declaration to the POINTS ABOVE STATED. That 
 these words should be used by Dr. Irving, is not a little 
 remarkable ; there are no precise CHARGES enume 
 rated in his letter, no POINTS ABOVE STATED. 
 
 Reader, observe the accordance between Dr. Irving * 
 CHARGES and POINTS ABOVE STATED, and 
 the answer of Mr. Ogden thereto. 
 
 In the last paragraph of his letter, which see, Mr. Og 
 den says, " there are no facts within mij knowledge tending 
 to establish the truth of the CHARGES SPECIFIED 
 IN YOUR LETTER." This is undoubtedly true, 
 and for the plainest reason in the world, because the 
 doctor s letter contains no CHARGES, unless it be said 
 that terms are charges, and if so, let it be remembered 
 that they were never made by us; for although we 
 were extremely sensible that Air. Burr entered fully 
 into the views of the negockitor, in the manner already 
 
explained, yet we were not less so that he did not a 
 to specific terms. 
 
 Could Dr. Irving and Mr. Ogden, whose letters are 
 gross impositions upon the public, have played so admi 
 rably into each other s hands without preconcert? Could 
 Dr. Irving have penned a letter which, strictly speaking, 
 did not admit of an answer touching the actual charges 
 preferred against the Vice-President, but which at the 
 same time was eminently calculated to screen Mr. Burr 
 by drawing from Mr. Ogden a reply intended and fitted 
 to perplex a transaction in its nature extremely myste 
 rious ? 
 
 The conduct of the Morning Chronicle and Evening 
 Post is, on this subject, a circumstance worthy of notice. 
 If the former is not under the direct influence of, it is 
 undoubtedly patronized by, CoL Burr; the fetter is une 
 quivocally controuled by the will of General Hamilton. 
 In every question agitated concerning the Vice-Presi 
 dent since the establishment of the Morning Chronicle, 
 this paper and the Evening Post have pursued the same 
 system, acted in the same manner, declaimed with equal 
 zeal and illiberality in favour of Col. Burr, petulantly 
 and magisterially pronounced him innocent, and accused 
 us of being actuated by improper motives in our endea 
 vours to develope a most mischievous plot at som-e hazard, 
 and with no little labour and anxiety. 
 
 M 
 
( so ) 
 
 The remarks of Dr. Irving, whether intended to ex 
 culpate Mr. Burr, or to criminate ourselves, are uniform 
 ly published in the Evening Post, accompanied with com 
 mendatory observations from Mr. Coleman, and effusions of 
 a most rancorous and malignant nature against ourselves 
 for the part we have acted in the controversy, are now 
 acting, and shall continue to act. In short, there is, 
 whether by express agreement or not we cannot say, a 
 most cordial co-operation between these two papers in 
 every thing that concerns Col. Burr. 
 
 Can we then say that the leaders of the federal party 
 in this city do not favour the schemes of Col. Burr; that 
 a coalition in fact is not formed between them, himself, 
 and his few friends here ? What better evidence do we 
 want of this coalition, what more convincing can we have 
 <than that union of their presses, the barometers of pub 
 lic opinion, whichvfe too palpable to be doubted? 
 
 It must be that General Hamilton connives at this 
 union for party purposejHo corrobate his party by the 
 ^division of our own, or Mr. Coleman would not for a 
 moment act in concert with the Morning Chronicle. 
 
 Hence we conjecture that there is an understanding 
 between Col. Burr and General Hamilton, and the ground 
 of this conjecture is a cordial union of action, in whate 
 ver relates to the former, between the two prints presum 
 ed to .be devoted to the promotion of their views* 
 
( 91 ) 
 
 Again Mr. J. O. Hoffman, afederalist^who is known 
 to be on the best terms of friendship with Col. Burr, 
 and a most warm and obsequious attendant on General 
 Hamilton, teased and pestered the negociator to write 
 in exculpation of the Vice-President ; and he seems to 
 have ultimately succeeded in inducing Mr. Ogden to 
 pen that unmeaning thing on which we have com 
 mented. 
 
 Nor was the appearance of Mr. Ogden s letter unex 
 pected by us. We had reason to suspect preconcert be 
 tween the persons named. We were not ignorant of the 
 importunities of Mr. Hoffman ; we knew that Mr. Burr 
 paid visits to the negociator, and we were told by Mr. 
 Melancton Smith, (a relation by affinity to Mr. Swart* 
 wout, marshal, and who we have good cause to believe 
 knows well the secret movements of the parties in ques 
 tions) we were told by Mr. Smith on the 19th day of No 
 vember, Jive days before Mr. Ogden s letter appeared^ 
 that he had giving a writing denying^ -as he said, the facts 
 stated in our eighth letter with regard to the negotiations 
 and so confident was he of this, that he offered to wager, 
 and would have wagered one hundred dollars with the 
 writer, that Mr. Ogden had given such a writing. Mr* 
 Smith s cousin, is, with Dr. Irving, joint proprietor of 
 the Morning Chronicle. We will add one or two other 
 reasons for suspecting a previous understanding among 
 the parties. 
 
When our eighth letter appeared Mr. Ogden was out 
 of town, but shortly after returned. Between his return 
 and the date of his letter to Dr. Irving several weeks 
 elapsed. During this interval the movements of this 
 heterogeneous body were strongly indicative of contrivance 
 to favour Mr. Burr. Nothing particular, however, was 
 done until Mr. Ogden concluded to write something 
 which it was hoped would operate, if not an acquittal of 
 Mr. Burr, at least to embarrass the public mind. It is 
 believed that this decision was, immediately after it was 
 come to, made known to Col. Burr, who in all prabability 
 communicated it to his confidential friends, Messrs. 
 Swartwout and Van Ness, and that matters were so ar 
 ranged as that Dr. Irving should write to Mr. Ogden in 
 the capacity of an Editor, and shape his letter by the 
 manner in which it was understood Mr. Ogden would 
 write. 
 
 Accordingly, on the 24th of November, all things 
 -prepared, Dr. Irving wrote to Mr. Ogden, to which an 
 answer was immediately returned and both appeared the 
 following day in the Morning Chronicle* 
 
 It is well known in this city, that on that day, Mr. 
 Ogden was, the greater part if not the whole of it, 
 actually engaged in court in a suit of immense conse 
 quence involving in its issue the sum of TEN THOUSAND 
 
 DOLLARS. 
 
It is not pretended that Mr. Ogden could not discharge 
 in court pressing professional duty and answer Dr. Irving s 
 letter the same day. But is it usual for a legal character 
 to leave business in which he is intensely engaged to an 
 swer a letter immediately after its reception, and that too 
 so early in the day as that both shall appear in a public 
 print the following morning ? Is it not probable that the 
 matter was perfectly understood previous to the date of 
 the letters, that it was known hvwfar Mr. Ogden would 
 go, if not by Dr. Irving, at least by intermediate persons who 
 acted between Mr. Burr, the aegociator, and himself ? 
 
 If, notwithstanding what has been said, doubts still re 
 main in the mind of any concerning this previous under 
 standing^ Dr. Irving has himself furnished us with such 
 clear and undeniable testimony of it as cannot fail to dissi 
 pate them. He has confessed sufficient for our purpose, and 
 we will venture to say to satisfy evtry reflecting man, that 
 a previous understanding between Mr. Ogden, Mr. Burr, 
 or some of his confidential friends did undoubtedly exist. 
 To this confession, which is extremely important, we in 
 vite the attention of the reader, not for our own but for 
 his sake, for it indicates much and proves satisfactorily 
 an understanding between the partizans of Mr. Burr, (if 
 not Mr. Burr himself) and the negociator. 
 
 On Monday last a communication appeared in the 
 AMERICAN CITIZEN, signed " PLAIN DEALER," In 
 
( 9* ) 
 
 tliis Dr. Irving and Mr. Ogden are accused of preconcert. 
 Dr. Irving, in the Morning Chronicle of Wednesday, at 
 tempts tojustify himself in a production to which he affixes- 
 his name. The remarks, which contain his defence, we 
 here lay before the reader, that he may have a full view 
 of the subject, and be enabled to judge for himself from 
 *the confessions of Dr. Irving, who says, 
 
 * c I feel a propriety in declaring that though, from our 
 mutual residence in this city, I have probably seen Mr 
 Ogden, he has never been designated to me, and I have 
 no personal knowledge of him, nor have I had any con 
 versation with him, cither verbal or written, except 
 ^merely that letter and reply." 
 
 * c I had several times heard of Mr. Ogderfs having ex 
 pressed in conversation a readiness to speak explicitly on 
 the subject of his reported negocialion with CoL Burr y if 
 requested by any person -whom he sJwuld consider worthy 
 of an answer ; yet I entirely and unequivocally disavow 
 any preconcert or private understanding with him, direct 
 or indirect, either with respect to that correspondence, 
 or to any transaction whatever." In this paragraph, as 
 the reader will perceive, Dr. Irving fully confirms the sus 
 picions we have suggested of an understanding. Illustra 
 tion, however, may be useful. 
 
 It is admitted, because so stated, that Dr. Irving is to 
 tally unacquainted with the person of Mr. Ogden. But what 
 
( to J 
 
 has this to do with a full understanding between the par 
 ties ? It was not necessary that Dn Irving should be per- 
 sonally acquainted with Mr. Ogden to comprehend in w&zf 
 manner he would write or how far he would venture to 
 commit himself to the public in exculpation of Mr. Burr. 
 Both these points could be accurately conveyed to Dr. Ir 
 ving by intermediate persons in whose veracity he could 
 rest as securely as if communicated to him by Mr. Ogden 
 himself. This truth every one will readily comprehend, 
 and to it cordially assent. Whence it follows that it was 
 not necessary for Dr. Irving to be personally acquainted 
 with Mr. Ogdcn to understand him most fully on the 
 subject. His remarks, therefore, on personal acquaint 
 ance are as futile as they are irrelevant. 
 
 This, although not perceived by himself, Dr. Irving am- 
 j)ly concedes in his following paragraph above quoted and 
 underscored. He says, " / had several times heard of Mr* 
 Ogderfs having expressed in conversation a readiness t& 
 speak explicitly on the subject on his reported negotiation 
 with Col. Burr, if requested by aferso.il -whom, he should 
 consider worthy of an 
 
 SEVERAL TIMES HEARD! To whom did Mr. Ogdea 
 express this readiness to speak on the negociation, and 
 who communicated to Dr, Irving his having so express* 
 ed himself? Were they not the partizansof Mr. Burr 
 ,to whom Mr. Ogden so expressed himself , and who wita 
 
( 95 ) 
 
 alacrity conveyed the agreeable expressions to Dr. Irving ? 
 Say, were they the friends of the administration, men 
 who reprobate the plots of Mr. Burr, to whom Mr. Og- 
 den made this free communication of his readiness to 
 speak on the negotiation, and who several times repeated 
 them to Dr. Irving? Tis impossible ; it is the most prc 
 posterous of all absurdities to suppose it. 
 
 Let us suppose a case to evince, as far as a negative po 
 sition can be proved, that it was not to persons known or 
 supposed to be inimical to the machinations of Col. Burr 
 to whom Mr. Ogden freely expressed his readiness to write 
 on the negotiation he entered into with him, and who seve 
 ral times repeated the expressions to Dr. Irving. We 
 will presume that this expressed readiness had been com 
 municated to a friend of ours, and by him imparted to 
 us. We accordingly write to Mr. Ogden and say, 
 
 Sir, 
 
 " We have in our possession the most indubitable tes 
 timony that you were authorized by leading federalists at 
 Washington to tender to Mr. Burr two propositions to 
 which, if he assented, they proposed to elect him Presi 
 dent ; that accordingly you called on him in this city and 
 submitted the propositions, to wit." 
 
 " What would be the conduct- he would observe, if 
 elected by the federalists, in respect to certain cardinal 
 points of federal policy f n 
 
" And secondly, What co-operation and aid he cculd 
 and would afford toward procuring success to his own 
 election, if the attempt should be made ? 
 
 u To which, the same authority info rms us , Mr. Burr 
 gave the following answers, viz. 
 
 " That as to the first point, it would not be proper ot 
 expedient to enter into explanation. That with regard to 
 the second point, the federalists might be assured that 
 New- York and Tennessee on a second ballot would vote 
 for him, and that probably New-Jersey might be induced 
 to do the same." 
 
 " Did you tender to Mr. Burr those propositions and 
 receive from him these answers ?" 
 
 In answer to these propositions and replies Mr. Ogden 
 could not have prevaricated. His saying Mr. Burr 
 agreed not to terms would have been impertinent. He 
 must have told us whether he submitted to Mr. Burr th 
 questions, and received from him the answers stated. Had 
 he replied in the affirmative, there would have been an 
 end to the matter, since Mr, Burr s answer to the last 
 proposition, is a full assent to the terms offered ; if in the 
 negative, which as a man placing some value on his 
 reputation he durst tutt, we would have proved to the con 
 viction of all honest and refecting men ? that Mr. Ogdert 
 is Ktte rly destitute of veracity, and unworthy of <;r<?de.nc.e* 
 
 N 
 
( 98 ) 
 
 But he wished not to be put to such a test ; he sighed for 
 an opportunity to evade and prevaricate j and he therefore 
 communicated his readiness to the partizans of Col. Burr, 
 the manner in which he would write, the extent to which 
 he would go, and all this was imparted and repeated seve 
 ral times to Dr. Irving who, understanding him perfectly, 
 although unacquainted with his person, wrote to him ac 
 cordingly about terms agreed upon, and charges^ and 
 points above stated ! / 
 
 Again. It cannot be that Mr. Ogclen expressed his rea 
 diness to citizens hostile to the wicked contrivances of Col. 
 Burr ; if he had, the information must have been conveyed 
 to us. For who were so fit to write to him on the subject 
 as those who had publicly accused himself and Mr. Burr 
 of the negociation ? And yet we never heard a -word of 
 such a readiness. On the contrary we were persuaded 
 that if Mr. Ogden valued his reputation, it would com 
 port with its preservation to remain silent ; we were there 
 fore of opinion that unless some uncommon artifice should 
 be resorted to by himself and Col. Burr, some pro 
 found collusion made use of, his lips would be sealed and 
 iis hand arrested. 
 
 But Mr. Ogden, says Dr. Irving, " Expressed his readi 
 ness to speak on the subject ofthe negociatiation if request 
 ed by any person whom he should consider ivorthy of an an- 
 swer" Nothing is more certain than that Mr. Ogden would 
 consider any person unworthy of an answer who should 
 
( 99 ) 
 
 confine him too cbscly to the point. Accordingly the 
 friends of Mr. Burr, to whom Mr Ogclen expressed his 
 readiness, conveyed the expression of it to Dr. Irving 
 -who, in conformity to it, wrote his memorable letter. We 
 find this arrangement recognized and approbated, in Mr. 
 Ogden s answer to Dr. Irving, in the following terms. 
 
 " I have no objection," says he, "To reply to an en 
 quiry which comes in the shape of that contained in your 
 letter, and from a person of YOUR standing in society." 
 Every thing here is quite agreeable ; the shape of the en 
 quiry, as well as the person who penned it 1 The arrange 
 ment, therefore, was complete in all its parts although Dr. 
 Irving is altogether ignorant of the person of Mr. Ogden I 
 
 From all these circumstances the reader will determine 
 
 whether there was not a good understanding between the 
 
 parties before the two letters were written, and an union 
 
 , of action between COL. BURR, GENERAL HAMILTON, 
 
 Mr. HOFFMAN, the NEGOCIATQR, and DJR. IRVING ? 
 
 Having evinced the futility of Dr. Irving and Mr. Og 
 den s letters we might rest satisfied and say hitherto have 
 we gone and we need not go further. Lest, however, 
 doubts should remain in the minds of reasonable men con 
 cerning Mr. Burr s negociation with Mr. Ogden, as stated 
 in our eighth letter, we proceed to. corroborate what w& 
 therein advanced.. 
 
( 100 ) 
 
 In that letter we were not authorized to designate Gen. 
 Hamilton by name as the " High federal character" 
 mentioned in the one included in it dated " Washington 
 January 29th, 1801," detailing the propositions tender, 
 ed to Mr. Burr and the answers given by him to Mr. 
 Ogden. We are now, however, authorized to say that 
 GEN. HAMILTON is that " High federal character." On 
 this subject we have been favored with the following let- 
 ley, to wit,. 
 
 LETTER No. L 
 
 CIT* of WASHINGTON, IBth Dec. 1802. 
 f* Gentlemen^ 
 
 " There can be no doubt but that Gen. Hamilton some 
 time in January, 1801, communicated to a federal mem 
 ber of Congress at Washington, that an application was 
 made to Mr. Burr, by a federal gentleman (who was au 
 thorized by some of the leading federalists at Washington) 
 to know what plan of policy he would pursue if elected to 
 the Presidency by the aid of the federal party, and what 
 assistance he could render to accomplish this object ? 
 that Mr. Burr declined entering into any specific terms, 
 mentioned the name of a friend who would be more ex 
 plicit, and declared that there were strong reasons to sup 
 pose that Tennessee and New- York would relinquish Mr. 
 Jefferson on the second ballot, and probably that 
 Jersey might also concur, 
 
(M01 ) 
 
 " I cannot pretend to give the precise terms of Mr; 
 Hamilton s communication, but I know that he wrote sub- 
 stantially to the above effect ; and the mode of obtaining 
 this information is so perfectly authentic and unexcepti 
 onable, that I have not the least objection that you should 
 give up my name to Mr. Hamilton on his application ; 
 and in case of his denial, (which is scarcely possible) you 
 are at liberty to communicate it to the public as subscribed 
 to this letter." 
 
 " I am, Gentlemen, 
 
 " Your most obd t servant." 
 " Messrs. DENNISTON f CHEETHAM, 
 
 u Editors of the American Citizen" 
 
 In this letter, which imparts the substance of Gene 
 ral Hamilton s communication to his friend at Wash 
 ington, a member of the Senate^ Mr. OGDEN is not 
 mentioned as the negociator. It seems that general Hamil 
 ton studiously avoided to designate Mr. Ogden in his letter 
 as the negociator, and satisfied himself with describing 
 him as \hefederal gentleman authorized by leading federal 
 ists at Washington to negotiate with Col. Burr, presum 
 ing, and very justly, that the intimation would be per 
 fectly understood. There is, however, no difficulty on 
 , this head-, as Mr. Ogden has himself confessed that he 
 was the federal gentleman ! 
 
 In conformity with the permission contained in the 
 above letter, General Hamilton is informed that the name 
 
( 102 ) 
 
 of the writer of it shall be communicated to him on applied*- 
 lion to the Editors, wt&tfaerj0r90ft<z% or by writing. 
 
 The public are also assured that if General Hamilton, 
 failing to call for the name of the writer of the above let 
 ter, should publicly deny that he wrote, some time in Jan 
 uary 1801, a communication to his friend at Washington 
 containing the substance of it, then shall that name be 
 published in the American Citizen. The Editor considers 
 himself fully and unequivocally pledged to the public to 
 perform these promises. 
 
 It may, however, be objected that although General 
 !Hamiltoirwrote the letter mentioned in the one above, 
 specifying the conditions proposed to Mr. Burr, and the 
 answers received from him by Mr. Ogden, yet as this 
 gentleman has denied that Mr. Burr agreed to terms 
 agreed to terms ! how laughable . it is probable that he 
 
 wrote it on no better foundation than mere surmise. 
 
 Header, we will settle this question to thy satisfaction ; 
 we will lay before thee testimony, which no reasonable 
 man can reject, to prove that Mr. OGDEN is the man 
 yes, that Mr. Ogden is himself the man who, notwith 
 standing the dishonorable evasions contained in his letter 
 to Dr. Irving communicated to General Hamilton the 
 propositions he had submitted to Col. Burr, and the 
 answers received from him. 
 
 The following letter is from the gentleman who com- 
 Hwnicated feo us the one- contained in our eighth, dated 
 
< 103 ) 
 
 fc Washington, January 29th, 1801," giving a summary 
 account of Mr. Ogden s negociation with Col. Burr, asl 
 stated in the letter written by General Hamilton to a Se 
 nator at the seat of government. 
 
 LETTER No. IL 
 " New- York, llth December, 1802. 
 u The following are substantially if not verbally the 
 contents of Gen. Hamilton s letter, written to a federal 
 gentleman and an influential member of Congress, in 
 January, 1801, as far as relates to Mr. David A. Ogdeu * 
 interview with Mr. Burr," to wit; 
 
 " A friend of ours, who lately returned from Washing 
 ton, was intrusted by some leading members of Congress 
 of our party, to have a conference with Col. Burr, for 
 the purpose of ascertaining two things ; First, What would 
 be the conduct he would observe if elected by our means 
 in respect to certain cardinal points of Federal policy? 
 Second, What co-operation and aid he could and would? 
 afford towards procuring success to his ovyn election 2" 
 
 " He accordingly made the communication to Co!. 
 Burr, and as he informed me, vras answered by him in 
 substance, that as to the first point, it would not be pro 
 per or expedient to enter into explanation." 
 
 " That as to the second point, there was good reasou. 
 to expect that New- York said Tennessee, on a second. 
 
( 104 ) 
 
 ballot, would vote for him, and New-Jersey might per 
 haps do the same. 5 
 
 u In that or a subsequent conference he referred to 
 ****** ********#* ? ashis con fidential friend 
 for further explanation. This gentleman leaves New- 
 York in a few days for Washington." 
 
 " Gentlemen, 
 
 " I have received the fullest and most satisfactory 
 proof that General Hamilton, in January preceding the 
 late Presidential election by the Hquse of Representa 
 tives, wrote a letter to an influential member of Congress 
 in the Federal interest to the effect above stated. The 
 evidence within my controul is such as will enable me to 
 establish the fact most clearly, even should it become the 
 subject of a judicial examination." 
 
 tc You are at perfect liberty to give my name to the 
 public if General Hamilton denies it, which, from his 
 character and situation in life, I believe to be impossible ; 
 or if that gentleman calls upon you for the source of your 
 information, I authorize- you to give it to him without 
 hesitation or reserve." 
 
 " I am, Gentlemen, your most ob dt." 
 a Messrs. DENNISTON &? CHEETHAM, 
 
 " Editors of the American Citizen" 
 
 Agreeably to the authorization contained in the above 
 letter, the name of the -writer of it shall, be communicated to 
 
General Hamilton on application by him to the Editor for 
 that purpose^ whether personally or by letter. 
 
 It shall also, according to the same authority, be laid 
 before the public in case General Hamilton denies that 
 he wrote the letter of which the above is an extract. 
 
 In the above letter the propositions of Mr. Ogden and 
 the answers given thereto by Mr. Burr, as stated in our 
 eighth, are specifically enumerated. General Hamilton, 
 with great perspicuity, details two propositions submitted 
 by Mr. Ogden to Mr. Burr and the answers received 
 from him ; to wit, first, " What would be the conduct 
 he would observe if elected by our means ( i. e. by the 
 means of the federalists) in respect to certain cardinal 
 points of federal policy ? Second. What co-operation, 
 and aid he could and would afford toward procuring suc 
 cess to his own election ?" 
 
 To which Mr. Burr answered " That as to the frst 
 point, it would not be proper, or expedient to enter into 
 explanation" 
 
 " That as to the second point there was good reason to 
 expect that New- York and Tenjiessee on a second ballot 
 would vote for him, and New-Jersey might perhaps de 
 the same." 
 
 Q 
 
( 105 ) 
 
 "Such are the questions put by Mr. Ogdento Col. Burr, 
 and the replies of Mr. Burr to Mr. Ogden. 
 
 And who communicated these questions and answers 
 to General Hamilton? It is true General Hamilton does 
 not in his letter mention Mr. Ogden as the negociator; 
 he simply says a friend ^ouiis who lately returned from 
 Washington was entrusted by some leading members of 
 Congress of OUR party to have a conference with Col. Burr 
 for the purpose, &?c. Mr. Ogden has, however, acknow 
 ledged that he was that friend ; that he was the negociator; 
 so that on this subject there is no room for cavilling. 
 
 General Hamilton then says " HE (that is, Mr. Ogden") 
 accordingly made the communication to Col. Burr, AND 
 AS HE INFORMED ME was answered by him in 
 substance." 
 
 " That as to the frst point, it would not be proper or 
 expedient to enter into explanation. 
 
 " That as to the second point there was good reason to 
 expect that New-York and Tennessee on a second ballot 
 would vote for him, and New-Jersey might do the same." 
 
 It then appears that Mr. Ogden communicated those facts 
 to General Hamilton, who accordingly forwarded them by- 
 letter to one of those leading federal members of Congress 
 who had authorized Mr, Ogden when at Washington to 
 
have a conference with Col. Burr for the purpose already 
 mentioned. And yet, says Mr. Ogden, in his evasive reply 
 to the quibbling letter of Dr. Irving, Mr. Burr did neither 
 propose nor agree to terms /" The artfulness of Mr. Og- 
 den s letter exempts him from the imputation of palpable un 
 truth; for it is obviously true, as he says, that Mr. Burr 
 did not agree to terms although it is not less so that he enter 
 edfulhj into Mr. Ogderfs views. While therefore it is ap 
 parent that Mr. Ogden, in his letter to Dr. Irving, has 
 been guilty of an attempt to deceive the public by unwor 
 thy subterfuge, we cannot strictly say that he justly lies 
 under the imputation of fcdshood. 
 
 General Hamilton-. says- in his letter, an extract of 
 which is inserted above, that Mr. Ogden communicated 
 to him the negociation as stated in it ; if Mr. Ogden did 
 not, General Hamilton has told an untruth ; if he did 
 then does Mr. Ogden stand convicted before the public 
 of prevarication. General Hamilton and Mr. Ogden may 
 settle the point between them I . 
 
 Again. Mr. Ogden in his letter to Dr. Irving assures 
 that he had only one interview with Col. Burr. General 
 Hamilton on the authority of Mr. Ogden says, in the above 
 extract from his letter, which see, that " In that or a sub 
 sequent conference he [Mr. Burr,] referred to 
 as his confidential friend for further explanation. This 
 gentleman leaves New- York jjn a few days for Washing 
 ton." Here General Hamilton plainly enough states that 
 
Mr. Ogden had two conferences with Col. Burr, and 
 this information he tells us was communicated to him by 
 Mr. Ogden himself ; and yet he says in his letter to Dr. 
 Irving that he had only one ! 
 
 Let us here repeat that if General Hamilton s infor 
 mation is to two interviews, is true, that part of Mr. Og- 
 den s letter to Dr. Irving where he says he had only one, 
 is not so. But as General Hamilton expressly relates that 
 he was told by Mr. Ogden himself that he had two confer 
 ences with Col. Burr, and as it is evident that Mr. Ogden 
 in his letter to Dr. Irving is guilty of gross prevarication, 
 those who know the two persons will find no difficulty in 
 determining which is most entitled to belief I 
 
 Let us now bestow a few moment s consideration on 
 the propositions of the negociator and the answers given 
 by Mr. Burr thereto. 
 
 The first proposition is in these words, viz. 
 
 " What would be the conduct he [Mr. Burr] would 
 observe if elected by means of the federalists in respect 
 to certain cardinal points of federal policy ? 
 
 To which Mr. Burr gives this answer. " That as to 
 this point it would not be proper or expedient \Q enter into 
 
( 109 ) 
 
 Is there aught of rejection contained in this mild an 
 swer ? certainly not. And why would it not be proper 
 to enter into explanation ? Because the proposition was re 
 plete with treason, not indeed in legal contemplation, but 
 as it regarded the audible and unequivocal expression of 
 the public will in favour of the election of Mr. Jefferson. 
 The term,/?rc^er,here expressed is used in a peculiar sense. 
 It is evidently not meant to convey an idea of the im 
 propriety of the proposition abstractly considered, but to 
 shew that, viewing the relative situation of the two par 
 ties, the clearly expressed opinion of the union in favour 
 of Mr. Jefferson, the affection which the people had sup 
 posed Mr. Burr felt to the republican party, and the 
 singularity of going into minutiae on such a proposition, 
 it would not be proper to enter into explanation. 
 
 Neither would it be necessary to an understanding be 
 tween the two contracting parties that they should enter 
 into explanation, since they might fully comprehend each 
 other s views, and mutually unite in them, as well with 
 out explanation as with it. General expressions, of as 
 surances in so delicate a transaction would be sufficient. 
 
 Nor would it, says Mr. Burr, be expedient to enter into 
 explanation. How emphatically the term expedient is here 
 used ! It would not be expedient because in so singular 
 an act it is the business of a crafty politician to manage 
 so as to guard against every possible accident, that he 
 may ultimately elude detection. 
 
The word explanation in such a transaction- is simply- 
 used to distinguish between that generality of expression 
 by which bargains of the nature of the one entered into , 
 between Mr. Burr and Mr. Ogden may be mutually con 
 cluded to the satisfaction of both, and the refined specif^ 
 cation of things which, in a treacherous act, may event 
 ually lead to a developement of it. 
 
 His rrfcrring the negociator to his confidential friend : 
 for further explanation^ demonstrates that his declining 
 to enter into explanation with Mr. Ogden was an act 
 of precaution not of Integrity. It speaks home to the 
 understanding and informs it most significantly that Mr. 
 Burr was perfectly willing that his friend in whom 
 he had confidence should explain for him ; but that he was 
 fearful of explaining himself lest the scheme eventually 
 fail, and his explanation furnish conclusive proof of his want 
 of faith to the party to whom he had pretended attachment, 
 and of his utter disregard of public and private virtue. 
 
 Mr. Burr only objects to entering into explanation, 
 This by no means repudiates the idea of treating with 
 Mr. Ogden in general terms, and of imparting such a 
 plain indication of his assent to the overtures of the 
 negociator as could neither be mistaken nor dissatisfac 
 tory. 
 
 Accordingly, to the second proposition of the negocia- 
 tcr, namely, " What co-operation and aid he ? Mr. Burr, 
 
{ 111 ) 
 
 could and would afford towards procuring success to bis 
 own election ?" He answers, " That as to this point, 
 there was good reason to expect that New- York and Ten 
 nessee on a second ballot would vote for him, and New- 
 Jersey might perhaps do the same." 
 
 This answer leaves us not at liberty to doubt. It 
 imports full assent to the views of the negociator. A 
 more ample and emphatic acquiescence could not have 
 been given. It holds out the most flattering encourage 
 ment. It does more : it points to the very states which 
 he says he has good reasons to expect will vote for him on 
 a second ballot. It designates the state of New- York in 
 which his confidential friend resided, and of which he 
 was a representative. It pointed out New- Jersey where 
 himself and his friend Mr. Senator Dayton had already 
 commenced their intrigues. 
 
 These two states were sufficient for his purpose ; and 
 if they had given way, iu all probability Tennessee, ac 
 cording to Mr. Burr s calculation, would have followed. 
 The representation of the states in the House stpod thus, 
 eight for Mr. Jefferson, six for Mr. Burr, and two divided 
 If therefore Mr. Burr s intrigues in New-York and New- 
 Jersey had been as successful as he had good reason to ex 
 pect; if the flattering prospects he held out to Mr. Ogden 
 of these two states receding from Mr. Jefferson on a se 
 cond ballot and voting for himself, had been realized, 
 alas I he would have been President of the United States ! 
 
f. 112 ) 
 
 \Ve were on the brink of a precipk^e we saw not; but 
 thank God we are saved. 
 
 It may be said by the blind and infatuated partizans of 
 Mr. Burr, that General Hamilton did not write the letter 
 of which communication No. 1 herein inserted is the 
 substance, and No. 2 an extract. The grounds of this 
 objection will perhaps be our with-holding the names of 
 the two gentlemen who have done us the distinguished 
 honour of placing them in our hands. But this objection 
 will appear futile when it is considered that we are pledged 
 to communicate them to General Hamilton, if called for 
 by him, or, if he publicly disavows the letter, that we 
 are equally committed to our fellow citizens to publish 
 them. Idle curiosity may wish to know the gentlemen, 
 but delicacy forbids the mention of them unless imperi 
 ous circumstances should call for it ; in either of the two 
 cases stated their names shall be given up ; in no other 
 can they be, nor is it necessary they should. 
 
 It may also be said that General Hamilton, conscious 
 that he wrote the letter in question will neither disavow it 
 nor call on the Editors for the writers of the two commu 
 nications. This will be as good negative evidence as can 
 well be furnished that he wrote it, and on which the pub 
 lic migtit rest satisfied. There is, however, a remedy for 
 the evil which, although not in our possession, is cer 
 tainly in that of thousands of our citizens, particularly of 
 
Dr. Irving. And as we wish the public to be in posses 
 sion of all proper information on this momentous sub 
 ject, we will take the liberty to point it out. 
 
 Dr. Irving is a gentleman of " Respectable standing in 
 society," he is acknowledged to be so by the negociator 
 himself, who is an honorable man I Now suppose Dr. 
 Irving, or any other person of equal " Standing" should 
 write to General Hamilton and ask him whether he penned 
 the letter in question ? We should, however, prefer Dr. 
 Irving because he is actively engaged for Mr. Burr, and 
 has been employed in this species of enquiry. General 
 Hamilton could not refuse him an answer since Mr. Ogdert 
 has recognized and proclaimed his respectable standing in 
 society. We ask Dr. Irving, therefore, to write to Gen 
 eral Hamilton requesting information, not about terms 
 agreed upon, charges, and points above stated^ but whether 
 he penned the letter in question, repeating its contents as 
 detailed in letter No. 2, and whether he derived his in 
 formation from Mr. Ogden ? If to such an enquiry Gen 
 eral Hamilton says he did not write it, and that too on the 
 authority of Mr. Ogclen, then will we publish the names 
 of the two gentlemen who communicated to us the 
 above letters, numbered 1 and 2. This we hope the pub 
 lic will deem sufficient on our part. The two gentlemen 
 are pre-eminent in republicanism, in rank, in integrity, 
 and ia honour. 
 
C 
 
 In confirmation, however, if confirmation be necessary, 
 of the propositions of Mr. Ogden and the answers of 
 Col. Burr, as stated in the communications number 1 
 and 2, it is proper to say, that the Hon. Judge Living 
 ston of this city, a gentleman whose intelligence and in 
 tegrity will not be questioned, repeated, in a conversation 
 with the Editors, and authorized them to state, the 
 following facts ; namely, that General Hamilton did, 
 at the Hotel in Albany, and in the company of gentlemen 
 of both parties, explicitly declare, in February 1801, im 
 mediately after Mr. Ogderfs negotiation, that Burr had 
 negotiated or intrigued with a federal gentleman for the 
 Presidency [the Judge is not certain which term he made 
 use of] and that he told the negotiator, or the person with 
 whom he had intrigued, that after the second ballot 
 in the House, New-York and New-Jersey would re 
 linquish Mr. Jefferson and vote for him I It was ob 
 served by some One in company that it was indiscreet 
 for General Hamilton to make such a declaration in such, 
 a company ; to which the General replied u Not at all, I 
 can prove it in a court of justice I" This declaration Judge 
 Livingston, a few days after it was made by General 
 Hamilton, communicated to the Hon. De Witt Clinton. 
 We repeat that we were some time since authorized by 
 Judge Livingston to make this statement, and those who 
 doubt it arc referred to him for its verification. 
 
In conformity with the answer of Mr. Burr to the 
 second proposition of Mr. Ogtlen, viz. that after the se 
 cond ballot in the House of Representatives New- York 
 and New-Jersey would relinquish Mr, Jefferson and vote 
 for him, Mr. Burr prosecuted with vigour his plans of 
 intrigue t induce this fatal event. One of his confidential 
 agents, a man devoted to the furtherance of these ob 
 jects, was Mr. William P. Van Ness of this city. Al 
 though this person is not blessed with more than a com 
 mon understanding, yet he was well adapted to the end ; 
 he has a brooding, plotting mind, and was well fitted for 
 the work. He married a lady of fortune ; he \spfciiniarily 
 connected with Col. Burr ; rue is a surety in his memor 
 able negotiation with the Manhattan Company, of which 
 we a few days since laid a statement before the public. 
 
 Mir. Ogden went, to Washington on the 27th day of 
 December 1800, aad after being clothed, by leading fede 
 ralists there, with diplomatic powers returned to this city : 
 the negotiation was completed about the 15th. To in 
 duce New- York and New-Jersey to relinquish Mr. Jef 
 ferson on a second ballot and vote for him, was a pri 
 mary object with Mr. Burr. With respect to New- 
 York he had already made arrangements 011 which he 
 founded sanguine calculations ; nothing, therefore, was 
 necessary but a rigid perseverance in the execution of 
 them. In regard to New-Jersey, although himself and 
 his friend, Senator Dayton, had tampered with a repi$* 
 
llcan representative of that state, something more effici 
 ent, influence more powerful, was to be employed. To 
 carry his projects the more securely into execution in 
 respect to these two states, Mr. Burr went to Albany, 
 where, he imagined, his presence would lull suspicion if 
 any existed : the legislature was about to be in session. 
 Mr. Burr and his friend Van Ness applied to the Albany 
 stage office for seats that they might go together, but as 
 both could not be accommodated, Mr. Burr left this 
 city in his own carrirge on the 21st of January ; Mr- 
 Van Ness followed him on the 22d, and Mr. Swartwout 
 in a day or two after. 
 
 The following letter, with which we have been oblig 
 ingly favoured by Mr. Pennington, a member of the exe 
 cutive council of New-Jersey, will shew most clearly, 
 when viewed in conjunction with what has been already 
 said, the aequiescence of Mr. Burr in the projects of the 
 negotiator, and that the means he employed to carry them 
 into effect were in perfect accordance with his answer 
 to the second proposition of Mr. Ogden, to wit, that after 
 the second ballot he had good reason to expect that New- 
 York and New-Jersey would recede from Mr. Jefferson 
 and vote for him* 
 
 LETTER III 
 
 Netv-Torky December 2d. 1802. 
 " DEAR SIR, 
 
 " By authority, which we cannot doubt, we have been 
 informed that letters have been shewn to you, written by 
 
C 
 
 Mr. John Swart\vout of this city, marshal, and Mr.- 
 William P. Van Ness, of the same place, addressed to 
 Mr. Robert Williams of Poughkeepsie on the subject of 
 the late Presidential election. We intend, shortly, to re 
 touch the subject of Mr. Burr s negociation with Mr. 
 Ogden, and as in doing so it may be necessary to notice 
 those letters, and lay be Tore the public, as far as has 
 come to our knowledge, the substance of them, we beg 
 you to favour us with your impressions of their contents. 
 > u We are, with unfeigned respect, sir, 
 u Your most obcTt serv ts, 
 
 " DENNISTON & CHEETHAM," 
 <c To WilUam S. Pennington, Esq. 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 Newark, 27th Dec. 1802. 
 GENTLEMEN, 
 
 It is a thing that has ever been very foreign from my 
 expectations, that any thing which passed between Mr. 
 Robert Williams and myself, on the subject to which you 
 allude, would ever become a matter of public investiga 
 tion. In the summer of 1801, I mentioned, without any 
 expectation of its being again noticed, some facts res 
 pecting it, to a gentleman of respectable standing in your 
 state ; and I understand that it is through the medium of 
 this gentleman that you have obtained your information. 
 Since what hath passed is to be made public, it is certain 
 ly beat that the transaction should be stated with correct- 
 
ness. I shall therefore endeavour to do it with as much 
 exactness as my memory will enable me to. 
 
 In the winter of 1800 and 1801 I resided with my fa 
 mily at Poughkeepsie. The subject of the Presidential 
 election, as it was natural it should do, engaged much 
 attention, and excited much public anxiety. For my 
 own part I did not think that the federalists were sincere 
 in their attempt to make Mr. Burr President, but that 
 their plans were calculated to prevent Mr. Jefferson V 
 election that they might have a pretence for creating an 
 executive officer of their own party ; and thereby either 
 retain in their own hands the executive power, or in case 
 it was denied them, to disturb the repose of the union. 
 Information received from the eastern states, and especi 
 ally Connecticut, served to strengthen the opinion. I 
 therefore thought that the election of Mr. Jefferson ought 
 to be persevered in as long as there was any probability of 
 success ; but if the republicans were driven to the alterna 
 tive of either electing Mr. Burr, or of putting in ha 
 zard the public tranquillity, I thought as the least of the 
 two evils it would be best to encounter the first. Under 
 this impression I wrote to several of the New-Jersey 
 members in congress, and particularly to Mr. Linn, and 
 endeavoured to impress the opinion on their minds. I 
 was intimately acquainted with Mr. Williams and in ha 
 bits of friendship .with him. He appeared to accord with 
 me in sentiment, .and. I have had no reason to doubt h& 
 
( 
 
 sincerity. About this time, and while Mr. Burr was at 
 Albany, Mr. Williams first shewed me a letter from a 
 Mr. Van Ness to him, dated, I think, at Albany, sug 
 gesting the propriety of electing Mr. Burr, rather than 
 have no President, and at the s-ame time informing Mr. 
 Williams that he understood that a Mr. Pennington, from 
 New-Jersey, resided at Poughkeepsie, who, it was thought, 
 had influence with Mr. Linn, and requesting Mr. 
 Williams to prevail on him to write to Mr. Linn on the 
 subject and endeavour to bring him into the measure. 
 This, according with my own opinion, encouraged the 
 measure I was pursuing ; but I could not conceive how 
 this Mr. Van Ness should know any thing of me, as I 
 had no acquaintance with or knowledge of him, nor do I 
 now recollect his other names ; but Mr. Williams descri 
 bed him to me as the young gentleman who had lately 
 married a young lady by the name, I think of M Evers, 
 to whom Mr. Daniel H. Beize, late of this town, de 
 ceased, had bequeathed a very handsome legacy. Shortly 
 after this, I think the next day, Mr. Williams either 
 shewed to me, or read to me a letter from Mr. John 
 Swartwout of nearly the same import, as that of Mr. 
 Van Ness. Mr. Swartwout was then attending the Le 
 gislature at Albany, and as I had some acquaintance with 
 this gentleman, I thought the circumstance no way re 
 markable. I am not certain that I read the letter from 
 Mr. Swartwout, and rather think Mr. Williams read the 
 letter to me or part of it, and informed me that it was 
 
from Mr. Swartwout. Some short time after this I was on 
 an evening at the hotel in Poughkeepsie in company with 
 Mr. Williams, when the northern mail arrived ; this was 
 the last mail expected to reach Washington before the 
 day of election. We went together to the post-office. 
 Mr. Williams received a letter and after we returned to 
 the hotel, and he had read it, he handed it to me to read. 
 This was another letter from Mr. Van Ness. In this 
 letter Mr. Van Ness developed the views of himself, and 
 I think he said of the republicans at Albany, which were 
 to promote Mr. Burr s election at all events. In this I 
 think he calculated on Mr. Livingston and Mr. Bailey of 
 New- York, and Mr. Linn of New- Jersey, and urged 
 Mr. Williams to write all night to his friends in Congress, 
 in order to promote the measure, informing that he, Mr. 
 Van Ness, would do, or had done the same ; there was 
 something in the letter about Mr. Van Ness s coming to 
 Kinderkook or lower down, which I do not particularly 
 remember. This is the substance of the letter as well as 
 I can, after this distance of time, recollect. After I 
 had read the letter, Mr. Williams asked me what I 
 thought of it, to which I replied, that I thought the 
 thing altogether wrong and improper, and that it ought 
 not to be countenanced, as it disclosed an evident design 
 to obtain the election of Mr. Burr, in preference to Mr. 
 Jefferson. Mr. Williams assented to the truth of my 
 observations, and declared that he would not write a 
 single letter on the subject, nor trouble himself further 
 about it. 
 
C 121 ) 
 
 Mr. Williams can afford you a more substantial account 
 of these transactions than I can j perhaps he has preserved 
 die letters. I would therefore advise you to apply to 
 him, should you think the matter of sufficient impor 
 tance to justify the trouble of the application. 
 I am, with respect, 
 
 Your very humble serv t, 
 WILLIAM S. PENNINGTON. 
 To Messrs. Dennlston &? Chcetham* 
 
 It would be well for the reader to analyze Mr. Pen- 
 nington s letter, for the more it is examined the more 
 iniquitous the conduct of Messrs. Burr, Van Ness, and 
 Swartwout will appear. 
 
 It was necessary for Mr. Burr to have agents to carry 
 his schemes into execution, and accordingly we find that 
 Mr. Van Ness and Mr. Swartwout, who are perfectly in 
 his confidence, were, amongst others, chosen in this state. 
 
 The plans pursued by Mr. Swartwout and Mr. Van 
 Ness as represented in Mr. Pennington s letter, were 
 master-strokes of intrigue^ and authorize the suspicion 
 that Mr. Burr was the projector of them. Mr. Van Ness 
 writes, it is believed, from Albany, where Mr. Burr then 
 was, to Mr. Williams, suggesting the propriety of ac 
 quiescing in the election of Mr. Burr rather than have 
 
 Q 
 
( 122 ) 
 
 320 President. The next day, or shortly after, Mr. Swart" 
 wout writes to the same gentleman, from the same place, 
 and to the same effect I This, we repeat, was a master 
 stroke of intrigue j for it is evident that those letters were 
 simply designed to prepare the way for the reception- 
 of the second from Mr. Van Ness in which he urges 
 the election of Mr. Burr at all events ! The intriguers 
 foresaw that such a letter, without the previous ones from. 
 Mr. Swartwout and Mr. Van Ness, must shock Mr. 
 Williams extremely, and indeed notwithstanding the an 
 terior letters^ it appears to have done so. 
 
 But the grand object of thus writing to Mr. Williams 
 was to induce him to prevail on Mr. Pennington to vise 
 his influence with Mr. Linn, one of the Republican Re 
 presentatives of New-Jersey, on the subject, that is, as 
 Mr. Van Ness expressed himself in his letter to Mr. 
 Williams, to elect Mr. Burr at all events ! It appears that 
 neither Mr. Swartwout nor Mr. Van Ness were person 
 ally acquainted with Mr. Pennington, and they were 
 therefore constrained to apply to an intermediate person 
 to prevail on Mr. Linn, to vote for the election of Mr* 
 Burr at all events / 
 
 And why was this influence to be employed upon Mr. 
 Linn ? Is the question difficult to solve ? Mr. Bun- 
 told Mr. Ogden, in answer to the second proposition, that 
 on a second ballot New-Jersey, he had good reason to 
 
( 123 ) 
 
 expect, would relinquish Mr. Jefferson and vote for him? 
 Accordingly influence had been employed and was still to 
 be empkyed to produce this relinquishment. 
 
 Influence had been used. Senator Dayton, who ad 
 vanced Mr. Burr twenty thousand dollars on a mortgage, 
 and who is no-iv one of his sureties in his money nego- 
 ciation with the Manhattan Company, actually offered, 
 before the ballotting commenced in the House of Repre 
 sentatives, to make Mr. Linn governor of Neiv-J ersey in, 
 case he would relinquish Mr. Jefferson and vote for Mr. 
 Burr ! ! This attempt to alienate Mr. Linn from his duty 
 was unsuccessful, 
 
 Mr. Linn, however, was to be assailed in favour of Mr. 
 Burr by both parties. The intriguers were sure that if 
 they could induce Mr. Penningtonto prevail on Mr. Linn 
 to vote for the election of Mr. Burr at all events , his an 
 swer to Mr. Ogden, that he had good reason to expect that 
 New-Jersey on a second ballot would recede from Mr. 
 Jefferson and vote for him, would be realized. But MR* 
 PENNINGTON could not be convened into an instrument 
 to carry into effect the iniquitous plot. He no sooner 
 saw the design, apparent in the letter of Mr. Van Ness, 
 than it drew from him an unfeigned reprobation. 
 
 Mark the zeal with which Mr. Van Ness enters into 
 the service of Mr. Burr! " In this lettei", say 
 
C 124 ) 
 
 Pennington, " Mr. Van Ness developed the views of 
 himself, and I think he said, of the republicans at Al 
 bany, which were to promote the election of Mr. Burr 
 at all events" Merciful God ! Who but one abandoned 
 to all wickedness, devoid of all shame, of public virtue 
 and private honour, could have written such a letter ? 
 But he was not contented with writing this letter. " He, 
 urged Mr. Williams," says Mr. Pennington " to write 
 all night to his friends in Congress in order to promote 
 the measure, informing him, Mr. Williams, that he, Mr. 
 Van Ness, would do or had done the same I" 
 
 This letter then developed, according to Mr. Van Ness, 
 the views of the Republicans at Albany, which were to 
 elect Mr. Burr at all events! What a gross and presump 
 tuous untruth! Under the pretext of representing the 
 views of the Republicans, the very liberties of the country 
 were, by a few base intriguers, put at hazard ! 
 
 The same pretext was set forth by Mr. Van Ness in 
 the letter which he wrote at the same time to Mr. Edward 
 Livingston then our representative. *This letter was 
 dated at Albany in February 1801, a little before the 
 ballotting in the House of Representatives commenced. 
 In it he stated that the republicans were alarmed at the 
 aspect of affairs, and requested Mr. Livingston, as the 
 sense of the Republicans at Albany, [and by this was 
 meant the sense of the Legislature then in session] to 
 
( 125 ) 
 
 recede from Mr. Jefferson, after the frst ballot, and 
 vote for Mr. Burr! We willingly appeal to Mr. Living 
 ston, although we never conversed with him on the sub 
 ject, for the truth of this statement of the contents of the 
 letter. 
 
 It then appears first, that the letters of Dr. Irving and 
 Mr. Ogclen touch not the true points of controversy ; that, 
 in one word, they are sheer deceptions artfully contrived 
 to mislead the public. 
 
 And secondly, That Mr. Burr entered fully into the 
 views of Mr. Ogden, although he did not agree 
 to terms ! This is evident, first, from the letter of 
 General Hamilton, written, as he states, on the authori 
 ty of Mr. Ogden. Secondly, from the machinations of 
 Messrs. Burr, Van Ness, Swartwout, and Dayton, to 
 induce New- York and New-Jersey to relinquish Mr. 
 Jefferson on a second ballot, agreeably to Mr. Barr s 
 answer to the second proposition of the negotiator, to wit, 
 that he had good reason to expect that those two states 
 would recede from Mr. Jefferson and vote for him. 
 These are actions that speak for themselves, and they 
 are proved, first, by the letter of Mr. Pennington detail 
 ing the contents of Mr. Van Ness s to Mr. Williams of 
 Poughkeepsie ; secondly, by Mr. Van Ness s letter to Mr. 
 Edward Livingston, thirdly, by Mr. Dayton s proffer to 
 make Mr. Linn governor of New-Jersey in case he 
 would forsake Mr. Jefferson and vote for Col. Burr, and 
 
( 126 ) 
 
 fourthly, by the holding out of the federalists in the House 
 of Representatives in the full expectation that New- York 
 and New-Jersey would, according to Mr. Burr s answer 
 to the second proposition of Mr. Ogden, desert Mr. 
 Jefferson and vote for Col. Burr. These facts speak too 
 audibly and eloquently to the senses to be resisted. 
 
 Since the Presidential election Mr. Burr has manifest 
 ed hostility to the administration : his proceedings on the 
 Judiciary question are evidence of it. 
 
 He calumniates the executive in his private correspon 
 dence with his friends. The Editor could name one of 
 them who received from Col. Burr a letter written by 
 him while at Washington during the last session, in 
 which he speaks indecorously of the executive and 
 pointedly reprobates his administration. While he 
 knozvs the fact he is not at liberty to mention the name 
 of the person to whom the letter was written. 
 
 The immediate friends of Col. Burr speak contempt 
 uously of the executive and of his administration. 
 
 Between the Morning Chronicle, a paper devoted to 
 their views, the Evening Post, under the immediate in 
 fluence of General Hamilton, and the New- York Gazette, 
 principally controuled by Dr. Linn of this city, who 
 
C 
 
 is notoriously guided by General Hamilton, there is a 
 perfect accordance of action in every thing that relates to 
 the Vice-President. 
 
 Seeing these things, it is high time for the friends of 
 the administration ; for those who are inimical to usurpa 
 tion, whether by force or by intrigue y to unite in tlae 
 support of the one, and in disapprobation of the other. 
 Circumstances render it necessary that we should view 
 the advocates of Mr. Burr as federalists., and in our 
 intercourse with them to treat them accordingly. 
 
( 128 ) 
 
 A P P END IX. 
 
 TO THE PUBLIC. 
 
 THE false colouring given by the relation of one William 
 S. Pennington, in a letter to Denniston and Cheetham, which 
 appeared in the American Citizen of the 22d inst. and their 
 subsequent malicious remarks, oblige me once more to ask 
 pardon for obtruding myself on the public attention. 
 
 I declare, on my honour, that I did not, at any time advise 
 the election of Mr. Burr, as President of the United States, 
 to the exclusion of Mr. Jefferson ; nor did I ever write to 
 any person or persons to that effect : and I hereby authorize 
 Mr. Robert Williams to publish any letter or letters he may 
 have received from me on the subject of the presidential elec 
 tion. I am induced to contradict the base slander of those 
 exclusive patriots, by a regard to truth only and not from a 
 conviction that it would have been either dishonourable to me 
 or disadvantageous to the country, or the republican party, 
 to have promoted the election of Mr. Burr to the Presiden 
 tial chair. 
 
 JOHN SWARTWOUT. 
 
 New- York, Jan. 23, 1803* 
 
( 129 ) 
 
 TO JOHN SWARTWOUT, Esq. 
 
 MARSHAL. 
 SIR, 
 
 Notwithstanding the rudeness of your remarks, we have 
 not hesitated for a moment to give them a place in the CITI. 
 ZEN. It is proper that an offender should be heard where his 
 offence is urged against him. 
 
 While patriotism frowns upon your intrigues, charity dis 
 poses us to make allowances for the irritability of your tern, 
 per. Rely on it, sir, your passion injures no one but your 
 self ; it is neither calculated to convince nor conciliate those 
 who believe you not immaculate with regard to Mr. Burr s 
 negociation with Mr. Ogden. To be formidable, whether 
 your political conduct, with respect to the negociation, has been 
 honourable or dishonourable, it is essential that you be dispas 
 sionate ; to convince your fellow-citizens that you were not 
 a subordinate agent in that alarming plot, much more 
 than your delusive and indecorous address to the pub. 
 lie is necessary. We would advise contrition for the past, 
 and, as a pledge for the future, a public renunciation of your 
 errors and political connections. 
 
 Did we perceive in your address a disposition to repent, 
 ance, we would invigorate your resolution to reform. But it 
 does more than indicate a perverse and sullen determination 
 to persevere in error : we shall therefore proceed to exhibit 
 its want of candour and of truth. 
 
 R 
 
( 130 ) 
 
 You accuse Mr. Pennington of having given " False colour 
 ing" to his circumspect relation of the letter you wrote to 
 Mr. Robert Williams of Poughkeepsie, and ourselves of 
 having made upon that relation " Malicious remarks." You, 
 however, content yourself with making these accusations 
 without endeavouring to prove by argument or by testimony 
 cither the one or the other. No one could expect from you 
 the former, the latter the public have a right to demand. 
 
 Let us examine the charge against Mr. Pennington. 
 
 After Mr. Pennington had stated that Mr. Van Ness wrote 
 to Mr. Williams " Suggesting the propriety of electing Mr. 
 Burr rather than have no President," he says " Shortly after 
 this, I think the next day, Mr. Williams either shewed to 
 me, or read to me, a letter from Mr. John Swartwout, of 
 nearly the same import as that of Mr. Van Ness. Mr. 
 Swartwout was then attending the Legislature at Albany, and 
 as I had some acquaintance with this gentleman, I thought 
 the circumstance no way remarkable. I am not certain 
 that I read the letter from Mr. Swartwout, and rather think 
 Mr. Williams read the letter to me, or part of it, and in. 
 formed me that it was from Mr. Swartwout." This is all 
 that h said of you in Mr. Pennington s letter, which 
 see. 
 
 Now, sir, if you wrote the letter in question, which you 
 have not denied, nor will you, we are of opinion, find it con 
 venient to deny, what terms could Mr. Pennington have- 
 chosen more modest, more circumspect or less deserving 
 the epithet you have applied to them? Can any reader but 
 
yourself find " False colouring" in his remarks ? Have you,, 
 in truth, discovered it? Or is it not an art dexterously played 
 off, with an intention to deceive the public ? 
 
 Mr. Pennington s solicitude to avoid mistatement is apparent 
 in his relation of the contents of your letter. He is extremely 
 circumspect, and we therefore conclude, accurate. There 
 is not in his narrative any thing like " colouring" as the 
 reader will see ; whether true or false. It is concise, plain, 
 and elegant. 
 
 After accusing Mr. Peunington of " False colouring," the 
 nmujifiorltd charge of maliciousness you have brought forward 
 against ourselves, will not surprise. To repel this it is not 
 necessary to say a word. A person convicted of one error 
 will find little credence in the assertion of another. You 
 may too, sir, be indulged in wild declamation, in groundless 
 terms j it is the harmless privilege of one entangled in his 
 own mazes. Your raving exhibits your impotence. 
 
 The calumnies of yourself and your compatriots affect us 
 not; they are powerless. We expect not from you either 
 justice or mercy. Subsequent to the developement of that 
 iniquitous scheme in which you acted a part it would be vain 
 to hope for the former; the latter we ask not, seek not. 
 
 In your laconic address there is a passage that deserves 
 peculiar notice ; it is that in which you totally^ and we think 
 wilfully, misrepresent Mr. Pennington and ourselves. In this, 
 however, you cannot succeed. Your attempt to mislead the. 
 
 v 
 
( 132 ) 
 
 public is too stupid to elude tl*e most obtuse sense. Rely 
 on it, sir, nature gave you not adequate powers, and you 
 do but mistake her office when you attempt it. You have 
 neither a tongue nor a pen that " Would wheedle with 
 the devil." We must divest you of the factitious air you have 
 drawn from associating with the Vice President, and shew 
 you to the world as you are. For this you will thank us not ; 
 but remember that your own imprudence has rendered it 
 necessary. 
 
 You say, " I declare, on my honour, that I did not at any 
 time, advise the election of Mr. Burr as President of the 
 United States to the exclusion of Mr. Jefferson; ncr did I 
 ever write to any person or persons to that effect." 
 
 One, sir, who watches not with Lynx eyes the arts of 
 yourself and your colleagues, would be apt to imagine that 
 you were contradicting, on your honour, a charge advanced 
 against you either by Mr. Pennington or ourselves. As Mr. 
 Abraham Bishop says tis all delusion. Your rich fancy, roam 
 ing to shield yourself and your favourite, has conjured up an 
 accusation which, on your honour, you deny ! And do you* 
 Mr. Swartwout, really think the public can be deceived by 
 such an artifice ? 
 
 Are you so swollen with vanity, or besotted with ignorance 
 as to believe that those who have entered the recesses of your 
 broc cling councils, unfolded your craft, and warned the coun 
 try of its danger, are to be imposed upon by a subterfuge so 
 shallow-? Sir, the fate of Dr. Irving and Mr. Ogden, which 
 

 ( 133 ) 
 
 was before your eyes when you penned your address, 
 to have taught you better. They too, by an artificial stroke 
 much more ingenious than yours, sought in vain to divert 
 the attention of the public from the real points of controversy. 
 They too, unhappy men ! Chuckled at the comfortable idea 
 of covering Mr. Burr by terms agreed u/icn, charges, and points 
 above stated ! ! 
 
 The charge which with so much seeming solemnity you 
 deny, was never made against you. Neither Mr. Pennington 
 nor ourselves stated that in your letter to Mr. Williams you 
 " Advised the election of Mr. Burr as President to the ex 
 clusion," as you elegantly term it as if he could be elected 
 at all without the exclusion " of Mr. Jefferson," Mr. Pen 
 nington cautiously asserts, and we repeated the assertion, 
 that you urged the election of Mr. Burr rather than have no 
 president. You neither deny that you wrote that letter, nor 
 that it contained this advice. But, anxious to make the 
 world believe you contradict something contained in our 
 ninth letter, you pompously declare, on your honour, that 
 you did not advise the election of Mr. Burr to the exclusion 
 of Mr. Jefferson. And pray, Sir, who ever said you did so- 
 advise ? On our honour we declare, that neither Mr. Pen 
 nington nor ourselves ever accused you of such advice. On 
 the contrary it was explicitly stated that in your letter to Mr. 
 Williams you advised the election of Mr. Burr rather than 
 have no president. It was remarked by ourselves and the 
 public will judge of the probable truth of the remark that 
 your letter and Mr. Van Ness s were intended to prepare 
 the way for the reception of his second, in which that unas*. 
 , 
 
( 134 > 
 
 suming and faithful young man urges, as the sense <f the- 
 republicans, the election of Mr. Burr at all events, requests- 
 Mr. Williams to write all night to promote the measure, and 
 by way of inducement, adds, that he either has done or shall 
 do so himself! 
 
 What then was the object ^of your address ? Not to con 
 tradict aught contained in our ninth letter, for you contradict 
 nothing, nor, it would seem, to make a public renunciation 
 of your errors : was it not then to mislead the public ? 
 
 But pray, sir, why did you advise the election of Mr. Burr 
 <y all ? Was the presidency intended by the Republicans for- 
 him ? The negative of this question is so obvious that it will 
 appear superfluous to say -no. It is true that by various in-- 
 of which you are not ignorant, and a concurrence of 
 circumstances, he obtained an equality of votes with 
 Mr. Jefferson. But did this equality change public opinion 
 with regard to the choice between the two candidates for the 
 Presidency ? Undoubtedly not. The dilemma consequent on 
 that equality arose from a defect in the constitution, not of 
 the expression of the public will in favour of Mr. Jefferson, 
 for this was too unequivocal to be misunderstood. We then 
 repeat the question, how came you to advise the election of 
 Mr. Burr at all ; for the idea of having no president was ri 
 diculous ? We must have a president, and the only question 
 was, which of the two parties shall submit to the other ? 
 Shall the majority yield to the minority, or the latter to the 
 former ? This interrogatory needs no answer. It was the 
 tnisiii jss of the republicans to remain firm at their posts ; 
 
( 135 ) 
 
 to be faithful to the people ; to persevere in carrying- into 
 effect the expression of their will ; and if in so doing- the 
 xtubbarnness of the Representatives of six of the sixteen states 
 impelled the country to arms, they were answerable for the 
 consequences. He who betrays the people in such a case by 
 yielding to the improper and exorbitant pretences of a small 
 minority, is himself a traitor. 
 
 Sir, you have certainly sense enough to know this, and yet 
 you wrote to Mr- Williams from. Albany, where Mr. Burr and 
 Mr. Van Ness then were, and the day after the latter had writ, 
 ten requesting him to use his influence with Mr. Penningtoii 
 to prevail on Mr. Linn, of New- Jersey, to vote for Mr. Burj 
 rather than have no President 1 And when did you thus 
 write, for this enquiry is essential to a due appreciation of your 
 motives ? Had you written after the House had balloted thir 
 ty-six times, when that long and painful contest had menaced^ 
 the tranquillity of the states, and advised the election of Mr. 
 Burr rather than have no President, we might have found an 
 adequate excuse in your timidity. But you wrote at least 
 two weeks before the balloting commenced ; yes, sir, previ. 
 ous to its being officially known that the minority would op 
 pose the majority, but after Mr. Burr had given the negocia- 
 tor assurances that New- York and New- Jersey would 
 vote for him, you made a requisition of the good offices 
 >f Mr. Williams to use his influence with Mr. Pennington to 
 prevail on Mr. Linn to vote for Mr. Burr rather than have no 
 President ! How significant was such a request at that time } 
 iifter Mr. Burr s negotiation, and when too we consider 
 hut Mr. Linn was to be operated upon by these chirurgicyj 
 
gentlemen to -vote for Mr. Burr rather than have no Presi 
 dent ! We say especially when we consider that Mr. Linn 
 was the gentleman designated, for according to the plan of 
 the machinators his fidelity to the cause was to be tested on 
 the one side by Senator Dayton and other federal persons, 
 and on the other indirectly by yourself and Mr. Burr s ether 
 good friends, sweet friends. Mr. Linn, however, was faithful ; 
 he resisted the bribes offered to withdraw him from his duty. 
 
 When therefore we consider the time when you wrote, 
 four intimate connection with MP. Burr and Mr. Van Ness, 
 and the second letter of this youth in which he urges the 
 .flection of Mr- Jefferson at all events, we cannot be at a loss 
 to determine your motive, the more especially when we re 
 flect on the explicit declaration with which you close your 
 address. 
 
 In this, sir, you tell us expressly, that it would not have, 
 been " either dishonourable to yourself or disadvantageous 
 to the country, or the republican party, to have promoted the 
 election of Mr. Burr to the Presidential chair 1" We expected 
 that when the friends of Mr. Burr could no longer deny his 
 negociation they would resort to this last refuge and openly 
 proclaim and exult in their profligacy. Neither dishonourable 
 to yourself nor disadvantageous to the Republican party to 
 have promoted Mr. Burr s election to the Presidency ! What, 
 not dishonourable to one who pretends to be a Republican to 
 oppose the " wishes and expectations" of his party ; of the 
 country ! Merciful God, do we witness the time when this 
 Abominable doctrine is boldly and openly proclaimed ! a doc- 
 
( 137 ) 
 
 trine that strikes a fatal blow at elective Franchise and ren 
 ders nugatory the voice of the people ! Will you, sir, on 
 your honour say that it was the intention of the Republican 
 party to elect Mr. Burr President ? if so we shall know how 
 to estimate your honour ; if not, would it have been honour, 
 able to have promoted his election contrary to the clearly 
 expressed intention of the Republican party ? You say yes ; 
 be ye then judged by your own confession. 
 
 On the question, how far the election of Mr. Burr would 
 have been disadvantageous to the country ? we wish not to 
 dilate. In our opinion it would have been the ruin of 
 the country. At this moment instead of basking in the sun. 
 shine of peace, the harsh clarion of war would have assailed 
 ou ears; the union would have been convulsed; armies 
 raised ; expeditions as wild and romantic as that of Bona 
 parte to Egypt undertaken; the military in all probability 
 superior to civil authority, and freedom swallowed up in 
 the magnitude and splendour of military power. Whether 
 such a train of probable measures would have issued in a 
 consular government may be much doubted by some, but by 
 us very little, if at all. 
 
 The contemptible manner in which you affect to speak of 
 Mr. Pennington comports with your inordinate vanity, and 
 exhibits your breeding. You say The relation of one 
 William S. Pennington, See. Respect for the public if not 
 for yourself ought, sir, to have taught you better- Do you 
 not know Mr. Pennington, or did you, without knowing it, 
 
 S 
 
( 138 ) 
 
 wish to display the awkward mixture of a lordly exterior 
 \vith a grovelling mind? Mr. Pennington, sir, whom you 
 contemptuously term one William S. Pennington, is a mem 
 ber of the executive council of New- Jersey, a very eminent 
 counsellor at the bar, is deservedly beloved by the repub 
 licans of that state, and ranks among the foremost men in it. 
 He is a frank and intelligent republican, equally adverse to 
 federalism and to intrigue. 
 
 Newark, Jan. 25f//, 1803. 
 
 MR. COLEMAN, 
 
 I have observed in a paper of yesterday Edited by you, a 
 publication wherein Mr. John Swartwout charges me with 
 giving a false colouring to a relation of facts contained in a 
 letter of mine to the Editors of the American Citizen, in an 
 swer to one from them. I am much surprized at the word 
 colouring made use of by Mr. Swartwout, because my letter, 
 and more especially that part of it which related to him, is 
 nothing more than a plain narrative of facts, as nearly as I 
 could recollect them, and as far as my mind is capable of under 
 standing the subject, without the least colouring. And I am still 
 more surprized that Mr. Swartwout should deny in so positive 
 and peremptory a manner, and connect that denial with my 
 name, that he ever wrote letters to any person advising the 
 election of Mr. Burr, in exclusion of Mr. Jefferson. For my 
 own part I never heard or suspected that he did, nor is there 
 any thing in my letter to Messrs. Denniston and Cheetham, 
 that can, with propriety be said even to intimate the fact. I 
 
( 139 ) 
 
 will not trouble you nor the public, with a repetition of the 
 facts contained in my letter, which has become the subject of 
 Mr- Swartwout s animadversion, but content myself with ob 
 serving, that whoever will take the trouble to examine both 
 my letter and Mr. Swartwout s observations, will find, that 
 the one does not contradict the other. In penning that letter, 
 I adhered to what I believed to be substantially the truth, 
 and if the facts therein stated should be found to be incorrect, 
 in substance, I shall henceforth distrust every faculty of my 
 mind, and hereafter relate with great doubt and uncertainty, 
 every thing that depends on my memory. But I have the 
 more confidence in my correctness, as Mr. Swartwout hath 
 not denied a single fact which I stated. As you have pub 
 lished Mr. Swartwout s address to the public, I trust your 
 impartiality will induce you to give place to this note. 
 
 I am, with respect, your humble servant, 
 
 WILLIAM S. PENNINGTON. 
 
 Mr. Coleman. 
 
 F I J\T I 
 
: CALIFORNIA 
 
 F CALIFORNIA 
 
 HMW 
 
 HOME USE 
 
 CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
 MAIN LIBRARY 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below. 
 1-month loans may be renewed by calling 642.3405 
 6-month loans may be recharged by bringing books 
 
 to Circulation Desk. 
 Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days prior 
 
 to due date. 
 
 ALL BOOKS ARE SUBJECT TO RECALL 7 DAYS 
 AFTER DATE CHECKED OUT. 
 
 F CALIFORNIA 
 
 JflNB 197629 
 
 8ECLCIR, DEC 15 75 
 
 -v 
 
 LD21 A-40m-8, 75 
 
 (S7737L) 
 
 i l ^rW 
 
 -k*3a_ j 
 
 g6. &iy. tffl 
 
 i 
 
 LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 _ VTD 
 
p 
 
 IITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 D 
 
 ITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 ITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 5 
 
 LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA