reference to the claim and proofs will probably elucidate them. When the claim is provided for by existing laws, the opinion of the commissioners refers the claimant to the mode pointed out by such law.
“Demands of different natures by the same person are placed under the head which comprises the greater demand. The claim and vouchers being in such cases usually contained in the same paper or annexed together, it was necessary so to place them in the report that there might be no confusion in the references.
“To produce facility in the review of these proceedings, the documents referred to are all herewith delivered, and are in bundles, marked agreeably to the heads under which they are classed.
“_Claims for Militia Pay._
[In the report a number of cases are here inserted.]
“By an act passed the 27th of April, 1784, entitled _An act for the settlement of the pay of the levies and militia for their services in the late war, and for other purposes therein mentioned_, the mode in which the rolls and abstracts for pay and subsistence are to be made out and settled is particularly pointed out, and competent powers and directions for the liquidation of those accounts are thereby given to the treasurer and auditor.”
“By the 14th section of an act passed the 21st of April, 1787, entitled _An act for the relief of persons who paid money into the treasury, &c_., the aforesaid act of the 27th of April, 1784, is repealed. The commissioners consider this repeal as an exclusion of all further claims for pay and subsistence of the militia and levies. They are constrained to adopt this opinion, not only from the obvious intention of the act, but because, by the absolute repeal of the act of the 27th of April, 1784, there remains no prescribed mode of authenticating these demands; that any rules which the discretion of the commissioners should lead them to adopt would have been unknown to the claimants, who could therefore have had no opportunity of adapting their demands to such rules; and because, if the legislature shall be disposed to direct compensations for such services, it will, in the opinion of the commissioners, be most properly effected by a revival of the said act of the 27th of April, 1784, with such further provisions and checks as may be thought necessary; or by some other general statute, to be passed for those purposes, and which may give equal opportunities to the claimants, and place the liquidation and settlement of such demands in the hands of the ordinary officers of the state.
“_Claims for services, supplies, and losses, which, if admissible, can be made against the United States only._
[In the report details follow, and the commissioners remark]–
“The foregoing claims and accounts the commissioners conceive to be proper against the United States only. This is, in their opinion, sufficiently evident in most of the cases from a bare statement of the demands. Some few appear to require a more special report. The resolutions of Congress of the 7th of May, 1787, and 24th of June, 1788, relative to the settlement of accounts between the United States and individual states, will show the extent of the powers of the Continental Commissioners, and will serve to explain the opinions in such of the preceding cases as may appear to require farther illustration.”
“_Claims for payment of State Agents’ Certificates_.
“By the 25th section of the act passed the 5th of May, 1786, entitled _An act for the payment of certain sums of money, and for other purposes therein mentioned_, all persons holding or possessing certificates of Udny Hay or any of his assistants, or of Jacob Cuyler, Morgan Lewis, or Andrew Bostwick, were required to present them, in the manner therein prescribed, to the treasurer, before the 1st of September, 1786; and those who failed therein are thereby declared _to be barred and for ever precluded_ from any compensation, of which the treasurer was directed to give public notice by advertisement, which was accordingly done.
“By another act, passed the 31st of March, 1787, the time for presenting the certificates of Udny Hay and his assistants was extended until the first of May then next, which time has not been further extended by any law of this state: so that all certificates of those denominations which were not presented within the times and in the manner specified in those laws, are expressly barred and for ever precluded from compensation.
“The commissioners have therefore, for the reasons contained in the observations prefixed to this report, conceived that a reference to the aforesaid acts was the most proper discharge of their duty with respect to all claims of compensation for such certificates.
“_Claims for grain impressed for the use of the army by virtue of warrants issued by his excellency the governor, pursuant to an act passed 23d June, 1780_.
“The law authorizing these impresses declares the articles impressed to be for the _use and service of the army_, and that the owner shall be entitled to receive from the public officer authorized to pay the same the current price for the articles impressed, but does not say by whom that public officer is to be appointed. The commissioners have, however, no doubt but these were proper claims against the United States, and would have been allowed by the Continental Commissioner if exhibited in proper season; therefore, and for the reasons contained in the second preliminary observation, the commissioners are of the opinion that these claimants cannot of right demand payment of this state.
“The claims of Van Rensselaer and Dumond, the commissioners are of opinion are reasonable; that, having been employed under the governor, the claimants could have no demand against the United States, and that the charges are proper against this state.
“_Claims for services in assisting H.I. Van Rensselaer and Egbert Dumond in making the said impresses_.
“The commissioners consider the reasons just before stated in favour of the claims of Van Rensselaer and Dumond to apply to the eleven preceding, and that they are therefore proper charges against this state.
“_Claims for payment of debts due from persons whose property hath been forfeited or sequestered_.
“The several foregoing demands against forfeited estates arose after the 9th day of July, 1776, and are expressly precluded by the 42d section of an act passed the 12th of May, 1784, entitled _An act for the speedy sale of the confiscated and forfeited estates within this state, and for other purposes therein mentioned_.
“The next twenty-five claims are for satisfaction of debts out of the proceeds of property sequestered. The estates of the several debtors have become forfeited, but in some instances no property hath come to the hands of the commissioners of forfeitures; and in others, the property which has come to their hands hath been insufficient for the discharge of debts which have been certified.
“The succeeding twenty-six claims are to have debts satisfied out of the proceeds of property sequestered, though there had been no conviction of adherence or other forfeiture of the estate of the debtors.
“The commissioners are of opinion that a law should be passed authorizing the treasurer to pay demands against forfeited estates, in all cases where there still remains in his hands a surplus from the proceeds of such estates, notwithstanding the limitation contained in the act of 12th May, 1784. But the commissioners would recommend that some mode different from that prescribed in the said act be directed for the ascertaining the amount of those demands. The several claimants and such others as have neglected to avail themselves of the benefit of the said act, may, in the opinion of the commissioners, be with propriety holden to strict legal proof of their respective demands, in due course of law, in some court of record, where the interest of the state may be defended by some officer to be for that purpose appointed.
“The commissioners are further of opinion, that where there has been a sequestration of any part of the property of a person _whose estate hath become forfeited_, the avails of the property so sequestered, as far as the same _can be distinguished_, should be subject to the payment of his debts, in like manner as may be provided with respect to other demands against forfeited estates; but it would not, in the opinion of the commissioners, be at this time advisable to assume the payment of the debts of persons whose property hath been sequestered, and where there hath been no other forfeiture or confiscation.
“_Claims relative to sequestration, and property taken by orders of the Convention_.
“These persons were voluntarily within the British lines, and their property was therefore liable to sequestration under the acts of the Convention. They produce a certificate of their attachment to the American cause, signed by some respectable characters. But being within the resolutions of the Convention, the commissioners cannot advise a recompense.
“GERARD BANCKER, _Treasurer_.
“PETER T. CURTENIUS, _State Auditor_. “AARON BURR, _Attorney-general_.”
On the 19th of January, 1791, Colonel Burr was appointed a senator of the United States, in the place of General Schuyler, whose term of service would expire on the 4th of March following. Until about this period he was but little known as a partisan politician. After the organization of the federal government under the new constitution, he appears to have felt a great interest in its operations. In the French revolution also, his feelings were embarked; and he was among the number of those who condemned the cold and repulsive neutrality which characterized the administration of that day. That he was now about to launch into the troubled ocean of politics was evident to Mrs. Burr, and therefore, in a letter to him under date of the 23d of July, 1791, she says, “It is of serious consequence to you to establish your health _before you commence politician_,” &c.
In the autumn of 1791 Congress convened at Philadelphia, and Colonel Burr took his seat in the Senate of the United States. It has often been remarked of him, and truly, that no man was ever more cautious or more guarded in his correspondence. A disposition, from the earliest period of his life, to write in cipher, has already been noticed. To this may be added an unwillingness, on all important questions, to commit himself in writing. As soon as he entered the political arena, this characteristic was visible even in his letters to Mrs. Burr. On the 14th of November, 1791, he writes her–“To the subject of politics I can at present make no reply. The _mode of communication would not permit_, did no other reason oppose.” And again, December 21st, he says–“You will perhaps admire that I cannot leave Congress as well as others. This, if a problem, _can only be solved at a personal interview_.”
At the commencement of the revolutionary war, the State of New-York held an extensive tract of wild and unimproved lands. Sundry laws were passed in the years 1779, 1780, 1784, 1785, and 1786, providing for their sale and settlement. A board was created, entitled “the Commissioners of the Land Office.” It was composed of the governor, the secretary of state, the attorney-general, the treasurer, and the auditor. The powers conferred by the several acts above referred to having been found inadequate to the proposed object, the legislature, on the 22d of March, 1791, gave unlimited powers to the commissioners, authorizing them to “dispose of any of the waste and unappropriated lands in the state, in such parcels, and on such terms, and in such manner as they shall judge most conducive to the interests of the state.” In pursuance of this authority, the commissioners sold during the year 1791, by estimate, five millions five hundred and forty-two thousand one hundred and seventy acres of waste land, for the sum of one million and thirty thousand four hundred and thirty-three dollars; leaving in the possession of the state, yet to be disposed of, about two millions of acres. Among the sales was one to Alexander Macomb, for three millions six hundred and thirty-five thousand two hundred acres. The magnitude of this sale, and the price at which it was sold, created a great excitement throughout the state, and at the session of the legislature which commenced on the 4th of January, 1792, the subject was brought before the assembly.
The price at which Mr. Macomb made his purchase was eight pence per acre, payable in five annual instalments, without interest, with permission to discount for prompt payment at six per cent. per annum, which made the price about equal to seven cents per acre cash. Colonel Burr, as attorney-general, was a member of the board. On the 9th of April, 1792, the report of the commissioners being the order of the day, the subject was taken up in the house. Mr. Talbot, from Montgomery county, moved sundry resolutions. They were intended as the foundation for an impeachment of a part of the commissioners of the land office. They assumed to contain a statement of facts, evidencing on the part of the commissioners great indiscretion and want of judgment, if not corruption, in the sale of the public lands, and they charged the commissioners with a willful violation of the law. These resolutions, however, excepted Colonel Burr from any participation in the maleconduct complained of, inasmuch as the minutes of the board proved that he was not present at the meetings (being absent on official duty as attorney-general) when these contracts, so ruinous, as they alleged, to the interests of the state, were made: nor did it appear that he (Colonel Burr) was ever consulted in relation to them. These resolutions elicited a heated debate; in the progress of which all the commissioners, except the attorney-general, were assailed with great bitterness; and charges of corruption by innuendo were unceremoniously made. At a late hour the house adjourned without decision until the next day.
On the 10th of April, 1792, Mr. Melancton Smith moved the following resolution, with a preamble as a substitute:–
“Resolved, That this house do highly approve of the conduct of the commissioners of the land office in the judicious sales by them, as aforesaid, which have been productive of the before mentioned beneficial effects.”
This resolution was adopted by a vote of ays 35–noes 20.
Of Melancton Smith it is proper to remark here that he was a plain, unsophisticated man. A purer patriot never lived. Of the powers of his mind some opinion may be formed by the following anecdote. Dr. Ledyard, who was afterwards health officer of the port of New-York, was a warm federalist. He was at Poughkeepsie while the federal constitution was under discussion in the state convention. Smith was an anti-federal member of that body. Some time after the adoption of the constitution, Ledyard stated to a friend of his, that to Colonel Alexander Hamilton had been assigned, in a special manner, the duty of defending that portion of the constitution which related to the judiciary of the United States. That an outdoor conversation between Colonel Hamilton and Mr. Smith took place in relation to the judiciary, in the course of which Smith urged some of his objections to the proposed system. In the evening a federal caucus was held; at that caucus Mr. Hamilton referred to the conversation, and requested that some gentleman might be designated to aid in the discussion of this question. Robert R. Livingston, chancellor of the state, was accordingly named. Mr. Livingston was at that time a distinguished leader in the ranks of the federal party. Whoever will take the trouble to read the debates in the Convention, in which will be found the reply of Smith to Livingston, will perceive in that reply the efforts of a mighty mind. It was a high but merited compliment to the talents of Melancton Smith, that such a man as Colonel Hamilton should have wished aid in opposing him.
During the winter of 1791-92, being Colonel Burr’s first session in the Senate of the United States, he spent much of his leisure time in the state department. For several sessions after the organization of the federal government, all the business of the Senate was transacted with closed doors. At that period the correspondence of existing ministers was kept secret, even from the senators. With every thing connected with the foreign affairs of the country, Colonel Burr was exceedingly anxious to make himself intimately acquainted. He considered it necessary to the faithful and useful performance of his duty as a senator. He obtained permission from Mr. Jefferson, then secretary of state, to have access to the records of the department before the hour for opening the office arrived. He employed one of the messengers to make a fire at five o’clock in the morning, and occasionally an intelligent and confidential clerk to assist him in searching for papers. Here he was engaged until near ten o’clock every day. It was his constant practice to have his breakfast sent to him. He continued this employment the greater part of the session, making notes on, or extracts from, the records of the department, until he was interrupted by a peremptory order from the president (Washington) prohibiting his farther examination.
Wishing some information that he had not obtained in relation to a surrender of the western posts by the British, he addressed a note to the secretary of state, asking permission to make that particular examination; to which he received the following answer:—-
“Thomas Jefferson presents his respectful compliments to Colonel Burr, and is sorry to inform him it has been concluded to be improper to communicate the correspondence of existing ministers. He hopes this will, with Colonel Burr, be his sufficient apology.”
In April, 1792, there was an election for governor of the State of New-York. By some it was supposed that Governor Clinton would decline being again considered a candidate. It was known that John Jay would be the candidate of the federal party. At that period Colonel Burr had warm personal friends in both parties, who were urging his pretensions. Among the most ardent was Judge Yates. In the latter part of February, 1792, he authorized his friends to state that he declined a nomination. He was placed, however, in an unpleasant dilemma. The connexions, and many of the personal friends of Governor Clinton, were jealous of Colonel Burr’s talents and growing influence. Between the governor and himself there was very little intercourse. On the other hand, the kindest feelings towards him were evinced by Chief-justice Jay, who was a most amiable man. It was his wish, therefore, as far as practicable, consistent with his principles, to remain neuter. He had never been an electioneering character, and with the people he wished to leave the pending question, without the exercise of any influence he might be supposed to possess.
By the then existing laws of New-York, the ballots that were taken in the several counties were, immediately after the election, transmitted to the office of the secretary of state, and there kept until the second Tuesday in May, when the board of canvassers were, by law, to convene and canvass them. The election for governor was warmly contested; the federal party supporting Judge Jay, the anti-federal party George Clinton. When the canvassers met, difficulties arose as to the legality of the returns from certain counties, particularly of Otsego, Tioga, and Clinton. The canvassers differing in opinion on the question whether the ballots should be counted or destroyed, they agreed to ask the advice of Rufus King and Colonel Burr. These gentlemen conferred, and, like the canvassers, differed: whereupon Mr. Burr proposed that they should decline giving advice. To this Mr. King objected, and expressed a determination to give his own opinion separate. This rendered it necessary for Colonel Burr to adopt a like procedure. He thus became a partisan, and a most efficient partisan, in that controversy.
_Seven_ of the canvassers determined to reject and destroy the ballots alleged to have been illegally returned. To this decision _four_ objected. The ballots were accordingly destroyed, and George Clinton declared to be duly elected governor. The excitement produced was without a parallel in the state. The friends of Judge Jay contended that he had been chosen by the people, but was cheated out of his election by the corruption of the canvassers. Great asperity and virulence were exhibited by both political parties on the occasion.
From the moment that Colonel Burr was driven to interfere in the controversy, he took upon himself, almost exclusively, the management of the whole case on the side of the anti-federal party. His accustomed acumen, vigilance, and zeal, were promptly put in requisition. Full scope was allowed for the display of those great legal talents for which he was so pre-eminently distinguished. It has been known to only a very few individuals that on Colonel Burr rested nearly the whole labour; and that nothing was done, even by the canvassers, but under his advice and direction. It has therefore been deemed proper to insert here some of the official details of the case. They are worthy record, as an interesting part of the political history of the State of New-York.
“_Statement of the case by the Canvassers, for the advice of Rufus King and Aaron Burr_.
“OTSEGO.–By the 26th section of the constitution of the State of New-York, it is ordained that sheriffs and coroners be annually appointed, and that no person shall be capable of holding either of the said offices for more than four years successively, nor the sheriff of holding any other office at the same time. By the ninth section of the act for regulating elections, it is enacted that one of the inspectors shall deliver the ballots and poll-lists, scaled up, to the sheriff of the county; and, by the tenth section of the said act, it is further enacted, that each and every sheriff of the respective counties in this state shall, upon receiving the said enclosures, directed to be delivered to him as aforesaid, without opening or inspecting the same, or any or either of them, put the said enclosures, and every one of them, into one box, which shall be well closed and sealed up by him, under his hand and seal, with the name of his county written on the box, and be delivered by him into the office of the secretary of this state, where the same shall be safely kept by the secretary, or his deputy. By the eleventh section of the said act, all questions arising on the canvass and estimate of the votes, or on any of the proceedings therein, shall be determined by a majority of the members of the joint committee attending; and their judgment shall be final, and the oath of the canvassers requires them faithfully, honestly, and impartially to canvass and estimate the votes contained in the boxes delivered into the office of the secretary of this state by the sheriffs of the several counties.
“On the 17th of February, 1791, Richard R. Smith was appointed sheriff of the county of Otsego, and his commission gives him the custody of that county until the 18th of February, 1792. On the 13th of January, 1792, he writes a letter to the Council of Appointment, informing them that, as the year for which he was appointed had nearly elapsed, he should decline a reappointment.
“On the 30th of March, 1792, the Council of Appointment appointed Benjamin Gilbert to the office of sheriff of the said county, with a commission, in the usual form, to keep the county until the 17th of February next. His commission was delivered to Stephen Van Rensselaer, Esq., on the 13th of April last, to be forwarded by him to the said Benjamin Gilbert. By the affidavit of the said Benjamin Gilbert, herewith delivered, it appears that he qualified into the office of sheriff on the 11th day of May, 1792. On the first Tuesday in April, 1792, Richard R. Smith was elected supervisor of the town of Otsego, in said county, and on the first Tuesday in May took his seat at the board of supervisors, and assisted in the appointment of loan officers for the county of Otsego. By the affidavit of Richard R. Smith, herewith delivered, it appears that the ballots taken in the county of Otsego were delivered to him as sheriff, and by him enclosed in a sufficient box, on or about the 3d of May, which box he then delivered into the hands of Leonard Goes, a person specially deputed by him for the purpose of delivering the said box into the hands of the secretary of this state, which was accordingly done, as appears by information from the secretary.
“A small bundle of papers, enclosed and sealed, was delivered to the secretary with the box, on which is written, ‘The votes of the town of Cherry Valley, in the county of Otsego. Richard R. Smith, Sheriff.’ Several affidavits, herewith delivered, state certain facts respecting this separate bundle, said to be the votes of Cherry Valley.
“On this case arise the following questions:–
“1. Was Richard R. Smith the sheriff of the county of Otsego when he received and forwarded the ballots by his special deputy?
“2. If he was not sheriff, can the votes sent by him be legally canvassed?
“3. Can the joint committee canvass the votes when sent to them in two parcels, the one contained in a box, and the other contained in a paper, or separate bundle? Or,
“4. Ought they to canvass those sealed in the box, and reject the others?
“TIOGA.–It appears that the sheriff of Tioga delivered the box containing the ballots to B. Hovey, his special deputy, who set out, was taken sick on his journey, and delivered the box to H. Thompson, his clerk, who delivered it into the secretary’s office.
“_Question_. Ought the votes of Tioga to be canvassed?
“CLINTON.–It appears that the sheriff of Clinton delivered the box containing the ballots to Theodorus Platt, Esq., who had no deputation, but who delivered them into the secretary’s office, as appears by his affidavit.
“_Question._ Ought the votes of Clinton to be canvassed?”
_Mr. King’s opinion to the Canvassers_.
“OTSEGO.–It may be inferred, from the constitution and laws of the state, that the office of sheriff is held during the pleasure of the Council of Appointment, subject to the limitation contained in the 26th section of the constitution. The sheriff may therefore hold his office for four years, unless within that period a successor shall have been appointed, and shall have entered upon the execution of the office. The term of four years from the appointment of R. R. Smith not having expired, and B. Gilbert not having entered upon the execution of the office before the receipt and delivery of the votes by R. R. Smith to his deputy, I am of opinion that R. R. Smith was then lawful sheriff of Otsego.
“This opinion is strengthened by what is understood to be practice, namely, that the office of sheriff is frequently held for more than a year under one appointment.
“R. R. Smith’s giving notice to the Council of Appointment of his disinclination to be reappointed, or his acting as supervisor, cannot, in my opinion, be deemed a resignation or surrender of his office.
“Should doubts, however, be entertained whether R. R. Smith was _lawfully_ sheriff when he received and delivered the votes to his deputy, the case contains facts which in another view of the subject are important. It appears that R. R. Smith was appointed sheriff of Otsego on the 17th of February, 1791, and afterwards entered upon the execution of his office: that no other person was in the execution of or claimed the office after the date of his appointment, and before the time when he received and delivered the votes of the county to his deputy; that during that interval R. R. Smith was sheriff, or the county was without a sheriff; that R. R. Smith, during the election, and when he received and delivered the votes to his deputy, continued in the actual exercise of the shrievalty, and that under colour of a regular appointment. From this statement it may be inferred, that if R. R. Smith, when he received and delivered the votes to his deputy, was not _de jure_, he was _de facto_, sheriff of Otsego.
“Though all the acts of an officer _de facto_ may not be valid, and such of them as are merely voluntary and exclusively beneficial to himself are void; yet such acts as tend to the public utility, and such as be would be compellable to perform, such as are essential to preserve the rights of third persons, and without which they might be lost or destroyed, when done by an officer _de facto_, are valid.
“I am therefore of opinion, that admitting R. R. Smith, when he received and delivered the votes to his deputy, was not _de jure_ sheriff, yet that he was _de facto_ sheriff; and that his receiving and delivering the votes being acts done under colour of authority, tending to the public utility, and necessary to the carrying into effect the rights of suffrage of the citizens of that county, they are and ought to be deemed valid; and consequently the votes of that county may lawfully be canvassed.
“2d Question. The preceding answer to the first question renders an answer to the second unnecessary.
“3d and 4th Questions. The sheriff is required to put into one box every enclosure delivered to him by an inspector appointed for that purpose by the inspectors of any town or district; and for omitting to put any such enclosure into the box, he is liable to prosecution; but in case of such omission, the votes put into the box, and seasonably delivered into the secretary’s office, may, notwithstanding such omission, be lawfully canvassed; and equally so whether the omitted enclosure be kept back or sent forward with the box to the secretary’s office. I am therefore of opinion that the votes contained in the box may lawfully be canvassed; that those contained in a separate packet, from considerations explained in the depositions, and distinct from the objection of not being included within the box, cannot be lawfully canvassed.
“CLINTON.–The deputy having no interest in the office of sheriff, but being merely the sheriff’s servant, it does not seem to be necessary that the evidence of his being employed or made a deputy should be a deed or an instrument in writing, though the latter would be proper; yet a deputy may be made by _parole_: I am therefore inclined to the opinion that the votes of Clinton may be canvassed.
“TIOGA.–The sheriff is one who executes an office in person or by deputy, so far at least as the office is ministerial; when a deputy is required of the sheriff conomine, he may execute it in person or by deputy; but if the deputy appoints a deputy, it may be doubtful whether ordinarily the acts of the last deputy are the acts of the sheriff. The present instance is an extreme case; had the duty been capable of being performed within the county, the sheriff or another deputy could have performed. Here the deputy, being in the execution of his duty, and without the county, is prevented by the act of God from completing it; the sheriff could not appoint, and the deputy undertakes to appoint a deputy to finish his duty, who accordingly does so. The election law is intended to render effectual the constitutional right of suffrage; it should therefore be construed liberally, and the means should be in subordination to the end.
“In this case it may be reasonably doubted whether the canvassers are obliged to reject the votes of Tioga.
“RUFUS KING.”
_Mr. Burr’s opinion to the Canvassers._
“OTSEGO.–The duration of the office of sheriff in England having been limited by statute to one year, great inconveniences were experienced, as well by suiters as by the public. To remove which it was thought necessary to pass an act of parliament. The statute of 12 Ed. IV., ch. 1, recites at large these inconveniences, and authorizes the sheriff to execute and return writs in the term of St. Michael, before the delivery of a writ of discharge, notwithstanding the expiration of the year. The authority given by this statute being to execute only certain specified duties, the remedy was not complete, and another statute [1] was soon after passed, permitting sheriffs to do every act pertaining to the office, during the term of St. Michael and St. Hilary, after the expiration of the year, if not sooner discharged. The practice in England appears to have been conformable to these statutes, [2] though the king did pretend to dispense with them by force of the royal prerogative; and this claim and exercise of a power in the crown to dispense with and control the operation of statutes, has been long and universally condemned as odious and unconstitutional; yet the form of the commission is said still to be during pleasure.
“These considerations tend to show the principles of several opinions and adjudications, which are found in English law-books, relative to the holding over of the office of sheriff.
“None of the statutes of England or Great Britain continued to be laws of this state after the first of May, 1778. So that at present there remains no pretence for adopting any other than the obvious meaning of the constitution, which limits the duration of the office to one year, beyond which the authority to hold cannot be derived from the constitution, the appointment, or the commission. If inconveniences arise, remedies can be provided by _law only_, as has in similar cases been done in England, deciding on legal principles; therefore, the appointment and commission, and with them the authority of Mr. Smith, must be deemed to have expired on the 18th of February.
“Yet there are instances of offices being exercised by persons holding under an authority apparently good, but which, on strict legal examination, proves defective; whose acts, nevertheless, are, with _some limitations_, considered as valid. This authority is called _colourable_, and the officer in such cases is said to be an officer _de facto_; which intends an intermediate state between an exercise strictly lawful and one without such colour of right. Mr. Smith does not appear to me to have holden the office of sheriff on the 3d of May under such colour or pretence of right. The term of his office had expired, and he had formally expressed his determination not to accept a reappointment; after the expiration of the year he accepted, and even two days before the receipt of the ballots, openly exercised an office incompatible with that of sheriff; and it is to be inferred, from the tenour of the affidavits, that he then knew of the appointment of Mr. Gilbert. The assumption of this authority by Mr. Smith does not even appear to have been produced by any urgent public necessity or imminent public inconvenience. Mr. Gilbert was qualified in season to have discharged the duty, and, for aught that is shown, his attendance, if really desired, might have been procured still earlier.
“Upon all the circumstances of this case, I am of opinion,
“1. That Mr. Smith was not sheriff of Otsego when he received and forwarded the ballots.
“2d. That the ballots delivered by the deputy of Mr. Smith cannot be legally canvassed.
“The direction of the law is positive, that the sheriff shall put all the enclosures into one box. How far his inattention or misconduct in this particular shall be deemed to vitiate the ballots of a county, appears to be left to the judgment of the canvassers. Were the ballots of this county subject to no other exception than that stated in the third and fourth questions, I should incline to think it one of those cases in which the discretion of the canvassers might be safely exercised, and that the ballots contained in the boxes might be legally canvassed; those in the separate package do not appear to be subject to such discretionary power; the law does not _permit_ them to be estimated. But the extent to which this power might be exercised in cases similar in kind, but varying in degree, cannot be precisely defined. Instances may doubtless be supposed, in which sound discretion would require that the whole should be rejected.
“Clinton.—-To the question relative to the ballots of this county, it may suffice to say, that verbal and written deputation by a sheriff are, in law, considered as of equal validity, particularly when it is to perform a single ministerial act.
“Tioga.—-it is said that a deputy may make a deputy to discharge certain duties merely ministerial; but, considering the importance of the trust in regard of the care of the ballots, and the extreme circumspection which is indicated in the law relative to elections, I think that the ballots of this county cannot, by any fiction or construction, be said to have been delivered _by the sheriff_; and am of opinion that they ought not to be canvassed.
“AARON BURR.”
The opinion of Rufus King in this case was concurred in by Stephen Lush, T. V. W. Graham, and Abraham Van Vechten, of Albany; Richard Harrison, John Lawrence, John Cozine, Cornelius J. Bogart, Robert Troup, James M. Hughes, and Thomas Cooper, of New-York.
The opinion of Colonel Burr was sustained by Pierpont Edwards of Connecticut, Jonathan D. Sergeant, of Philadelphia, Edmund Randolph, of Virginia, United States attorney-general, Zephaniah Swift, Moses Cleaveland, Asher Miller, David Daggett, Nathaniel Smith, and Dudley Baldwin. These opinions were procured by Colonel Burr, as appears from the private correspondence on the subject.
FROM JONATHAN D. SERGEANT.
Philadelphia, 4th May, 1792.
DEAR SIR,
You will perceive by the date of the enclosed that it has been ready some time, but I have waited in hopes that I should have the pleasure of sending forward Mr. Randolph’s opinion in company with mine. As he is not yet quite ready, and I am going out of town, I send forward my own singly. He is very solicitous to collect all possible information on the subject before he gives his opinion, and would willingly excuse himself from the task, were it not, as he says, that it would look like a want of that independence and firmness which dispose a man to meet any question, however important or strongly contended.
His opinion hitherto has been conformable to yours, and I expect will continue so. When it is ready I will forward it without the delay of sending it round to Dr. Edwards’s in the country. The doctor had spoken to me some time before your letter came to me, so that I was nearly prepared when I received yours.
Your obedient servant,
JONATHAN D. SERGEANT.
On the 6th of November, 1792, the legislature met. On the 13th, petitions, memorials, &c. were presented to the House of Assembly, demanding an inquiry into the conduct of the board appointed to canvass the votes given for governor, &c. at the preceding election, held in the month of April. On the 21st the house, in committee of the whole, took up the subject. Witnesses were examined at the bar; various resolutions and modifications were offered and rejected. The debate was continued at intervals from the 21st of November, 1792, until the 18th of July, 1793. The minority of the canvassers entered a protest against the proceedings of the majority, which it is due to them to insert here.
“_The Protest of Messrs. Jones, Roosevelt, and Gansevoort_.
“We, the subscribers, members of the joint committee appointed to canvass and estimate the votes taken at the last election in this state for governor, lieutenant-governor, and senators, do dissent from, and protest against, the determination of the major part of said committee respecting the votes taken at the said election in the county of Otsego.
“I. Because these votes having been given by the freeholders of Otsego, and the packages containing the same having been received and transmitted in season to the secretary’s office by the person acting as sheriff of the county, the committee have no right to reject them under the pretence of judging of the legality, validity, operation, or extent of the sheriff’s authority or commission; these commissions being foreign to the duty of their appointment, and capable of a decision only in the ordinary courts of law.
“II. Because, if the committee were by law authorized to examine and determine the legality and extent of the sheriff’s authority and commission, we are of opinion that Richard R. Smith, at the time he received and transmitted the ballots, was the lawful sheriff of Otsego. By the constitution, the sheriff, whatever may be the form of his commission, must hold his office during the pleasure of the Council of Appointment; and, by the law of the land, he must continue therein until another is appointed and takes upon himself the office. Richard R. Smith, having been appointed on the 27th of February, 1791, and Benjamin Gilbert having been appointed on the 30th of March, 1792, but not having qualified or taken upon himself the office until Richard R. Smith had received and forwarded the same, must be deemed the lawful sheriff of the county. The uniform practice which has prevailed since the establishment of the constitution, precludes all doubt respecting its true construction on this point. For although the commissions of the sheriffs are for one year, they have nevertheless continued to exercise the office until others were appointed and entered upon the execution thereof, which has often been long after the expiration of the year, and sometimes after the same person has remained in office more than four years successively. And such sheriffs, sometimes after the expiration of their year, at others after having held the office for four successive years, have received and transmitted ballots for governor, lieutenant-governor, and senators, which ballots have on former elections been received and canvassed; and even upon the present canvass, the committee have canvassed the ballots taken in the counties of Kings, Orange, and Washington, notwithstanding the year had expired for which the sheriffs of these counties were commissioned, and no new commissions had been issued. Hence the sheriffs of those counties, in receiving and transmitting the ballots, must have acted under their former commissions, since a mere appointment without a commission, and a compliance with the requisites prescribed by law, could not, in our opinion, give any authority as sheriff to the person so appointed.
“III. Because, if Richard R. Smith, at the time he received and forwarded the ballots, was not sheriff, the county was without a sheriff, a position too mischievous to be established by a doubtful construction of law.
“IV. Because, if Richard R. Smith was not of right sheriff of the county at the time he received and forwarded the ballots, he was then sheriff in fact of that county; and all the acts of such an officer which tend to the public utility, or to preserve and render effectual the rights of third persons, are valid in law.
“V. Because, in all doubtful cases, the committee ought, in our opinion, to decide in favour of the votes given by the citizens, lest by too nice and critical an exposition of the law the rights of suffrage be rendered nugatory.
“We also dissent from, and protest against, the determination of the major part of the said committee respecting the votes taken at the said election in the county of Clinton;
“Because it appears that the sheriff of the said county deputed a person by parole to deliver the box containing the ballots of the said county into the secretary’s office. Such deputation we deem to be sufficient; and as there is satisfactory evidence that the box was delivered in the same state in which it was received from the sheriff, the votes, in our opinion, ought to be canvassed.
“We also dissent from, and protest against, the determination of the major part of the said committee, by which they declare that George Clinton was, by the greatest number of votes taken at the last election for governor, lieutenant-governor, and senators, chosen governor of this state; and that Pierre Van Courtlandt was, by the greatest number of votes at the said election, chosen lieutenant-governor; and that John Livingston was, by the greatest number of votes at the said election, in the eastern district of this state, chosen a senator in the said eastern district.
“Because it cannot be ascertained whether George Clinton was chosen governor, or Pierre Van Courtlandt lieutenant-governor of this state, by the greatest number of votes at the last election, without examining the ballots contained in the boxes delivered into the secretary’s office by the sheriffs of the counties of Otsego and Clinton–there being a sufficient number of freeholders in these counties, with the votes given in the other parts of the state for John Jay as governor and Stephen Van Rensselaer as lieutenant-governor, to give them a majority of votes for those offices. Nor can it be ascertained whether John Livingston was chosen a senator in the eastern district by the greatest number of votes in that district, without examining the votes taken in the county of Clinton–there being a sufficient number of freeholders in that county, with the votes given in other parts of the district for Thomas Jenkins as a senator, to give him a greater number of votes for a senator than the number given for the said John Livingston.
“SAMUEL JONES,
“ISAAC ROOSEVELT,
“LEONARD GANSEVOORT.”
Joshua Sands, another member of the board of canvassers, entered separately a protest, but substantially the same as the preceding.
The majority of the canvassers presented a document to the legislature, in which they assigned their reasons for the course they had pursued. That document was drawn by Colonel Burr. The original draught, with his emendations, has been preserved among his papers. On the motion of a member, it was read in the house the 28th day of December, 1792, and is entered at large on their journals as follows:–
“_The reasons assigned by the majority of the Canvassers in vindication of their conduct_.
“The joint committee appointed to canvass and estimate the votes for governor, lieutenant-governor, and senators at the last election, having been constrained, by a sense of their duty in the discharge of the trust reposed in them, to reject the ballots returned from the counties of Clinton, Otsego, and Tioga; and perceiving that attempts are made to misrepresent as well the principles of their determination as the facts on which they are founded, feel it incumbent on them to state the grounds of their decision.
“CLINTON AND TIOGA.–A box, said to contain the ballots of the county of Clinton, was deposited in the secretary’s office by a Theodore Platt, without any deputation or other authority, accompanied only by his own affidavit, that he had received the said box from the sheriff of Clinton.
Another box, said to contain the ballots of the county of Tioga, was delivered by the sheriff of the county of Tioga to his deputy, Benjamin Hovey, who, being detained by illness on the road, delivered the said box to one James H. Thompson, by whom it was deposited in the secretary’s office.
“The joint committee, pursuant to the law, are sworn to canvass the votes ‘contained in the boxes delivered into the office of the secretary of the state by the sheriffs of the several counties.’ Hence arose a question, whether this was not a _personal trust_, which could not be legally performed by deputy? Upon this point we entertained different opinions; but agreed that, if the discretion of the committee was to be in any degree controlled by the directions of the law, there appeared no room to doubt of the illegality of canvassing boxes which were not delivered by a sheriff or the deputy of a sheriff. The ballots contained in these boxes were therefore rejected; not, however, without sensible regret, as no suspicion was entertained of the fairness of those elections.
“OTSEGO.—It appears that Richard R. Smith, on the 17th of February, 1791, was appointed sheriff of the county of Otsego, to hold that office until the 18th of February, 1792; that a commission was issued agreeably to that appointment; that on the 13th of January, 1792, he wrote to the governor and council that he should decline a reappointment; that on the 30th of March, 1792, Benjamin Gilbert was appointed sheriff of the said county; that the commission to the said Benjamin Gilbert was, on the 13th of April, 1792, delivered to Stephen Van Rensselaer, one of the Council of Appointment, to be by him forwarded; that the said commission was in the hands of William Cooper, Esq., first judge of the said county, on or before the 3d of May; that the said Richard R. Smith, on the first Tuesday in April, was elected supervisor of the town of Otsego, accepted that office, and on the 1st day of May took his seat at the board of supervisors, assisted in the appointment of loan officers, and _then_ declared that he was no longer sheriff of the county, but that Benjamin Gilbert was appointed in his place. It also appeared that Benjamin Gilbert had no notice of his said appointment, or of the receiving of the ballots by the said Richard R. Smith, until the 9th day of May, and that he was sworn to the execution of the office on the 11th; that, on the 3d of May, the said Richard R. Smith put up the ballots of the said county in the store of the said William Cooper, Esq., in whose hands the commission of Benjamin Gilbert then was; that the box said to contain the votes of the said county was delivered into the secretary’s office by Leonard Goes previous to the last Tuesday in May, under a deputation from the said Richard R. Smith; together with the said box, and at the same time, the said Leonard Goes delivered a separate packet or enclosure, which, by an endorsement thereon, purported to contain ‘the ballots received from the town of Cherry Valley, in the county of Otsego.’
“The manner of the delivery of the said box and enclosure, and the authority of the said Leonard Goes, were reported to the committee by the secretary of the state.
“These votes were not canvassed for the following reasons:–
“1. The committee found themselves bound, by their oath and by the directions of the law before mentioned, to canvass only the votes contained in the boxes which may have been delivered into the secretary’s office by the _sheriffs_ of the several counties. It appeared to them absurd to suppose this duty should be so expressly enjoined, and that they should nevertheless be prohibited from inquiring whether the boxes were or were not delivered by such officers; or that they should be restrained from ascertaining a fact, without the knowledge of which it was impossible that they could discharge the duty with certainty to the public or with confidence to themselves. They could not persuade themselves that they were, under _that_ law and _that_ oath, compelled to canvass and estimate votes, however fraudulently obtained, which should be delivered into the secretary’s office _by any person styling_ himself sheriff, though it should at the same time be evident to them that he was _not the sheriff_. If such was to be their conduct, a provision intended as a security against impositions would be an engine to promote them. They conceived, therefore, that the objection to an inquiry so important, and in a case where the question was raised and the inquiry imposed upon them by the suggestions of the secretary, must have arisen from gross misrepresentation or willful error.
“Upon investigating the right of the said Richard R. Smith to exercise that office, the facts appeared as herein-before stated.
“2. The constitution requires that sheriffs shall be _annually appointed_; which, to our apprehension, implies that no person shall exercise the office by virtue of any other than an _annual_ appointment. And should it even be admitted that the council may, at _their pleasure_, remove a sheriff within the year, yet we do not see on what ground it can be denied that the duration of the office is limited to one year, unless a new appointment should take place. It would otherwise be true that the council could indirectly, or by a criminal omission, accomplish what is not within their direct or legal authority. It will be readily admitted that an appointment and commission for three years would be void; and surely the pretence of one thus claiming should be preferred to a usurpation without even such appearance of right, and against the known right of another. To assert, therefore, that ‘by the constitution the sheriff, whatever may be the form of his commission, must hold his office during the pleasure of the Council of Appointment; and that, by the law of the land, he must continue therein until another is appointed and has taken upon himself the office,’ is an assertion accompanied with no proof or reason, and is repugnant to the letter and spirit of the constitution, which is eminently _the law of the land_. The practice which has prevailed since the revolution, as far as hath come to our knowledge, does not warrant the position; neither could mere practice, if such had prevailed, justify the adoption of a principle contrary to the obvious meaning of the constitution. Upon the present occasion we have not canvassed the votes of any county which were not returned by a sheriff holding his office under an appointment unexpired. The sheriffs of Kings, Orange, and Washington had all been reappointed within the present year, which satisfied the words of the constitution, and was the _known_ and avowed reason which influenced the committee to estimate the ballots of those counties. The doctrine concerning the constitutional pleasure of the council in the appointment of the office of sheriffs _had not then been invented_.
“3. But even admitting the visionary idea that the office of sheriff (_whose duration is limited by the constitution_) can nevertheless be holden _during the pleasure_ of the Council of Appointment, yet that appears to have been determined by the letter of the appointment and commission, by the appointment of Benjamin Gilbert, by the declaration of Richard R. Smith, and by his acceptance and exercise of another office, which is, by the constitution, declared to be incompatible with the office of sheriff.
“It was evident, therefore, that Richard R. Smith had no authority by appointment, by commission, by the constitution, or by any law, to hold or exercise the office of sheriff on the third of May.
“4. As Richard R. Smith was not legally or constitutionally sheriff on the third of May, neither, under the circumstances of the case, can he be said to have been sheriff in fact, so as to render his acts valid in contemplation of law: the assumption of power by Mr. Smith appears to have been warranted by no pretence or colour of right. The time limited for the duration of his office had expired by the express tenure of his commission and appointment, and he had formally declared his determination not to accept a reappointment. He had, two days previous to his receiving the ballots, openly exercised an office incompatible with that of sheriff; then declared that he had resigned the office of sheriff, and that Benjamin Gilbert was appointed in his place; and by an affidavit which was produced to the committee, it appeared that, upon the day upon which he had put up the ballots in the house of the said William Cooper, he, the said Richard R. Smith, declared that he had resigned the office of sheriff. The business might with equal care and certainty have been executed by Benjamin Gilbert. The single act of receiving ballots could of itself continue _no man_ a sheriff–least of all _a man disavowing that office, and then in the exercise of another_. It was foreign to the duty of the committee to provide against evils which may possibly arise from casual vacancies in the office of sheriff by death and otherwise. Vacancies will sometimes unavoidably happen, without further legislative provision.
“There is not, therefore, in our opinion, any application to the subject, or force in the objection, ‘that if Richard R. Smith was not sheriff, the county was without a sheriff;’ neither is the position true in fact, for it appears that the county was not then without a sheriff. At the time the ballots were received, it was well known that Benjamin Gilbert was appointed sheriff, and that his commission was in the hands of William Cooper, in whose store Richard R. Smith put up the ballots. It is also to be fairly inferred that, had proper measures been taken to give notice to Mr. Gilbert, he would forthwith have qualified and undertaken the execution of the office. It cannot, therefore, consistent with truth or candour, be asserted that there was the remotest probability that ‘mischiefs’ could in any parallel case ensue from the principles adopted by the committee.
“It did not seem possible, therefore, by any principle of law, by any latitude of construction, to canvass and estimate the ballots contained in the box thus circumstanced.
“But, had the question been doubtful, it was attended by other circumstances, which would have determined the committee against canvassing those ballots.
“5. Because the notice of the appointment of Benjamin Gilbert was received by Richard R. Smith on or before the first of May, and his commission was received by William Cooper on or before the third of May. Mr. Gilbert might therefore have been notified, qualified, and executed the duty. He did actually qualify on the eleventh, which gave ample time to have forwarded the ballots before the last Tuesday in May. These facts, with other suggestions of unfair practices, rendered the conduct of the Otsego election justly liable to suspicion; and the committee were constrained to conclude that the usurpation of authority by Richard R. Smith was wanton and unnecessary, and proceeded from no motive connected with the preservation of the rights of the people or the freedom and _purity of elections_.
“6. Because, having in several instances, by _unanimous vote_, rejected ballots of whole towns, free from any suspicion of unfairness, by reason of a defect in _form only_ of the return, the committee conceived themselves the more strongly bound to reject ballots where the defect was substantial, and the conduct at least questionable; especially as the law regards the custody of enclosures containing the ballots as a trust of high importance, and contemplates but three persons in whose hands they are to be confided until they come to the possession of the canvassers, to wit, the inspector, the sheriff, and the secretary; all officers of great responsibility and confidence.
“7. Because the return, upon the face of it, appeared to be illegal. The law requires the sheriff, ‘upon receiving the said enclosure, directed to be delivered to him as aforesaid, without opening or inspecting the same, or any or either of them, to put the said enclosures, and _every one of them, into one box_, which shall be well closed, &c., and be delivered by him, without opening the same, or the enclosures therein contained, into the office of the secretary of this state before the last Tuesday in May in every year.’
“By recurring to the preceding state of facts it will be evident that this direction of the law had been disregarded. If irregularities of this kind should be permitted and countenanced, it would be in the power of the sheriff, by excluding a part of the votes, to confer a majority on any candidate, in counties where there were divisions of interests. Affidavits were indeed produced tending to show that there had been, in that town, disputes respecting the election of town officers; that two enclosures, purporting to contain the votes of the town, were delivered to Mr. Smith, and that he had put into the box that enclosure which contained the votes taken by the persons whom _he judged_ to be the legal inspectors: a matter proper to have been submitted to the opinion of the committee.
“The committee have considered this subject with deliberate attention, and in every light in which it could be placed; and whether they regarded the channels of conveyance, the mode of the return, or the general principles which ought to govern their decisions touching the freedom of elections and security against frauds, they found undeniable reasons which compelled them to reject the votes.
“DAVID GELSTON,
“THOMAS TILLOTSON,
“DANIEL GRAHAM,
“MELANCTON SMITH,
“DAVID M’CARTY,
“P.V. COURTLANDT, jun.,
“JONATHAN N. HAVENS.”
On the 18th of January, 1793, the House of Assembly passed the following resolutions on the subject. “Thereupon, _Resolved_, That the mode of prosecuting any joint committee of the Senate and Assembly, appointed for the purpose of canvassing and estimating the votes taken in this state for governor, lieutenant-governor, and senators, and the penalties to be inflicted on such committee, or any of them, for any improper conduct in the execution of the trust reposed in them by law, are clearly pointed out in the twentieth and twenty-first sections of the act for regulating elections, passed the 13th day of February, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven; and that, therefore, any person or persons who may suppose that any such joint committee, or any of them have conducted themselves improperly in the execution of the trust reposed in them, may prosecute the same to effect in the ordinary course of law.
“_Resolved_, That notwithstanding this provision in the act for regulating elections, this house hath gone into an inquiry with respect to the conduct of the late committee appointed to canvass and estimate the votes for governor, lieutenant-governor, and senators, taken at the last general election held in this state, _to the intent_ that satisfaction may be given those citizens of the state who have been dissatisfied with the decision of the major part of the said committee, with respect to the votes taken in the counties of Otsego, Tioga, and Clinton.
“_Resolved_, That after a full and fair examination into the conduct of the major part of the said canvassing committee, it does not appear to this house that the said major part of the committee, to wit: David Gelston, Thomas Tillotson, Daniel Graham, Melancton Smith, David M’Carty, Pierre Van Courtlandt, junior, and Jonathan N. Havens, have been guilty of any mal or corrupt conduct in the execution of the trust reposed in them by law.
“And whereas, by the eleventh section of the act for regulating elections, it is enacted that all questions which shall arise upon any canvass and estimate, or upon any of the proceedings therein, shall be determined according to the opinion of the major part of the said canvassing committee, and that their judgment and determination shall in all cases be binding and conclusive; therefore,
“_Resolved_, As the sense of this house, that the legislature cannot annul or make void any of the determinations of the said committee.”
The question was taken on the preceding resolutions together, by yeas and nays, and passed in the affirmative. Ays 35. Nays 22.
Among the individuals for whom Colonel Burr entertained a high degree of respect, was Jacob De Lamater, Esq., of Marbletown. Between these gentlemen, for several years, a friendly, and, in some instances, a confidential correspondence existed. Mr. De Lamater was a federalist, but personally attached to Colonel Burr. In 1792 he was among those who wished him to become a candidate for the office of governor. After the death of De Lamater, the letters addressed to him by Colonel Burr were returned. They were written under the sacred seal of friendship; but they contain not a sentence, not a word, that is not alike honourable to his head and his heart. One is selected and here published as explanatory of his _feelings_ and his _conduct_ in the contested election (which so much agitated the State of New-York) between George Clinton and John Jay. It requires no comment.
TO MR. DE LAMATER
New-York, 15th June, 1792.
MY DEAR SIR,
You will, before this can reach you, have heard of the event of the late election. Some questions having arisen among the canvassers respecting the returns from Clinton, Otsego, and Tioga, they requested the advice of Mr. King and myself. We conferred, and, unfortunately, differed; particularly as to the questions upon the Otsego return. I therefore proposed that we should decline giving any opinion, being for my own part much averse to interfere in the business. Mr. King, however, determined to give his separate opinion, from what motives you may judge. This laid me under the necessity of giving mine also, which I did. If I can procure copies of both opinions, and of the protest of the minority, and the reasons assigned by the majority of the canvassers, I will send them herewith. They will enable you to form a competent judgment of the law question, and of the fairness of the Otsego return.
I do not see how any unbiased man can doubt, but still I do not pretend to control the opinion of others, much less to take offence at any man for differing from me. The reasons contained in my opinion, and assigned by the majority of the canvassers, have never been answered except by abuse. I can, in a personal interview, inform you of some circumstances relative to the opinions which have been procured in favour of the Otsego votes.
I have heard with much pride and pleasure of the warm and disinterested manner in which I was espoused by some respectable characters in your county. I shall never fail to recollect it with sensibility and gratitude. It would therefore give me real pain to believe that any part of my conduct had tended to thwart their wishes. If it has had any such effect, it should at least be remembered that I did not seek to gratify any wish or interest of my own. I took no part in the election. I never gave to any person the most distant intimation that I supposed you engaged to support Mr. Clinton, or to take any other part than that which your inclinations and judgment should direct. I felt no disposition to influence your conduct on that occasion. Had I been so inclined, I have no doubt but I could, in various parts of the state, have essentially injured Mr. Jay’s interest; but I made no attempt of the kind. Yet I shall never yield up the right of expressing my opinions. I have never exacted that tribute from another.
Upon the late occasion, indeed, I earnestly wished and sought to be relieved from the necessity of giving any opinion, particularly from a knowledge that it would be disagreeable to you and a few others whom I respect and wish always to gratify. But the conduct of Mr. King left me no alternative. I was obliged to give an opinion, and I have not yet learned to give any other than which my judgment directs.
It would, indeed, be the extreme of weakness in me to expect friendship from Mr. Clinton. I have too many reasons to believe that he regards me with jealousy and malevolence. Still, this alone ought not to have induced me to refuse my advice to the canvassers. Some pretend, indeed, but none can believe, that I am prejudiced in his favour. I have not even seen or spoken to him since January last. I wish to merit the flattering things you say of my talents; but your expressions of esteem and regard are still more flattering, and these, I am sure, I shall never fail to merit, if the warmest friendship and unalterable attachment can give me a claim.
Will you be abroad any, and what part of the summer? I ask, because I propose to make you a visit on my way to, or return from, Albany, and wish to be certain of finding you at home. No political changes can ever diminish the pleasure with which I subscribe myself
Your affectionate friend,
A. BURR.
The following letter is evidence of Colonel Burr’s propensity to correspond in cipher with his most intimate friends, even on unimportant topics. Hundreds of the same character might be given.
TO JACOB DE LAMATER.
New-York, October 30th, 1792
DEAR SIR,
Your letter by Mr. Addison was particularly kind, after my long _supposed_ silence. We may make use of _both keys or ciphers_, and if some of the persons or things are designated by different characters, no inconvenience will arise; if there should, we will correct it.
_V_ is to be the candidate, as my former letter will have told you: He has the wishes of 9 for his success, for reasons which will be obvious to you. Do you think that 8 would be induced from any motive to vote for him?
Yours affectionately,
A. BURR.
Footnotes:
1. 17 Ed., ch. 7, more general.
2. 2 Hawks., 5, 51, Irish oct. edit., 2 mod. 261 statute 1 Wm. and Mary, sess. 2, ch. 2. See also sec. 12 of the same statute.
CHAPTER XVII.
On the 2d of October, 1792, Governor Clinton nominated Colonel Burr to the Council of Appointment as Judge of the Supreme Court of the state, which nomination was immediately confirmed. Thus, within the short space of about three years, he was appointed by the democratic party to the several important stations of Attorney-General, Senator of the United States, and Judge of the Supreme Court. The last appointment was made without consulting Mr. Burr. As soon as he was notified of the fact, he informed the governor of his non-acceptance; yet so anxious was his excellency, and so strong were his hopes that Colonel Burr might be induced to withdraw his resignation, that be refused to lay it before the council until the legislature, on the 7th of December, adopted the following resolution–
“Whereas it appears to the legislature, by the records of the Council of Appointment, that Aaron Burr, Esq., one of the senators for this state in the Senate of the United States, was, on the 2d day of October last, appointed one of the puisne justices of the Supreme Court of Judicature of this state: Thereupon,
“_Resolved_ (if the honourable the Senate concur herein), That his excellency the governor be and hereby is requested to inform the legislature whether the said Aaron Burr hath accepted or refused the said office.”
On the 24th of October, 1791, Congress convened, and Colonel Burr took his seat in the Senate of the United States. In those days it was the practice of the president, accompanied by the heads of departments, to proceed to Congress Hall for the purpose of meeting the two branches of the national legislature, and opening the session with a speech, to which a response was made by each body separately. On the 25th the president made his annual communication; whereupon the Senate “_Ordered_, That Messrs. Burr, Cabot, and Johnston be a committee to prepare and report the draught of an address to the President of the United States, in answer to his speech, delivered this day to both houses of Congress in the Senate Chamber.”
The next day Colonel Burr, as chairman of the committee, draughted and reported an answer, which was adopted by the Senate without alteration or amendment: an occurrence, it is believed, that happened in only two other instances during the period that speeches were delivered by the executive. After the election of Mr. Jefferson the system of sending messages was substituted.
The journals of the Senate afford ample evidence that Colonel Burr was an industrious and efficient member of that body. During the first session of his term of service he was placed on numerous committees, some of them important, and generally as chairman. His business habits soon became evident, and were called into operation. His character for firmness was well established before be took his seat in the Senate; but on the 9th of January, 1794, it was displayed with effect. In consequence of a difference between the two houses, a bill to increase the standing army was lost.
Mr. King, of New-York, by consent, introduced a new bill; it was entitled “An act for the more effectual protection of the southwestern frontier settlers.” Unsuccessful efforts were made by Colonel Burr and others to amend it, by striking out some of its most odious features; but there was a decided majority, as it was known to be an administration measure, determined on carrying it through. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and the question on its passage was to be taken on the last day of the session. By the rules of the Senate, the question could not be put if any member objected. Colonel Burr objected, and the bill was thus defeated.
Notwithstanding his public engagements, Colonel Burr’s mind was constantly employed with the education of his daughter. Mrs. Burr’s health was gradually declining, insomuch that she was unable, at times, to attend to her domestic concerns. This to him was a source of unceasing care and apprehension. His letters to his daughter are numerous. They are frequently playful, always interesting, displaying the solicitude of an affectionate father anxious for the improvement of his child.
TO MRS. BURR.
Philadelphia, 18th January, 1793.
By the enclosed to Mr. Gurney, [1] I have requested him to write me a letter respecting the health of the family, and Theo.’s improvement. Request him to enclose, on a separate sheet, some columns of figures, pounds, shillings, and pence. I shall show the letter and enclosure as a specimen of his talents to some persons to whom I wish to recommend him. Beg him to use no uncommon word or expression. He will pardon this piece of advice when he recollects that I know so much better than he does what will suit the persons to whom it is to be shown. If he should offer his letter for your perusal before he sends it, remark freely; it will be a kindness of which no one is so capable.
Should this come to hand after he has given his lesson on Saturday, send him his letter, and request him to call on you, if you should be able to bear five minutes conversation with him.
I wrote you yesterday, and have nothing to add respecting myself; and only a repetition of my prayers for you, with my most affectionate and anxious wishes.
A. BURR.
TO MRS. BURR.
Philadelphia, 8th February, 1793.
You may recollect that I left a memorandum of what Theo. was to learn. I hope it has been strictly attended to. Desire Gurney not to attempt to teach her any thing about the “concords.” I will show him how I choose that should be done when I return, which, I thank God, is but three weeks distant.
It is eight days since I left home, and I have not a word from any one of the family, nor even about any one of them. I have been out but once, half an hour at Mrs. P.’s, a concert; but I call often at Mrs. L.’s. I am more and more struck with the native good sense of one of that family, and more and more disgusted with the manner in which it is obscured and perverted: cursed effects of fashionable education! of which both sexes are the advocates, and yours eminently the victims. If I could foresee that Theo. would become a _mere_ fashionable woman, with all the attendant frivolity and vacuity of mind, adorned with whatever grace and allurement, I would earnestly pray God to take her forthwith hence. But I yet hope, by her, to convince the world what neither sex appear to believe–that women have souls!
Most affectionately yours,
A. BURR.
TO MRS. BURR.
Philadelphia, 15th February, 1793.
I received with joy and astonishment, on entering the Senate this minute, your two elegant and affectionate letters. The mail closes in a few minutes, and will scarce allow me to acknowledge your goodness. The roads and ferries have been for some days almost impassable, so that till now no post has arrived since Monday.
It was a knowledge of your mind which first inspired me with a respect for that of your sex, and with some regret, I confess, that the ideas which you have often heard me express in favour of female intellectual powers are founded on what I have imagined, more than what I have seen, except in you. I have endeavoured to trace the causes of this _rare_ display of genius in women, and find them in the errors of education, of prejudice, and of habit. I admit that men are equally, nay more, much more to blame than women. Boys and girls are generally educated much in the same way till they are eight or nine years of age, and it is admitted that girls make at least equal progress with the boys; generally, indeed, they make better. Why, then, has it never been thought worth the attempt to discover, by fair experiment, the particular age at which the male superiority becomes so evident? But this is not in answer to your letter; neither is it possible now to answer it. Some parts of it I shall never answer. Your allusions to departed angels I think in bad taste.
I do not like Theo.’s indolence, or the apologies which are made for it. Have my directions been pursued with regard to her Latin and geography?
Your plan and embellishment of my mode of life are fanciful, are flattering, and inviting. We will endeavour to realize some of it. Pray continue to write, if you can do it with impunity. I bless Sir J., who, with the assistance of Heaven, has thus far restored you.
In the course of this scrawl I have been several times called to vote, which must apologize to you for its incoherence. Adieu.
A. BURR.
TO MRS. BURR.
Philadelphia, 16th February, 1793.
A line of recollection will, I am sure, be more acceptable than silence. I consider myself as largely in your debt, and shall of necessity remain so.
You have heard me speak of a Miss Woolstonecraft, who has written something on the French revolution; she has also written a book entitled “_Vindication of the rights of Woman_.” I had heard it spoken of with a coldness little calculated to excite attention; but as I read with avidity and prepossession every thing written by a lady, I made haste to procure it, and spent the last night, almost the whole of it, in reading it. Be assured that your sex has in _her_ an able advocate. It is, in my opinion, a work of genius. She has successfully adopted the style of Rousseau’s Emilius; and her comment on that work, especially what relates to female education, contains more good sense than all the other criticisms upon him which I have seen put together. I promise myself much pleasure in reading it to you.
Is it owing to ignorance or prejudice that I have not yet met a single person who had discovered or would allow the merit of this work?
Three mails are in arrear; that of Tuesday is the last which has arrived. I am impatient to know how writing agrees with you. Pray let me hear, from day to day, the progress of your cure. Most affectionately yours,
A. BURR.
TO MRS. BURR.
Philadelphia, 18th February, 1793.
Just what I apprehended, I find, has taken place. Three sheets were too much for a first attempt. It will, I fear, discourage you, if not disable you from more moderate experiments. Yet I will hope to receive by this day’s mail at least one line, announcing your progressive recovery, under your own hand.
Be assured that, after what you have written, I shall not send for Gurney. Deliver him the enclosed. I hope it may animate his attention; and tell him, if you think proper, that I shall be much dissatisfied if Theo.’s progress in Latin be not very considerable at my return. Geography has, I hope, been abandoned, for he has no talent at teaching it.
The close of a session being always crowded with business, keeps me much engaged. You must expect short letters–mere notes. Adieu.
A. BURR.
TO HIS DAUGHTER THEODOSIA.
Philadelphia, 20th February, 1793.
At length, my dear Theo., I have received your letter of the 20th of January–written, you see, a month ago. But I observe that it was not put into the postoffice until the day before yesterday. I suppose Frederick or Bartow had carelessly put it in some place where it had lain forgotten. It would indeed have been a pity that such a letter should have been lost. There is something in the style and arrangement of the words which would have done honour to a girl of sixteen.
All three of the Miss A.’s will visit New-York next summer, and pass some weeks there. I hope to be at home in ten or twelve days from this time. Let me receive one or two more letters from you, even if you are obliged to neglect a lesson to find time to write them.
Alexis [2] often bids me to send you some polite and respectful message on his part, which I have heretofore omitted. He is a faithful, good boy. Upon our return home he hopes you will teach him to read.
I am, my dear Theo.,
Your affectionate papa,
A. BURR.
TO HIS DAUGHTER THEODOSIA.
Philadelphia, 24th February, 1793
MY DEAR THEO.,
In looking over a list made yesterday (and now before me), of letters of consequence to be answered immediately, I find the name of T.B. Burr. At the time I made the memorandum I did not advert to the compliment I paid you by putting your name in a list with some of the most eminent persons in the United States. So true is it that your letters are really of consequence to _me_. I now allude to that of the 19th instant, covering a fable and riddle. If the whole performance was your own, which I am inclined to hope and believe, it indicates an improvement in style, in knowledge of the French, and in your handwriting. I have therefore not only read it several times, but shown it to several persons with pride and pleasure.
I confess myself unable to solve your riddle, unless the _teeth_ or the _alphabet_ (generally supposed to be twenty-four in each) will give the solution. But I have not yet had an opportunity to consult Miss P. A. To-morrow I shall call on her for the purpose, and will not fail to inform you of her conjectures on the subject.
Your affectionate papa,
A. BURR,
TO HIS DAUGHTER THEODOSIA.
Philadelphia, 16th December, 1793.
I have a thousand questions to ask, my dear Theo., but nothing to communicate; and thus I fear it will be throughout the winter, for my time is consumed in the dull uniformity of study and attendance in Senate; but every hour of _your_ day is interesting to _me_. I would give, what would I not give to see or know even your most trifling actions and amusements? This, however, is more than I can ask or expect. But I do expect with impatience your journal. Ten minutes every evening I demand; if you should choose to make it twenty, I shall be the better pleased. You are to note the occurrences of the day as concisely as you can; and, at your pleasure, to add any short reflections or remarks that may arise. On the other leaf I give you a sample of the manner of your journal for one day.
18th December,
I began this letter at the date which you see, being Monday last–was interrupted, and the mail closed. Yesterday I was confined with a severe headache, owing, I believe, to a change from an active to a sedentary life without a corresponding change in diet.
A week and more has elapsed since I left home, and not a line from you; not even the Sunday letter. Observe, that the journal is to be sent to me enclosed in a letter every Monday morning.
_Plan of the Journal._
16th December, 1793.
Learned 230 lines, which finished Horace. Heigh-ho for Terence and the Greek grammar to-morrow.
Practised two hours less thirty-five minutes, which I begged off.
Hewlett (dancing-master) did not come.
Began Gibbon last evening. I find he requires as much study and attention as Horace; so I shall not rank the reading of _him_ among amusements.
Skated an hour; fell twenty times, and find the advantage of a hard head and
Ma better–dined with us at table, and is still sitting up and free from pain.
Your affectionate papa,
A. BURR.
TO MRS. BURR.
Philadelphia, 24th December, 1793.
Since being at this place I have had several conversations with Dr. Rush respecting your distressing illness, and I have reason to believe that he has given the subject some reflection. He has this evening called on me, and given me as his advice that you should take hemlock. He says that, in the way in which it is usually prepared, you should commence with a dose of one tenth of a grain, and increase as you may find you can bear it; that it has the narcotic powers of opium, superadded to other qualities. When the dose is too great, it may be discovered by a vertigo or giddiness; and that he has known it to work wonderful cures. I was the more pleased with this advice, as I had not told him that you had been in the use of this medicine; the concurrence of his opinion gives me great faith in it. God grant that it may restore your health, and to your affectionate
A. BURR.
TO HIS DAUGHTER THEODOSIA.
Philadelphia, 25th December, 1793.
The letter, my dear Theo., which (I have no doubt) you wrote me last Sunday, has not yet come to hand. Am I to blame Strong? or the postmaster? or whom?
When you have finished a letter, read it carefully over, and correct all the errors you can discover. In your last there were some which could not, upon an attentive perusal, have escaped your notice, as you shall see when we meet.
I have asked you a great many questions, to which I have as yet no answers. When you _sit_ down to write to me, or when you _set_ about it, be it sitting or standing, peruse all my letters, and leave nothing unanswered. Adieu.
A. BURR.
TO HIS DAUGHTER THEODOSIA.
Philadelphia, 31st December, 1793.
I received your letter and journal yesterday in the Senate Chamber, just before the closing of the mail, so that I had only time to acknowledge it by a hasty line. You see I never let your letters remain a day unanswered, in which I wish you would imitate me. Your last had no date; from the last date in the journal, and your writing about Christmas holydays as yet at some distance, I suppose you wrote about Sunday the 22d. Nine days ago! I beg you again to read over all my letters, and to let me see by your answers that you attend to them. I suspect your last journal was not written from day to day; but all on one, or at most two days, from memory. How is this? Ten or fifteen minutes every evening would not be an unreasonable sacrifice from _you_ to _me_. If you took the Christmas holydays, I assent: if you did not, we cannot recall the time. This is all the answer which that part of your letter now admits of.
It is said that some few yet die of the yellow fever which lately raged here; but the disorder does not appear to be, _at present_, in any degree contagious; what _may_ be the case upon the return of warm weather, is a subject of anxious conjecture and apprehension. It is probable that the session of Congress will continue into the summer.
Give a place to your mamma’s health in your journal. Omit the formal conclusion of your letters, and write your name in a larger hand. I am just going to Senate, where I hope to meet a letter from you, with a continuation of your journal down to the 29th inclusive, which, if it gives a good account of you and mamma, will gladden the heart of
A BURR.
TO HIS DAUGHTER THEODOSIA.
Philadelphia, 31st December, 1793.
This day’s mail has brought me nothing from you. I have but two letters in three, almost four weeks, and the journal is ten days in arrear. What–can neither affection nor civility induce you to devote to me the small portion of time which I have required? Are authority and compulsion then the only engines by which you can be moved? For shame, Theo.! Do not give me reason to think so ill of you.
I wrote you this morning, and have nothing to add but the repetition of my warmest affection.
A. BURR.
TO HIS DAUGHTER THEODOSIA.
Philadelphia, 4th January, 1794.
At the moment of closing the mail yesterday, I received your letter enclosing the pills. I cannot refer to it by date, as it has none. Tell me truly, did you write it without assistance? Is the language and spelling your own? If so, it does you much honour. The subject of it obliged me to show it to Dr. Rush, which I did with great pride. He inquired your age half a dozen times, and paid some handsome compliments to the handwriting, the style, and the correctness of your letter.
The account of your mamma’s health distresses me extremely. If she does not get better soon, I will quit Congress altogether and go home. Doctor Rush says that the pills contain two grains each of pure and fresh extract of hemlock; that the dose is not too large if the stomach and head can bear it; that he has known twenty grains given at a dose with good effect. To determine, however, whether this medicine has any agency in causing the sick stomach, he thinks it would be well to take an occasion of omitting it for a day or two, if Doctor Bard should approve of such an experiment, and entertains any doubts about the effects of the pills on the stomach. Some further conversation which I have had with Doctor Rush will be contained in a letter which I shall write by this post to Doctor Bard.
My last letter to you was almost an angry one, at which you cannot be much surprised when you recollect the length of time of your silence, and that you are my only correspondent respecting the concerns of the family. I expect, on Monday or Tuesday next, to receive the continuation of your journal for _the fortnight past_.
Mr. Leshlie will tell you that I have given directions for your commencing Greek. One half hour faithfully applied by yourself at study, and another at recitation with Mr. Leshlie, will suffice to advance you rapidly.
Your affectionate,
A. BURR.
TO HIS DAUGHTER THEODOSIA.
Philadelphia, 7th January, 1794.
When your letters are written with tolerable spirit and correctness, I read them two or three times before I perceive any fault in them, being wholly engaged with the pleasure they afford me; but, for your sake, it is necessary that I should also peruse them with an eye of criticism. The following are the only mispelled words. You write _acurate_ for _accurate_; _laudnam_ for _laudanum_; _intirely_ for _entirely_; this last word, indeed, is spelled both ways, but entirely is the most usual and the most proper.
Continue to use all these words in your next letter, that I may see that you know the true spelling. And tell me what is laudanum? Where and how made? And what are its effects?
“It was what she had long wished for, and was at a loss how to procure _it_.”
Don’t you see that this sentence would have been perfect and much more elegant without the last _it_? Mr. Leshlie will explain to you why. By-the-by, I took the liberty to erase the redundant _it_ before I showed the letter.
I am extremely impatient for your farther account of mamma’s health. The necessity of laudanum twice a day is a very disagreeable and alarming circumstance. Your letter was written a week ago, since which I have no account. I am just going to the Senate Chamber, where I hope to meet a journal and letter. Affectionately,
A. BURR.
TO HIS DAUGHTER THEODOSIA.
Philadelphia, 8th January, 1794
Your two letters of Friday and Saturday came together by yesterday’s mail, which did not arrive till near sunset. Your letter of Friday was not put into the postoffice until Saturday afternoon. You might have as well kept it in your own hands till Monday eleven o’clock. Since the receipt of these letters I have been three times to Doctor Rush to consult him about a drink for your mamma; but not having had the good fortune to find him, have written to him on the subject. I shall undoubtedly procure an answer in the course of this day, and will forward it by to-morrow’s post.
I beg, Miss Prissy, that you will be pleased to name a single “_unsuccessful effort_” which you have made to please me. As to the letters and journals which you _did_ write, surely you have reason abundant to believe that they gave me pleasure; and how the deuse I am to be pleased with those you _did not_ write, and how an omission to write can be called an “_effort_,” remains for your ingenuity to disclose.
You improve much in journalizing. Your last is far more sprightly than any of the preceding. Fifty-six lines sola was, I admit, _an effort_ worthy of yourself, and which I hope will be often repeated. But pray, when you have got up to two hundred lines a lesson, why do you go back again to one hundred and twenty, and one hundred and twenty-five? You should strive never to diminish; but I suppose that _vis inertia_, which is often so troublesome to you, does some times preponderate. So it is now and then even with your
A. BURR.
Learn the difference between _then_ and _than_. You will soonest perceive it by translating them into Latin.
Let me see how handsomely you can subscribe your name to your next letter, about this size,
A. BURR.
TO HIS DAUGHTER THEODOSIA.
Philadelphia, 10th of January, 1794.
I fear that you will imagine that I have been inattentive to your last request about Dr. Rush; but the truth is, I can get nothing satisfactory out of him. He enumerates over to me all the articles which have been repeatedly tried, and some of which did never agree with your mamma. He is, however, particularly desirous that she should again try milk–a spoonful only at a time: another attempt, he thinks, should be made with porter, in some shape or other. Sweet oil, molasses, and milk, in equal proportions, he has known to agree with stomachs which had rejected every thing else. Yet he says, and with show of reason, that these things depend so much on the taste, the habits of life, the peculiarity of constitution, that she and her attending physician can be the best, if not the only advisers. It gives me very great pleasure to learn that she is now better. I shall write you again on Sunday, having always much to say to you
Adieu.
A. BURR.
TO THEODOSIA.
Philadelphia, 13th January, 1794.
Your letter of the 9th, my dear Theo., was a most agreeable surprise to me. I had not dared even to hope for one until to-morrow. In one instance, at least, an attempt to please me has not been “unsuccessful.” You see I do not forget that piece of impudence.
Doctor Rush says that he cannot conceive animal food to be particularly necessary; nourishment is the great object. He approves much of the milk punch and chocolate. The stomach must on no account be offended. The intermission of the pills for a few days (not however for a whole week) he thinks not amiss to aid in determining its effects. The quantity may yet be increased without danger, but the present dose is in his opinion sufficient; but after some days continual use, a small increase might be useful.
I was yesterday thronged with company from eight in the morning till eleven at night. The Greek signature, though a little mistaken, was not lost upon me. I have a letter from Mr. Leshlie, which pays you many compliments. He has also ventured to promise that you will every day get a lesson in Terence by yourself. You know how grateful this will be to
A. BURR.
TO THEODOSIA.
Philadelphia, 14th January, 1794.
I really think, my dear Theo., that you will be very soon beyond all verbal criticism, and that my whole attention will be presently directed to the improvement of your style. Your letter of the 9th is remarkably correct in point of spelling. That word rec_ie_ved still escapes your attention. Try again. The words _wold_ and _shold_ are mere carelessness; necess_e_ry instead of necess_a_ry, belongs, I suspect to the same class.
“Dr. B. called here, but did not speak of his having rec_ie_ved a letter from you, but desired,” &c.
When I copied the foregoing, I intended to have shown you how to improve it; but, upon second thought, determine to leave it to yourself. Do me the favour to _endorse_ it on, or _subjoin_ it to, your next letter, corrected and varied according to the best of your skill.
“Ma begs you will omit the thoughts of leaving Congress,” &c.; “omit” is improperly used here. You mean “_abandon, relinquish, renounce_, or _abjure_ the thoughts,” &c. Your mamma, Mr. Leshlie, or your dictionary (Johnson’s folio), will teach you the force of this observation. The last of these words would have been too strong for the occasion. You have used with _propriety_ the words “encomium” and “adopted.” I hope you may have frequent occasion for the former, with the like application.
“Cannot be committed to paper,” is well expressed.
A. BURR.
TO THEODOSIA.
Philadelphia, 16th January, 1794.
I hope the mercury, if tried, will be used with the most vigilant caution and the most attentive observation of its first effects. I am extremely anxious and apprehensive about the event of such an experiment.
I fear, my dear little girl, that my letter of the 13th imposed too much upon you; if so, dispense with what you may find too troublesome. You perceive by this license the entire confidence which I place in your discretion.
Your journal still advances towards perfection. But the letter which accompanied it is, I remark with regret, rather a falling off. I have received none more carelessly written, or with more numerous omissions of words. I am sensible that many apologies are at hand; but you, perhaps, would not be sensible that any were necessary, if I should omit to remind you.
On Sunday se’nnight (I think the 26th) I shall, unless baffled or delayed by ice or weather, be with you at Richmond Hill. I will not bid you adieu till the Friday preceding. In the interim, we shall often in this way converse.
I continue the practice of scoring words for our mutual improvement. The use, as applicable to you, was indicated in a former letter.
I am sure you will be charmed with the Greek language above all others. Adieu.
A. BURR.
TO THEODOSIA.
Philadelphia, 23d January, 1794.
Io, triumphe! There is not a word mispelled either in your journal or letter, which cannot be said of a single page you ever before wrote. The fable is quite classical, and, if not very much corrected by Mr. Leshlie, is truly a surprising performance, and written most beautifully. But what has become of poor Alpha Beta? Discouraged? That is impossible. Laid aside for the present? That, indeed, is possible, but by no means probable. Shall I guess again? Yes; you mean to surprise me with some astonishing progress. And yet, to confess the truth, your lessons in Terence, Exercises, and “music” (without a _k_, observe) seem to leave little time for any other study. I must remain in suspense for four days longer.
Doctor Rush thinks that bark would not be amiss, but may be beneficial if the stomach does not rebuke it, which must be constantly the first object of attention. He recommends either the cold infusion or substance as least likely to offend the stomach.
Be able, upon my arrival, to tell me the difference between an _infusion_ and _decoction_; and the history, the virtues, and the _botanical_ or medical name of the bark. Chambers will tell you more perhaps than you will wish to read of it. Your little mercurial disquisition is ingenious, and prettily told.
I have a most dreary prospect of weather and roads for my journey. I set off on Saturday morning, and much fear that it will take two or three days to get to Now-York.
A. BURR.