[Transcriber's Notes:

Inconsistent spellings and hyphenations such as "re-election" and
"reëlection" have been conformed, and obvious typographical errors
have been corrected.

The original contains an index in Volume II covering Volumes I and II.
Volume III, which was published later, contains an index covering all
three volumes. Therefore, the Volume II index has been omitted.

The original of Volume III refers to both "Appleton's _Encyclopedia_"
and "Appleton's _Cyclopædia_." The correct title, as used in Volumes I
and II, is "Appleton's _Cyclopædia_" and has been corrected in Volume
III.]

A POLITICAL HISTORY

OF THE

STATE OF NEW YORK

BY

DeALVA STANWOOD ALEXANDER, A.M.

_Member of Congress, Formerly United States Attorney for the Northern
District of New York_

VOL. I

1774-1832

NEW YORK
HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY
1906

Copyright, 1906
By
HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY

PREFACE

The preparation of this work was suggested to the author by the
difficulty he experienced in obtaining an accurate knowledge of the
movements of political parties and their leaders in the Empire State.
"After living a dozen years in New York," wrote Oliver Wolcott, who
had been one of Washington's Cabinet, and was afterwards governor of
Connecticut, "I don't pretend to comprehend their politics. It is a
labyrinth of wheels within wheels, and it is understood only by the
managers." Wolcott referred to the early decades of the last century,
when Clintonian and Bucktail, gradually absorbing the Federalists,
severed the old Republican party into warring factions. In later
years, Daniel S. Dickinson spoke of "the tangled web of New York
politics"; and Horace Greeley complained of "the zigzag, wavering
lines and uncouth political designations which puzzled and wearied
readers" from 1840 to 1860, when Democrats divided into Conservatives
and Radicals, Hunkers and Barnburners, and Hards and Softs; and when
Whigs were known as Conscience and Cotton, and Woollies and Silver
Grays. More recently James Parton, in his _Life of Andrew Jackson_,
speaks of "that most unfathomable of subjects, the politics of the
State of New York."

There is no attempt in this history to catalogue the prominent public
men of New York State. Such a list would itself fill a volume. It has
only been possible, in the limited space given to over a century, to
linger here and there in the company of the famous figures who rose
conspicuously above their fellow men and asserted themselves
masterfully in influencing public thought and action. Indeed, the
history of a State or nation is largely the history of a few leading
men, and it is of such men only, with some of their more prominent
contemporaries, that the author has attempted to write.

It would be hard to find in any Commonwealth of the Union a more
interesting or picturesque leadership than is presented in the
political history of the Empire State. Rarely more than two
controlling spirits appear at a time, and as these pass into apogee
younger men of approved capacity are ready to take their places. None
had a meteoric rise, but in his day each became an absolute party
boss; for the Constitution of 1777, by creating the Council of
Appointment, opened wide the door to bossism. The abolition of the
Council in 1821 doubtless made individual control more difficult, but
the system left its methods so deeply impressed upon party management
that what before was done under the sanction of law, ever after
continued under the cover of custom.

After the Revolution, George Clinton and Alexander Hamilton led the
opposing political forces, and while Aaron Burr was forging to the
front, the great genius of DeWitt Clinton, the nephew of George
Clinton, began asserting itself. The defeat of Burr for governor, and
the death of Hamilton would have left DeWitt Clinton in complete
control, had he found a strong man for governor whom he could use. In
1812 Martin Van Buren discovered superiority as a manager, and for
nearly two decades, until the death of the distinguished canal
builder, his great ability was taxed to its uttermost in the memorable
contests between Bucktails and Clintonians. Thurlow Weed succeeded
DeWitt Clinton in marshalling the forces opposed to Van Buren, whose
mantle gradually fell upon Horatio Seymour. Clustered about each of
these leaders, save DeWitt Clinton, was a coterie of distinguished men
whose power of intellect has made their names familiar in American
history. If DeWitt Clinton was without their aid, it was because
strong men in high position rebelled against becoming errand boys to
do his bidding. But the builder of the Erie canal needed no
lieutenants, since his great achievement, aiding the farmer and
enriching the merchant, overcame the power of Van Buren, the
popularity of Tompkins, and the phenomenal ability of the Albany
Regency.

In treating the period from 1800 to 1830, the term "Democrat" is
purposely avoided, since all anti-federalist factions in New York
claimed to be "Republican." The Clay electors, in the campaign of
1824, adopted the title "Democrat Ticket," but in 1828, and for
several years after the formation of the Whig party in 1834, the
followers of Jackson, repudiating the title of Democrats, called
themselves Republicans.

For aid in supplying material for character and personal sketches, the
author is indebted to many "old citizens" whom he met during the years
he held the office of United States Attorney for the Northern District
of New York, when that district included the entire State north and
west of Albany. He takes this occasion, also, to express his deep
obligation to the faithful and courteous officials of the Library of
Congress, who, during the years he has been a member of Congress,
assisted him in searching for letters and other unindexed bits of New
York history which might throw some light upon subjects under
investigation.

The author hopes to complete the work in an additional volume,
bringing it down to the year 1896.

D.S.A.

BUFFALO, N.Y., March, 1906.

CONTENTS

VOL. I

CHAPTER                                                           PAGE

I. A COLONY BECOMES A STATE. 1774-1776                               1

II. MAKING A STATE CONSTITUTION. 1777                                8

III. GEORGE CLINTON ELECTED GOVERNOR. 1777                          17

IV. CLINTON AND HAMILTON. 1783-1789                                 23

V. GEORGE CLINTON'S FOURTH TERM. 1789-1792                          37

VI. GEORGE CLINTON DEFEATS JOHN JAY. 1792-1795                      50

VII. RECOGNITION OF EARNEST MEN. 1795-1800                          64

VIII. OVERTHROW OF THE FEDERALISTS. 1798-1800                       78

IX. MISTAKES OF HAMILTON AND BURR. 1800                             94

X. JOHN JAY AND DeWITT CLINTON. 1800                               107

XI. SPOILS AND BROILS OF VICTORY. 1801-1803                        115

XII. DEFEAT OF BURR AND DEATH OF HAMILTON. 1804                    129

XIII. THE CLINTONS AGAINST THE LIVINGSTONS. 1804-1807              147

XIV. DANIEL D. TOMPKINS AND DeWITT CLINTON. 1807-1810              158

XV. TOMPKINS DEFEATS JONAS PLATT. 1810                             173

XVI. DeWITT CLINTON AND TAMMANY. 1789-1811                         180

XVII. BANKS AND BRIBERY. 1791-1812                                 186

XVIII. CLINTON AND THE PRESIDENCY. 1812                            199

XIX. QUARRELS AND RIVALRIES. 1813                                  211

XX. A GREAT WAR GOVERNOR. 1812-1815                                219

XXI. CLINTON OVERTHROWN. 1815                                      231

XXII. CLINTON'S RISE TO POWER. 1815-1817                           241

XXIII. BUCKTAIL AND CLINTONIAN. 1817-1819                          253

XXIV. RE-ELECTION OF RUFUS KING. 1819-1820                         263

XXV. TOMPKINS' LAST CONTEST. 1820                                  273

XXVI. THE ALBANY REGENCY. 1820-1822                                283

XXVII. THIRD CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 1821                       295

XXVIII. SECOND FALL OF DeWITT CLINTON. 1822                        312

XXIX. CLINTON AGAIN IN THE SADDLE. 1823-1824                       321

XXX. VAN BUREN ENCOUNTERS WEED. 1824                               334

XXXI. CLINTON'S COALITION WITH VAN BUREN. 1825-1828                344

XXXII. VAN BUREN ELECTED GOVERNOR. 1828                            357

XXXIII. WILLIAM H. SEWARD AND THURLOW WEED. 1830                   370

XXXIV. VAN BUREN'S ENEMIES MAKE HIM VICE PRESIDENT. 1829-1832      382

XXXV. FORMATION OF THE WHIG PARTY. 1831-1834                       392

A POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

CHAPTER I

A COLONY BECOMES A STATE

On the 16th of May, 1776, the second Continental Congress, preparing
the way for the Declaration of Independence, recommended that those
Colonies which were without a suitable form of government, should, to
meet the demands of war, adopt some sufficient organisation. The
patriot government of New York had not been wholly satisfactory. It
never lacked in the spirit of resistance to England's misrule, but it
had failed to justify the confident prophecies of those who had been
instrumental in its formation.

For nearly a year New York City saw with wonder the spectacle of a few
fearless radicals, organised into a vigilance committee of fifty,
closing the doors of a custom-house, guarding the gates of an arsenal,
embargoing vessels ladened with supplies for British troops, and
removing cannon from the Battery, while an English fleet, well
officered and manned, rode idly at anchor in New York harbour.
Inspiring as the spectacle was, however, it did not appreciably help
matters. On the contrary, it created so much friction among the people
that the conservative business men--resenting involuntary taxation,
yet wanting, if possible with honour, reconciliation and peace with
the mother country--organised, in May, 1774, a body of their own known
as the Committee of Fifty-one, which thought the time had come to
interrupt the assumed leadership of the Committee of Fifty. This
usurpation by one committee of powers that had been exercised by
another, caused the liveliest indignation.

The trouble between England and America had grown out of the need for
a continental revenue and the lack of a continental government with
taxing power--a weakness experienced throughout the Revolution and
under the Confederation. In the absence of such a government,
Parliament undertook to supply the place of such a power; but the
Americans blocked the way by an appeal to the principle that had been
asserted by Simon de Montford's Parliament in 1265 and admitted by
Edward I. in 1301--"No taxation without representation." So the Stamp
Act of 1765 was repealed. The necessity for a continental revenue,
nevertheless, remained, and in the effort to adopt some expedient,
like the duty on tea, Crown and Colonies became involved in bitter
disputes. The idea of independence, however, had, in May, 1774,
scarcely entered the mind of the wildest New York radical. In their
instructions to delegates to the first Continental Congress, convened
in September, 1774, the Colonies made no mention of it. Even in May,
1775, the Sons of Liberty in Philadelphia cautioned John Adams not to
use the word, since "it is as unpopular in all the Middle States as
the Stamp Act itself."[1] Washington wrote from the Congress that
independence was then not "desired by any thinking man in America."[2]

[Footnote 1: E.B. Andrews, _History of the United States_, Vol. 1, p.
172.]

[Footnote 2: _Ibid._, p. 172.]

The differences, therefore, between the Committees of Fifty and
Fifty-one were merely political. One favoured agitation for the
purpose of arousing resistance to the King's summary methods--the
other preferred a more orderly but not less forceful way of making
known their opposition. Members of both committees were patriots in
the highest and best sense, yet each faction fancied itself the only
patriotic, public spirited and independent party.

It was during these months of discord that Alexander Hamilton, then a
lad of seventeen, astonished his listeners at the historic meeting "in
the Fields,"[3] with the cogency of his arguments and the wonderful
flights of an unpremeditated eloquence while denouncing the act of
Parliament which closed the port of Boston. Hamilton had already been
a year in America attending the Elizabethtown grammar school,
conducted under the patronage of William Livingston, soon to become
the famous war governor of New Jersey. This experience quickened the
young man's insight into the vexed relations between the Colonies and
the Crown, and shattered his English predilections in favour of the
little minds that Burke thought so ill-suited to a great empire. A
visit to Boston shortly after the "tea party" seems also to have had
the effect of crowding his mind with thoughts, deeply and
significantly freighted with the sentiment of liberty, which were soon
to make memorable the occasion of their first utterance.

[Footnote 3: City Hall Park.]

The remarkable parallel between Hamilton and the younger Pitt begins
in this year, while both are in the schoolroom. Hamilton "in the
Fields" recalls Pitt at the bar of the House of Lords, amazing his
companions with the ripe intelligence and rare sagacity with which he
followed the debate, and the readiness with which he skilfully
formulated answers to the stately arguments of the wigged and powdered
nobles. Pitt, under the tuition of his distinguished father, was
fitted for the House of Commons as boys are fitted for college at
Exeter and Andover, and he entered Parliament before becoming of age.
Hamilton's preparation had been different. At twelve years of age he
was a clerk in a counting house on the island of Nevis in the West
Indies; at sixteen he entered a grammar school in New Jersey; at
seventeen he became a sophomore at King's College. It is then that he
spoke "in the Fields"--not as a sophomore, not as a precocious youth
with unripe thoughts, not as a boy orator--but as a man speaking with
the wisdom of genius.

After the meeting "in the Fields" patriotism proved stronger than
prejudice, and in November, 1774, the Committee of Fifty-one gave
place to a Committee of Sixty, charged with carrying out
recommendations of the Continental Congress. Soon after a Committee of
One Hundred, composed of members of the Committees of Fifty and
Fifty-one, assumed the functions of a municipal government. Finally,
in May, 1775, representatives were chosen from the several counties to
organise a Provincial Congress to take the place of the long
established legislature of the Colony, which had become so steeped in
toryism that it refused to recognise the action of any body of men who
resented the tyranny of Parliament. Thus, in the brief space of
eighteen months, the government of the Crown had been turned into a
government of the people.

For several months, however, the patriots of New York had desired a
more complete state government. All admitted that the revolutionary
committees were essentially local and temporary. Even the hottest Son
of Liberty came to fear the licentiousness of the people on the one
hand, and the danger from the army on the other. Nevertheless, the
Provincial Congress, whose members had been trained by harsh
experience to be stubborn in defence and sturdy in defiance, declined
to assume the responsibility of forming such a government as the
Continental Congress recommended. That body had itself come into
existence as a revolutionary legislature after the Provincial Assembly
had refused either to approve the proceedings of the first Continental
Congress, or to appoint delegates to the second; and, although it did
not hesitate to usurp temporarily the functions of the Tory Assembly,
to its great credit it believed the right of creating and framing a
new civil government belonged to the people; and, accordingly, on May
24, 1776, it recommended the election of new representatives who
should be specially authorised to form a government for New York.

The members of this new body were conspicuous characters in New York's
history for the next third of a century. Among them were John Jay,
George Clinton, James Duane, Philip Livingston, Philip Schuyler, and
Robert R. Livingston. The same men appeared in the Committee of
Safety, at the birth of the state government, as witnesses of the
helplessness of the Confederation, and as backers or backbiters of the
Federal Constitution. Among those associated with them were James
Clinton, Ezra L'Hommedieu, Marinus Willett, John Morin Scott,
Alexander McDougall, John Sloss Hobart, the Yateses, Abraham, Richard
and Robert; the Van Cortlandts, James, John and Philip; the Morrises,
Richard, Lewis and Gouverneur, and all the Livingstons. Only two
illustrious names are absent from these early patriotic lists, but
already Alexander Hamilton had won the heart of the people by his
wonderful eloquence and logic, and Aaron Burr, a comely lad of
nineteen, slender and graceful as a girl, with the features of his
beautiful mother and the refinement of his distinguished grandfather,
had thrown away his books to join Arnold on his way to Quebec. These
men passed into history in companies, but each left behind his own
trail of light. Where danger called, or civic duties demanded prudence
and profound sagacity, this band of patriots appeared in council and
in the camp, ready to answer to the roll-call of their country, and by
voice and vote set the pace which achieved independence.

The new Provincial Congress met at the courthouse in White Plains on
July 9, 1776, and, as evidence of the change from the old institutions
to the new, it adopted the name of the "Convention of the
Representatives of the State of New York." As further evidence of the
new order of things it declared that New York began its existence as a
State on April 20, 1775. It also adopted as the law of the State such
parts of the common and statute law of England as were in force in the
Colony of New York on April 19, 1775.

By this time the British forces had become so active in the vicinity
of New York that the convention thought it advisable to postpone the
novel and romantic work of state-making until the threatened danger
had passed; but, before its hasty adjournment, by requesting officers
of justice to issue all processes and pleadings under the authority
and in the name of the State of New York, it served notice that King
and Parliament were no longer recognised as the source of political
authority. This appears to have been the first official mention of the
new title of the future government.[4] When the convention reassembled
on the first day of the following August it appointed John Jay
chairman of a committee to report the draft of a state constitution.

[Footnote 4: _Memorial History of the City of New York_, Vol. 2, p.
608.]

Jay was then thirty-one years old, a cautious, clever lawyer whose
abilities were to make a great impression upon the history of his
country. He belonged to a family of Huguenot merchants. The Jays lived
at La Rochelle until the revocation of the Edict of Nantes drove the
great-grandfather to England, where the family continued until 1686,
when Augustus, the grandfather, settled in New York. It was not a
family of aristocrats; but for more than a century the Jays had ranked
among the gentry of New York City, intermarrying with the Bayards, the
Stuyvesants, the Van Cortlandts and the Philipses. To these historic
families John Jay added another, taking for his wife Sarah Livingston,
the sister of Brockholst, who later adorned the Supreme Court of the
United States, and the daughter of William, New Jersey's coming war
governor, already famous as a writer of poems and essays.

Jay's public career had begun two years before in connection with the
revolutionary Committee of Fifty-one. He did not accept office because
he loved it. He went into politics as he might have travelled on a
stage-coach at the invitation of a few congenial friends, for their
sake, not for his own. When he took up the work of organisation,
therefore, it was with no wish to become a leader; he simply desired
to guide the spirit of resistance along orderly and forceful lines.
But soon he held the reins and had his foot on the brake. In drafting
a reply to resolutions from a Boston town meeting, he suggested a
Congress of all the Colonies, to which should be referred the
disturbing question of non-importation. This letter was not only the
first serious suggestion of a general Congress, placing its author
intellectually at the head of the Revolutionary leaders; but the
plan--which meant broader organisation, more carefully concerted
measures, an enlistment of all the conservative elements, and one
official head for thirteen distinct and widely separated
colonies--gradually found favour, and resulted in sending the young
writer as a delegate to the first Continental Congress.

It was in this Congress that Jay won the right to become a
constitution-maker. Of all the men of that busy and brilliant age, no
one advanced more steadily in the general knowledge and favour. When
he wrote the address to the people of Canada, his great ability was
recognised at once; and after he composed the appeal to Ireland and to
Jamaica, the famous circular letter to the Colonies, and the patriotic
address to the people of his own State, his wisdom was more frequently
drawn upon and more widely appreciated than ever; but he may be said
to have leaped into national fame when he drafted the address to the
people of Great Britain. While still ignorant of its authorship,
Jefferson declared it "a production of the finest pen in America."

CHAPTER II

MAKING A STATE CONSTITUTION

1777

It was early spring in 1777 before John Jay, withdrawing to the
country, began the work of drafting a constitution. His retirement
recalls Cowper's sigh for

    "... a lodge in some vast wilderness,
    Some boundless contiguity of shade,
    Where rumours of oppression and deceit,
    Of unsuccessful and successful war,
    Might never reach me more."

Too much and too little credit has been given Jay for his part in the
work. One writer says he "entered an almost unexplored field." On the
other hand, John Adams wrote Jefferson that Jay's "model and
foundation" was his own letter to George Wythe of Virginia. Neither is
true. The field was not unexplored, nor did John Adams' letter contain
a suggestion of anything not already in existence, except the election
of a Council of Appointment, with whose consent the governor should
appoint all officers. His plan of letting the people elect a governor
came later. "We have a government to form, you know," wrote Jay, "and
God knows what it will resemble. Our politicians, like some guests at
a feast, are perplexed and undetermined which dish to prefer;"[5] but
Jay evidently preferred the old home dishes, and it is interesting to
note how easily he adapted the laws and customs of the provincial
government to the needs of an independent State.

[Footnote 5: John Jay, _Correspondence and Public Papers_, Vol. 1, p.
68.]

The legislative branch of the government was vested in two separate
and distinct bodies, called the Assembly and the Senate. The first
consisted of seventy members to be elected each year; the second of
twenty-four members, one-fourth to be elected every four years.
Members of the Assembly were proportioned to the fourteen counties
according to the number of qualified voters. For the election of
senators, the State was divided into "four great districts," the
eastern being allowed three members, the southern nine, the middle six
and the western six. To each house was given the powers and privileges
of the Provincial Assembly of the Colony of New York. In creating this
Legislature, Jay introduced no new feature. The old Assembly suggested
the lower house, and the former Council or upper house of the
Province, which exercised legislative powers, made a model for the
Senate.[6] In their functions and operations the two bodies were
indistinguishable.[7]

[Footnote 6: _Memorial History of the City of New York_, Vol. 2, p.
610.]

[Footnote 7: _Ibid._, Vol. 2, p. 610.]

The qualifications of those who might vote for members of the
Legislature greatly restricted suffrage. Theoretically every patriot
believed in the liberties of the people, and the first article of the
Constitution declared that "no authority shall, on any pretence
whatever, be exercised over the people of the State, but such as shall
be derived from and granted by them." This high-sounding exordium
promised the rights of popular sovereignty; but in practice the makers
of the Constitution, fearing the passions of the multitude as much as
the tyranny of kings, deemed it wise to keep power in the hands of a
few. A male citizen of full age, possessing a freehold of the value of
twenty pounds, or renting a tenement of the yearly value of forty
shillings, could vote for an assemblyman, and one possessing a
freehold of the value of one hundred pounds, free from all debts,
could vote for a senator.

But even these drastic conditions did not satisfy the draftsman of the
Constitution. The legislators themselves, although thus carefully
selected, might prove inefficient, and so, lest "laws inconsistent
with the spirit of this Constitution, or with the public good, may be
hastily or unadvisedly passed," a Council of Revision was created,
composed of the governor, chancellor, and the three judges of the
Supreme Court, or any two of them acting with the governor, who "shall
revise all bills about to be passed into laws by the Legislature." If
the Council failed to act within ten days after having possession of
the bill, or if two-thirds of each house approved it after the Council
disapproved it, the bill became law. This Council seems to have been
suggested by the veto power possessed by the King's Privy Council.

The supreme executive power and authority of the State were vested in
a governor, who must be a freeholder and chosen by the ballots of
freeholders possessed of one hundred pounds above all debts. His term
of office was three years, and his powers similar to those of
preceding Crown governors. He was commander-in-chief of the army, and
admiral of the navy. He had power to convene the Legislature in
extraordinary session; to prorogue it not to exceed sixty days in any
one year; and to grant pardons and reprieves to persons convicted of
crimes other than treason and murder, in which cases he might suspend
sentence until the Legislature acted. In accordance with the custom of
his predecessors, he was also expected to deliver a message to the
Legislature whenever it convened. To aid him in his duties, the
Constitution provided for the election of a lieutenant-governor, who
was made the presiding officer of the Senate.

The proposition that no authority should be exercised over the people
except such as came from the people necessarily opened the door to an
election of the governor by the people; but how to restrict his power
seems to have taxed Jay's ingenuity. He had reduced the number of
voters to its lowest terms, and put a curb on the Legislature, as well
as the governor, by the creation of the Council of Revision; but how
to curtail the chief executive's power in making appointments,
presented a problem which gave Jay himself, when governor, good reason
to regret the manner of its solution.

The only governors with whom Jay had had any experience were British
governors, and the story of their rule was a story of astonishing
mistakes and vexing stupidities. To go no farther back than Lord
Cornbury, the dissolute cousin of Queen Anne, not one in the long
list, covering nearly a century, exhibited gifts fitting him for the
government of a spirited and intelligent people, or made the slightest
impression for good either for the Crown or the Colony. Their
disposition was to be despotic, and to prevent a repetition of such
arbitrary conduct, Jay sought to restrict the governor's power in
making appointments to civil office.

The new Constitution provided for the appointment of sheriffs, mayors
of cities, district attorneys, coroners, county treasurers, and all
other officers in the State save governor, lieutenant-governor, state
treasurer and town officers. Some members of the convention wished the
governor to make these appointments; others wanted his power limited
by the Legislature's right to confirm. Jay saw objections to both
methods. The first would give the governor too much power; the latter
would transfer too much to the Legislature. To reconcile these
differences, therefore, he proposed "Article XXIII. That all officers,
other than those who, by this Constitution, are directed to be
otherwise appointed, shall be appointed in the manner following, to
wit: The Assembly shall, once in every year, openly nominate and
appoint one of the senators from each great district, which senators
shall form a Council for the appointment of the said officers, of
which the governor shall be president and have a casting vote, but no
other vote; and with the advice and consent of the said Council shall
appoint all of the said officers."[8]

[Footnote 8: "The clause directing the governor to _nominate_ officers
to the Legislature for their approbation being read and debated, was
generally disapproved. Many other methods were devised by different
members, and mentioned to the house merely for consideration. I
mentioned several myself, and told the convention at the time, that,
however I might then incline to adopt them, I was not certain, but
that after considering them, I should vote for their rejection. While
the minds of the members were thus fluctuating between various
opinions, I spent the evening of that day with Mr. Morris at your
lodgings, in the course of which I proposed the plan for the
institution of the Council as it now stands, and after conversing on
the subject we agreed to bring it into the house the next day. It was
moved and debated and carried."--John Jay, _Correspondence and Public
Papers_, Vol. 1, p. 128. Letter of Jay to Robert R. Livingston and
Gouverneur Morris, April 29, 1777.]

This provision was simply, as the sequel showed, a bungling
compromise. Jay intended that the governor should nominate and the
Council confirm, and in the event of a tie the governor should have
the casting vote. But in practice it subordinated the governor to the
Council whenever a majority of the Assembly was politically opposed to
him, and the annual election of the Council greatly increased the
chances of such opposition. When, finally, the Council of Appointment
set up the claim that the right to nominate was vested concurrently in
the governor and in each of the four senators, it practically stripped
the chief executive of power.

The anomaly of the Constitution was the absence of provision for the
judicature, the third co-ordinate branch of the government. One court
was created for the trial of impeachments and the correction of
errors, but the great courts of original jurisdiction, the Supreme
Court and the Court of Chancery, as well as the probate court, the
county court, and the court of admiralty, were not mentioned except
incidentally in sections limiting the ages of the judges, the offices
each might hold, and the appointment of clerks. Instead of recreating
these courts, the Constitution simply recognised them as existing. The
new court established, known as the Court of Errors and Impeachment,
consisted of the president of the Senate, the senators, the
chancellor, and the three judges of the Supreme Court, or a major part
of them. The conception of vesting supreme appellate jurisdiction in
the upper legislative house was derived from the former practice of
appeals to the Council of the Province,[9] which possessed judicial
as well as legislative power. The Constitution further followed the
practice of the old Council by providing that judges could not vote on
appeals from their own judgments, although they might deliver
arguments in support of the same--a custom which had obtained in New
York from the earliest times.[10]

[Footnote 9: _Memorial History of the City of New York_, Vol. 2, p.
612.]

[Footnote 10: _Duke's Laws_, Vol. 1, Chap. 14.]

In like manner provincial laws, grants of lands and charters, legal
customs, and popular rights, most of which had been in existence for a
century, were carried over. The Constitution simply provided, in a
general way, for the continuance of such parts of the common law of
England, the statute law of England and Great Britain, and the acts of
the legislature of the Colony of New York, as did not yield obedience
to the government exercised by Great Britain, or establish any
particular denomination of Christians, or their priests or ministers,
who were debarred from holding any civil or military office under the
new State; but acts of attainder for crimes committed after the close
of the war were abrogated, with the declaration that such acts should
not work a corruption of the blood.

The draft of the Constitution in Jay's handwriting was reported to the
convention on March 12, 1777, and on the following day the first
section was accepted. Then the debate began. Sixty-six members
constituted the convention, a majority of whom, led by John Morin
Scott, believed in the reign of the people. The spirit that nerved a
handful of men to embargo vessels and seize munitions of war covered
by British guns never wanted courage, and this historic band now
prepared to resist a conservatism that seemed disposed simply to
change the name of their masters. Jay understood this feeling. "It is
probable that the convention was ultra-democratic," says William Jay,
in the biography of his father, "for I have heard him observe that
another turn of the winch would have cracked the cord."[11]

[Footnote 11: William Jay, _Life of John Jay; Jay MSS._, Vol. 1, p.
72.]

Jay was not without supporters. Conservatives like the Livingstons,
the Morrises, and the Yateses never acted with the recklessness of
despair. They had well-formed notions of a popular government, and
their replies to proposed changes broke the force of the opposition.
But Jay, relying more upon his own policy, prudently omitted several
provisions that seemed to him important, and when discussion developed
their need, he shrewdly introduced them as amendments. Upon one
question, however, a prolonged and spirited debate occurred. This
centred upon the freedom of conscience. The Dutch of New Netherland,
almost alone among the Colonies, had never indulged in fanaticism, and
the Constitution, breathing the spirit of their toleration, declared
that "the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
worship without diminution or preference shall forever hereafter be
allowed within the State to all mankind." Jay did not dissent from
this sentiment; but, as a descendant of the persecuted Huguenots, he
wished to except Roman Catholics until they should deny the Pope's
authority to absolve citizens from their allegiance and to grant
spiritual absolution, and he forcefully insisted upon and secured the
restriction that "the liberty of conscience hereby granted shall not
be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify
practices inconsistent with the safety of the State." The question of
the naturalisation of foreigners renewed the contention. Jay's
Huguenot blood was still hot, and again he exacted the limitation that
all persons, before naturalisation, shall "abjure and renounce all
allegiance to all and every foreign king, prince, potentate, and
state, in all matters ecclesiastical as well as civil."

Jay intended reporting other amendments--one requiring a similar
renunciation on the part of all persons holding office, and one
abolishing domestic slavery. But before the convention adjourned he
was, unfortunately, summoned to the bedside of his dying mother.
Otherwise, New York would probably have had the distinction of being
first to set the example of freedom. "I should have been for a clause
against the continuance of domestic slavery," he said, in a letter
objecting to what occurred after his forced retirement.[12]

[Footnote 12: John Jay, _Correspondence and Public Papers_, Vol. 1, p.
126. "Such a recommendation was introduced by Gouverneur Morris and
passed, but subsequently omitted."--_Ibid._, p. 136, _note_.]

Although the Constitution was under consideration for more than a
month, haste characterised the close of the convention's
deliberations. As soon as Jay left, every one seemed eager to get
away, and on Sunday, April 20, 1777, the Constitution was adopted as a
whole practically as he left it, and a committee appointed to report a
plan for establishing a government under it. Unlike the Constitution
of Massachusetts, it was not submitted to the voters for ratification.
The fact that the delegates themselves had been elected by the people
seemed sufficient, and two days after its passage, the secretary of
the convention, standing upon a barrel in front of the courthouse at
Kingston, published it to the world by reading it aloud to those who
happened to be present. As it became known to the country, it was
cordially approved as the most excellent and liberal of the American
constitutions. "It is approved even in New England," wrote Jay, "where
few New York productions have credit."[13]

[Footnote 13: _Ibid._, p. 140.]

The absence of violent democratic innovations was the Constitution's
remarkable feature. Although a product of the Revolution, framed to
meet the necessities growing out of that great event, its general
provisions were decidedly conservative. The right of suffrage was so
restricted that as late as 1790 only 1303 of the 13,330 male residents
of New York City possessed sufficient property to entitle them to vote
for governor. Even the Court of Chancery remained undisturbed,
notwithstanding royal governors had created it in opposition to the
wishes of the popular assembly. But despite popular dissatisfaction,
which evidenced itself in earnest prayers and ugly protests, the
instrument, so rudely and hastily published on April 22, 1777,
remained the supreme law of the State for forty-four years.

Before adjournment the convention, adopting the report of its
committee for the organisation of a state government, appointed Robert
R. Livingston, chancellor; John Jay, chief justice of the Supreme
Court; Robert Yates, Jr., and John Sloss Hobart, justices of the
Supreme Court, and Egbert Benson, attorney-general. To a Council of
Safety, composed of fifteen delegates, with John Morin Scott,
chairman, were confided all the powers of the State until superseded
by a regularly elected governor.

GEORGE CLINTON ELECTED GOVERNOR

1777

After the constitutional convention adjourned in May, 1777, the
Council of Safety immediately ordered the election of a governor,
lieutenant-governor, and members of the Legislature. The selection of
a governor by ballot interested the people. Although freeholders who
could vote represented only a small part of the male population,
patriots of every class rejoiced in the substitution of a neighbour
for a lord across the sea. And all had a decided choice. Of those
suggested as fittest as well as most experienced Philip Schuyler, John
Morin Scott, John Jay and George Clinton were the favourites. Just
then Schuyler was in the northern part of the province, watching
Burgoyne and making provision to meet the invasion of the Mohawk
Valley; George Clinton, in command on the Hudson, was equally watchful
of the movements of Sir Henry Clinton, whose junction with Burgoyne
meant the destruction of Forts Clinton and Montgomery at the lower
entrance to the Highlands; while Scott and Jay, as members of the
Council of Safety, were directing the government of the new State.

Schuyler's public career began in the Provincial Assembly of New York
in 1768. He represented the people's interests with great boldness,
and when the Assembly refused to thank the delegates of the first
Continental Congress, or to appoint others to a second Congress, he
aided in the organisation of the Provincial Congress which usurped the
Assembly's functions and put all power into the hands of the people.
Chancellor Kent thought that "in acuteness of intellect, profound
thought, indefatigable activity, exhaustless energy, pure patriotism,
and persevering and intrepid public efforts, Schuyler had no
superior;" and Daniel Webster declared him "second only to Washington
in the services he rendered the country."[14] But there was in
Schuyler's make-up a touch of arrogance that displayed itself in
letters as well as in manners. The soldierly qualities that made him a
commander did not qualify him for public place dependent upon the
suffrage of men. People respected but did not love him. If they were
indignant that Gates succeeded him, they did not want him to govern
them, however much it may have been in his heart to serve them
faithfully.

[Footnote 14: While in command of the northern department, embracing
the province of New York, Schuyler was known as "Great Eye," so
watchful did he become of the enemy's movements; and although
subsequently, through slander and intrigue, superseded by Horatio
Gates, history has credited Burgoyne's surrender largely to his wisdom
and patriotism, and has branded Gates with incompetency, in spite of
the latter's gold medal and the thanks of Congress.]

John Morin Scott represented the radical element among the patriots.
By profession he was an able and wealthy lawyer; by occupation a
patriotic agitator. John Adams, who breakfasted with him, speaks of
his country residence three miles out of town as "an elegant seat,
with the Hudson just behind the house, and a rural prospect all around
him." But the table seems to have made a deeper impression upon the
Yankee patriot than the picturesque scenery of the river. "A more
elegant breakfast I never saw--rich plate, a very large silver
coffee-pot, a very large silver teapot, napkins of the very finest
materials, toast and bread and butter in great perfection. Afterwards
a plate of beautiful peaches, another of pears, another of plums, and
a musk melon." As a parting salute, this lover of good things spoke of
his host as "a sensible man, one of the readiest speakers upon the
continent, but not very polite."[15] This is what the Tories thought.
According to Jones, the Tory historian, Scott had the misfortune to
graduate at Yale--"a college remarkable for its republican principles
and religious intolerance," he says, and to belong to a triumvirate
whose purpose was "to pull down church and state, and to raise their
own government upon the ruins."[16]

[Footnote 15: John Adams, _Life and Works_, Vol. 2, p. 349 (Diary).]

[Footnote 16: Thomas Jones, _History of New York_, Vol. 1, p. 3.]

Scott, no doubt, was sometimes mistaken in the proper course to
pursue, but he was always right from his point of view, and his point
of view was bitter hostility to English misrule. Whatever he did he
did with all the resistless energy of a man still in his forties. He
was of distinguished ancestry. His great-great-grandfather, Sir John
Scott, baronet, of Ancrum, Scotland, had been a stalwart Whig before
the revolution of 1688, and his grandfather, John Scott, coming to New
York in 1702, had commanded Fort Hunter, a stronghold on the Mohawk.
Both were remarkable men. Tory blood was foreign to their veins. Young
John, breathing the air of independence, scorned to let his life and
property depend upon the pleasure of British lords and a British
ministry, or to be excluded from the right of trial by a jury of his
neighbours, or of taxation by his own representatives. In 1775 he went
to the Continental Congress; in 1776, to the Provincial Congress of
New York; and later he participated in the battle of Long Island as a
brigadier-general. After the adoption of the State Constitution he
became secretary of state, and from 1780 to 1783 served in the
Continental Congress. He lived long enough to see his country free,
although his strenuous life ended at fifty-four.

George Clinton possessed more popular manners than either Schuyler or
Scott. Indeed, it has been given to few men in New York to inspire
more passionate personal attachment than George Clinton. A patriot
never lived who was more bitter in his hostility to English misrule,
or more uncompromising in his opposition to toryism. He was a typical
Irishman--intolerant, often domineering, sometimes petulant, and
occasionally too quick to take offence, but he was magnetic and
generous, easily putting himself in touch with those about him, and
ready, without hesitation, to help the poorest and carry the weakest.
This was the kind of man the people wanted for governor.

Clinton came of a good family. His great-grandfather, a too devoted
adherent of Charles I., found it healthful to wander about Europe, and
finally to settle in the north of Ireland, out of reach of Cromwell's
soldiers, and out of sight of his ancestral patrimony. By the time
Charles II. came to the throne, the estate was lost, and this friend
of the Stuarts lived on in the quiet of his secluded home, and after
him, his son; but the grandson, stirred by the blood of a Puritan
mother, exchanged the North Sea shore for the banks of the Hudson,
where his son breathed the air that made him a leading spirit in the
war for American independence. Clinton's youth is one record of
precocity. Before the war began he passed through a long, a varied,
even a brilliant career, climbing to the highest position in the State
before he had reached the age when most men begin to fill responsible
places. At fifteen he manned an American privateer; at sixteen, as a
lieutenant, he accompanied his father in a successful assault upon
Fort Frontenac; at twenty-six, in the colonial legislature, he became
the rival of Philip Schuyler in the leadership and influence that
enabled a patriotic minority to resist the aggressions of Great
Britain; at thirty-six, holding a seat in the Second Continental
Congress, he voted for the Declaration of Independence, and commanded
a brigade of Ulster County militia.

The election which occurred in June was not preceded by a campaign of
speaking. People were too busy fighting to supplement a campaign of
bullets with one of words. But Jay sent out an electioneering letter
recommending Philip Schuyler for governor and George Clinton for
lieutenant-governor. This was sufficient to secure for these
candidates the conservative vote. It showed, too, Jay's unconcern for
high place. He was modest even to diffidence, an infirmity that seems
to have depressed him at times as much as it did Nathaniel Hawthorne
in a later day.

The returns were made to the Council of Safety, and Jay carefully
scanned them as they came in. On June 20 he wrote Schuyler: "The
elections in the middle district have taken such a turn as that, if a
tolerable degree of unanimity should prevail in the upper counties,
there will be little doubt of having, ere long, the honour of
addressing a letter to your excellency. Clinton, being pushed for both
offices, may have neither; he has many votes for the first and not a
few for the second. Scott, however, has carried a number from him, and
you are by no means without a share. You may rely on receiving by
express the earliest notice of the event alluded to."[17] When the
voters from Orange and other southern counties came in, however, Jay
discovered that the result did not follow the line either of his
wishes or of his suggestions. On the contrary, Clinton was elected to
both offices by a considerable plurality.[18]

[Footnote 17: John Jay, _Correspondence and Public Papers_, Vol. 1, p.
142.]

[Footnote 18: "A fragment of the canvass of 1777 shows the returns
from Albany, Cumberland, Dutchess, Tryon, and Westchester, as follows:
Clinton, 865; Scott, 386; Schuyler, 1012; Jay, 367; Philip Livingston,
5; Robert R. Livingston, 7. The votes from Orange and other southern
counties gave the election to Clinton."--_Civil List, State of New
York_ (1886), p. 164. Subsequently, when the Legislature met at
Kingston on September 1, Pierre Van Cortlandt as president of the
Senate performed the duties of lieutenant-governor.]

The result of the election proved a great surprise and something of a
humiliation to the ruling classes. "Gen. Clinton, I am informed, has a
majority of votes for the Chair," Schuyler wrote to Jay, on June 30.
"If so he has played his cards better than was expected."[19] A few
days later, after confirmation of the rumour, he betrayed considerable
feeling. "Clinton's family and connections do not entitle him to so
distinguished a pre-eminence," he wrote, showing that Revolutionary
heroes were already divided into more democratic and less democratic
whigs, and more aristocratic and less aristocratic patriots; but the
division was still in the mind rather than in any settled policy. "He
is virtuous and loves his country," added Schuyler, in the next line;
"he has ability and is brave, and I hope he will experience from every
patriot support, countenance and comfort."[20] Washington understood
his merits. "His character will make him peculiarly useful at the head
of your State," he wrote the Committee of Safety.

[Footnote 19: John Jay, _Correspondence and Public Papers_, Vol. 1, p.
144.]

[Footnote 20: John Jay, _Correspondence and Public Papers_, Vol. 1, p.
146.]

Clinton's inauguration occurred on July 30, 1777. He stood in front of
the courthouse at Kingston on top of the barrel from which the
Constitution had been published in the preceding April, and in the
uniform of his country, with sword in hand, he took the oath of
office. Within sixty days thereafter Sir Henry Clinton had carried the
Highland forts, scattered the Governor's troops, dispersed the first
Legislature of the State, burned Kingston to the ground, and very
nearly captured the Governor himself, the latter, under cover of
night, having made his escape by crossing the river in a small
rowboat. Among the captured patriots was Colonel McClaughry, the
Governor's brother-in-law. "Where is my friend George?" asked Sir
Henry. "Thank God," replied the Colonel, "he is safe and beyond the
reach of your friendship."

CHAPTER IV

CLINTON AND HAMILTON

1777-1789

During the war Governor Clinton's duties were largely military. Every
important measure of the Legislature dealt with the public defence,
and the time of the Executive was fully employed in carrying out its
enactments and performing the work of commander-in-chief of the
militia. A large proportion of the population of the State was either
avowedly loyal to the Crown or secretly indisposed to the cause of
independence. "Of all the Colonies," wrote William Jay, "New York was
probably the least unanimous in the assertion and defence of the
principles of the Revolution. The spirit of disaffection was most
extensive on Long Island, and had probably tainted a large majority of
its inhabitants. In Queens County, in particular, the people had, by a
formal vote, refused to send representatives to the colonial congress
or convention, and had declared themselves neutral in the present
crisis."[21]

[Footnote 21: William Jay, _Life of John Jay_, Vol. 1, p. 41.]

The Governor sought to crush this spirit by methods much in vogue in
the eighteenth century. At the outset of his career he declared that
he had "rather roast in hell to all eternity than be dependent upon
Great Britain or show mercy to a damned Tory." To add to his fame, he
enforced this judgment with heavy fines, long imprisonments, summary
banishments, and frequent coats of tar and feathers.

Very soon after the adoption of the Constitution, the Legislature
passed a law requiring an oath of allegiance to the State; and under
the vigorous enforcement of this act the Governor sent many Tories
from the rural districts into the city of New York or expelled them
from the State. Others were required to give a pledge, with security,
to reside within prescribed limits. At times even the churches were
filled with prisoners, some of whom were sent to jails in Connecticut,
or exchanged for prisoners of war. In 1779 the Legislature increased
the penalty of disloyalty to the State, by passing the Confiscation
Act, declaring "the forfeiture and sale of the estates of persons who
had adhered to the enemy."

Up to this time only one political party had existed among the Whig
colonists. The passage of the Confiscation Act, however, encountered
the opposition of many sincere lovers of the cause of independence,
who favoured a more moderate policy toward loyalists, since they were
probably as sincere in their opinions as those opposed to them.
Besides, a generous and magnanimous course, it was argued, would
induce the return of many desirable citizens after hostilities had
ceased. To this the ultra-Whigs replied that the law of
self-preservation made a severe policy necessary, and if any one
suffered by its operation he must look to the government of his choice
for comfort and reimbursement. As for the return of the Tories, the
ultras declared that only citizens sincerely loyal to an independent
country would be acceptable.

This division into moderate and ultra Whigs was emphasised in 1781 by
the legislative grant to Congress of such import duties as accrued at
the port of New York, to be levied and collected "under such penalties
and regulations, and by such officers, as Congress should from time to
time make, order, and appoint." Governor Clinton did not cordially
approve the act at the time of its passage, and as the money began
flowing into the national treasury, he opposed the method of its
surrender. In his opinion, the State, as an independent sovereignty,
had associated itself with other Colonies only for mutual protection,
and not for their support. At his instance, therefore, the Legislature
substituted for the law of 1781 the act of March, 1783, granting the
duties to Congress, but directing their collection by officers of the
State. Although this act was subsequently amended, making collectors
amenable to Congress, another law was enacted in 1786 granting
Congress the revenue, and reserving to the State, as in the law of
1783, "the sole power of levying and collecting the duties." When
Congress asked the Governor to call a special session of the
Legislature, that the right to levy and collect might be yielded as
before, he refused to do so.

Governor Clinton understood the commercial advantages of New York's
geographical location, which were greatly enhanced by the navigation
acts of other States. The peace treaty had made New York the port of
entry for the whole region east of the Delaware, and into its coffers
poured a revenue so marvellous as to excite hopes of a prospective
wealth which a century, remarkable as was its productiveness, did
little more than realise. If any State, therefore, could survive
without a union with other Colonies, it was New York, and it is not
surprising that many, perhaps a majority of its people, under the
leadership of George Clinton, settled into a policy unfriendly to a
national revenue, and later to a national government.

The Governor had gradually become mindful of an opposition as stubborn
as it was persistent. He had encountered it in his treatment of the
Tories, but not until Alexander Hamilton became an advocate of amnesty
and oblivion, did Clinton recognise the centre and future leader of
the opposing forces. Hamilton did not appear among those interested in
the election of governor in 1777. His youth shut him out of Assembly
and Congress, out of committees and conventions, but it did not shut
him out of the army; and while Governor Clinton was wrestling with new
problems of government in the formation of a new State, Hamilton was
acting as secretary, aide, companion, and confidant of Washington,
accepting suggestions as commands, and acquiescing in his chief's
judgment with a fidelity born of love and admiration. In the history
of war nothing is more beautiful than the friendship existing between
the acknowledged leader of his country and this brave young officer,
spirited and impulsive, brilliant and able, yet frank and candid,
without ostentation and without egotism. It recalls a later-day
relationship between Ulysses S. Grant and John A. Rawlins, his chief
of staff.

In July, 1781, Hamilton, in command of a corps, accompanied Washington
in the forced march of the American army from New York to Yorktown.
This afforded him the opportunity, so long and eagerly sought, of
handling an independent command at a supreme moment of danger, and
before the sun went down on the 14th of October, he had led his troops
with fixed bayonets, under a heavy and constant fire, over abatis,
ditch, and palisades; then, mounting the parapet, he leaped into the
redoubt. Washington saw the impetuosity of the attack in the face of
the murderous fire, the daring leap to the parapet with three of his
soldiers, and the almost fatal spring into the redoubt. "Few cases,"
he says, "have exhibited greater proofs of intrepidity, coolness, and
firmness." Three days later Cornwallis surrendered.

In the summer of 1782 Hamilton was admitted to the bar in Albany, but
soon afterward settled in New York City, where he seems to have come
into practice and into fame by defending the rights of Tories. For
four years after the war ended, the treatment of British sympathisers
was the dominant political issue in New York. Governor Clinton
advocated disfranchisement and banishment, and the Legislature enacted
into law what he advised; so that when the British troops, under the
peace treaty, evacuated New York, in November, 1783, loyalists who had
thus far escaped the wrath of this patriot Governor, flocked to Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick like birds seeking a more congenial clime,
recalling the flight of the Huguenots after the revocation of the
Edict of Nantes one hundred years earlier. It is not easy to estimate
the number who fled before this savage and violent action of the
Legislature. Sir Guy Carleton, in command at New York, fixes the
emigration at one hundred thousand souls. For many years the "Landing
of the Loyalists" was annually commemorated at St. John, and in the
cemeteries of England and Scotland are found the tombstones of these
unfortunate devotees of the mother country.

It is likely Clinton was too intolerant, but it was the intolerance
that follows revolution. Hamilton, on the other hand, became an early
advocate of amnesty and oblivion, and, although public sentiment and
the Legislature were against him, he finally succeeded in modifying
the one and changing the other. "Nothing is more common," he observed,
"than for a free people in times of heat and violence to gratify
momentary passions by letting in principles and precedents which
afterwards prove fatal to themselves. If the Legislature can
disfranchise at pleasure, it may soon confine all the votes to a small
number of partisans, and establish an aristocracy or an oligarchy; if
it may banish at discretion, without hearing or trial, no man can be
safe. The name of liberty applied to such a government would be a
mockery of common sense."[22]

[Footnote 22: _Hamilton's Works_ (Lodge), Vol. 3, p. 450.]

The differences between Congress and the Legislature respecting the
collection of duties also brought Clinton and Hamilton into conflict.
As early as 1776 Hamilton had considered the question whether Congress
ought not to collect its own taxes by its own agents,[23] and, when a
member of Congress in 1783, he urged it[24] as one of the cardinal
features of an adequate federal system. In 1787 he was a member of the
Legislature. Here he insisted upon having the federal revenue system
adopted by the State. His argument was an extended exposition of the
facts which made such action important.[25] Under the lead of Clinton,
however, New York was willing to surrender the money, but not the
power of collection to Congress.

[Footnote 23: _Republic_, Vol. 1, p. 122.]

[Footnote 24: _Madison Papers_, Vol. 1, pp. 288, 291, 380.]

[Footnote 25: _Works_, Vol. 2, p. 16.]

Meantime, the pitiable condition to which the Confederation had come,
accented the need of a stronger central government. To this end
Clinton and Hamilton seemed for several years to be working in
harmony. In 1780 Clinton had presented to the Legislature the "defect
of power" in the Confederation, and, in 1781, John Sloss Hobart and
Egbert Benson, representing New York at a convention in Hartford,
urged the recommendation empowering Congress to apportion taxes among
the States in the ratio of their total population. The next year,
Hamilton, although not a member of the Legislature, persuaded it to
adopt resolutions written by him, declaring that the powers of the
central government should be extended, and that it should be
authorised to provide revenue for itself. To this end "it would be
advisable," continued the resolutions, "to propose to Congress to
recommend, and to each State to adopt, the measure of assembling a
general convention of the States, specially authorised to revise and
amend the Constitution." To Washington's farewell letter, appealing
for a stronger central government, Governor Clinton sent a cordial
response, and in transmitting the address to the Legislature in 1784,
he recommended attention "to every measure which has a tendency to
cement the Union, and to give to the national councils that energy
which may be necessary for the general welfare."[26]

[Footnote 26: _Hamilton's Works_ (Lodge), Vol. 1, p. 277.]

Nevertheless, Clinton was not always candid. His official
communications read like the utterances of a friend; but his
influence, as disclosed in the acts of 1783 and 1786, reserving to the
State the sole power of levying and collecting duties, clearly
indicate that while he loved his country in a matter-of-fact sort of
way, it meant a country divided, a country of thirteen States each
berating the other, a country of trade barriers and commercial
resentments, a country of more importance to New York and to Clinton
than to other Commonwealths which had made equal sacrifices.

Thus matters drifted until New York and other middle Atlantic States
discovered that it was impossible under the impotent Articles of
Confederation to regulate commerce in waters bordered by two or more
States. Even when New York and New Jersey could agree, Pennsylvania,
on the other side of New Jersey, was likely to withhold its consent.
Friction of a similar character existed between Maryland and Virginia,
North Carolina and Virginia, and Maryland and Pennsylvania. This
compelled Congress to call the convention, to which commissioners from
New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia, assembled
at Annapolis in 1786, to consider the trade and commerce of the United
States, and to suggest measures for the action of Congress. Hamilton
and Egbert Benson were members of this body, the former of whom wrote
the address, afterward adopted, which declared the federal government
inefficient, and proposed a convention to revise the Articles of
Confederation,[27] in order to render them adequate to the exigencies
of the Union. This was the resolution unanimously adopted by the New
York Legislature in 1782, but to the surprise of Hamilton and the
friends of a stronger government, the Legislature now disapproved such
a convention. The idea did not please George Clinton. As Hamilton
summed up the opposition, it meant disinclination to taxation, fear of
the enforcement of debts, democratic jealousy of important officials,
and the influence of foreign powers.[28]

[Footnote 27: _Journal of Congress_, Vol. 12, p. 12.]

[Footnote 28: _Hamilton's Works_ (Lodge), Vol. 1, p. 401.]

In 1787, however, the Legislature adopted a joint resolution
instructing members of Congress from the State to urge that a
convention be held to amend the Articles of Confederation, and, when
Congress issued the call,[29] Robert Yates, John Lansing, Jr., and
Alexander Hamilton were elected delegates "for the sole purpose of
revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and
the several Legislatures such alterations as shall, when agreed to by
Congress and confirmed by the several States, render the Federal
Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the
preservation of the Union." Hamilton's election to this convention was
cited as proof of Clinton's disposition to treat fairly the opponents
of state supremacy, since it was well understood that his presence at
Philadelphia would add the ablest and most ultra exponent of a strong,
central government. It was certainly in Clinton's power to defeat
Hamilton as he did John Jay, but his liberality carried a high
check-rein, for Robert Yates and John Lansing were selected to
overcome Hamilton's vote.

[Footnote 29: In _Madison Papers_, Vol. 2, Introductory to Debates of
1787, is a history of previous steps toward union.]

Clinton's first choice for a delegate was Yates, whose criticism of
the work of the convention manifests hostility to a Union. He seemed
to have little conception of what would satisfy the real needs of a
strong government, preferring the vague doctrines of the old Whigs in
the early days of revolution. Lansing was clearer, and, perhaps, less
extreme in his views; but he wanted nothing more than an amendment of
the existing Confederation, known as the New Jersey plan.[30] The
moment, therefore, that a majority favoured the Virginia plan which
contemplated a national government with an executive, legislature,
and judiciary of its own, Lansing and Yates, regarding it a violation
of their instructions, and with the approval of Governor Clinton,
withdrew[31] from the convention and refused to sign the Constitution
after its adoption.[32]

[Footnote 30: "After an amendment of the first, so as to declare that
'the government of the United States ought to consist of a supreme
legislative, judiciary, and executive,' Lansing moved a declaration
'that the powers of legislation be vested in the United States
Congress.' He stated that if the Jersey plan was not adopted, it would
produce the mischiefs they were convened to obviate. That the
principles of that system were an equality of representation, and
dependence of the members of Congress on the States. That as long as
state distinctions exist, state prejudices would operate, whether the
election be by the States or the people. If there was no interest to
oppress, there was no need of an apportionment. What would be the
effect of the other plan? Virginia would have sixteen, Delaware one
representative. Will the general government have leisure to examine
the state laws? Will it have the necessary information? Will the
States agree to surrender? Let us meet public opinion, and hope the
progress of sentiment will make future arrangements. He would like the
system of his colleague (Hamilton) if it could be established, but it
was a system without example."--_Hamilton's MSS. notes_, Vol. 6, p.
77. Lansing's motion was negatived by six to four States, Maryland
being divided.]

[Footnote 31: Yates and Lansing retired finally from the convention on
July 10.]

[Footnote 32: "That they acted in accordance with Clinton was proved
by his deportment at this time. Unreserved declarations were made by
him, that no good was to be expected from the appointment or
deliberations of this body; that the country would be thrown into
confusion by the measure. Hamilton said 'Clinton was not a man
governed in ordinary cases by sudden impulses; though of an irritable
temper, when not under the immediate influence of irritation, he was
circumspect and guarded, and seldom acted or spoke without
premeditation or design.' When the Governor made such declarations,
therefore, Hamilton feared that Clinton's conduct would induce the
confusion he so confidently and openly predicted, and to exhibit it
before the public in all its deformity, Hamilton published a pointed
animadversion, charging these declarations upon him, and avowing a
readiness to substantiate them."--John C. Hamilton, _Life of Alexander
Hamilton_, Vol. 2, p. 528.]

Hamilton doubted if Madison's plan was strong enough to secure the
object in view. He suggested a scheme continuing a President and
Senate during good behaviour, and giving the federal government power
to appoint governors of States and to veto state legislation. In the
notes of a speech presenting this plan, he disclaimed the belief that
it was "attainable," but thought it "a model which we ought to
approach as near as possible."[33] After the Madison plan had been
preferred, however, Hamilton gave it earnest support, and although he
could not cast New York's vote, since a majority of the State's
representatives had withdrawn, he was privileged to sign the
Constitution. If he had never done anything else, it was glory enough
to have subscribed his name to that immortal record. When Hamilton
returned home, however, he found himself discredited by a majority of
the people. "You were not authorised by the State," said Governor
Clinton.[34] Richard Morris, the chief justice, remarked to him: "You
will find yourself, I fear, in a hornet's nest."[35]

[Footnote 33: _Works_, Vol. 1, p. 357. G.T. Curtis, _Commentaries on
the Constitution_, pp. 371, 381, presents a very careful analysis of
Hamilton's plan. For fac-simile copy of Hamilton's plan, see
_Documentary History of the Constitution_ (a recent Government
publication), Vol. 3, p. 771.]

[Footnote 34: M.E. Lamb, _History of the City of New York_, Vol. 2, p.
318.]

[Footnote 35: _Ibid._, Vol. 2, p. 318.]

On September 28, 1787, Congress transmitted a draft of the
Constitution, which required the assent of nine of the thirteen
States, to the several legislatures. At once it became the sole topic
of discussion. In New York it was the occasion of riots, of mobs, and
of violent contests. It was called the "triple-headed monster," and
declared to be "as deep and wicked a conspiracy as ever was invented
in the darkest ages against the liberties of a free people." Its
opponents, numbering four-sevenths of the community--although their
strength was mainly in the country[36]--and calling themselves Federal
Republicans, organised a society and opened correspondence with
leading men in other States. "All the old alarm about liberty was now
revived," says W.G. Sumner, "and all the elements of anarchy and
repudiation which had been growing so strong for twenty years were
arrayed in hostility."[37] But its bitterest opponent in the thirteen
Colonies was George Clinton.[38] "He preferred to remain the most
powerful citizen of New York, rather than occupy a subordinate place
under a national government in which his own State was not
foremost."[39] On the other hand, the _Federalist_, written largely by
Hamilton, carried conviction to the minds of thousands who had
previously doubted the wisdom of the plan. In the last number of the
series, he said: "The system, though it may not be perfect in every
part, is upon the whole a good one, is the best that the present views
and circumstances will permit, and is such an one as promises every
species of security which a reasonable people can desire."[40]

[Footnote 36: W.G. Sumner, _Life of Hamilton_, p. 137.]

[Footnote 37: _Ibid._, p. 135.]

[Footnote 38: John Fiske, _Critical Period of American History_, p.
340.]

[Footnote 39: John Fiske, _Essays Historical and Literary_, Vol. 1, p.
118.]

[Footnote 40: _Works of Hamilton_, Vol. 9, p. 548.]

When the Legislature opened, Governor Clinton delivered the usual
speech or message, but he said nothing of what everybody else was
talking about. Consideration of the Constitution was the only
important business before that body; four States had already ratified
it, and three others had it under consideration; yet the Governor said
not a word. His idea was for New York to hold off and let the others
try it. Then, if the Union succeeded, although revenue difficulties
were expected to break it up immediately,[41] the State could come in.
Meantime, like Patrick Henry of Virginia, he proposed another general
convention, to be held as soon as possible, to consider amendments.
Thus matters drifted until January, 1788, when Egbert Benson, now a
member of the Legislature, offered a resolution for holding a state
convention to consider the federal document. Dilatory motions blocked
its way, and its friends began to despair of better things; but Benson
persisted, until, at last, after great bitterness, the resolution was
adopted.

[Footnote 41: W.G. Sumner, _Life of Hamilton_, p. 137.]

Of the sixty-one delegates to this convention, which assembled at the
courthouse in Poughkeepsie on June 17, two-thirds were opposed to the
Constitution.[42] The convention organised with Governor Clinton for
president. Among the champions of the Constitution appeared Hamilton,
Jay, Robert R. Livingston, Robert Morris, James Duane, then mayor of
New York, John Sloss Hobart, Richard Harrison, and others of like
character. Robert Yates, Samuel Jones, Melancthon Smith, and John
Lansing, Jr., led the fight against it. Beginning on June 19, the
discussion continued until July 28. Hamilton, his eloquence at its
best, so that at times there was not a dry eye in the assembly,[43]
especially emphasised the public debt. "It is a fact that should
strike us with shame, that we are obliged to borrow money in order to
pay the interest of our debt. It is a fact that these debts are
accumulating every day by compound interest."[44] In the old
Confederation, he declared, the idea of liberty alone was considered,
but that another thing was equally important--"I mean a principle of
strength and stability in the organisation of our government, and of
vigour in its operations."[45] Professor Sumner, in his admirable
biography, expresses surprise that nothing is said about debts in the
_Federalist_, and comparatively little about the Supreme Court. "This
is very remarkable," he says, "in view of the subsequent history; for
if there is any 'sleeping giant' in the Constitution, it has proved to
be the power of the Supreme Court to pass upon the constitutionality
of laws. It does not appear that Hamilton or anybody else foresaw that
this function of the Court would build upon the written constitution a
body of living constitutional law."[46]

[Footnote 42: _Ibid._, 137.]

[Footnote 43: M.E. Lamb, _History of the City of New York_, Vol. 2, p.
320.]

[Footnote 44: _Hamilton's Works_, Vol. 1, p. 491.]

[Footnote 45: _Ibid._, p. 449.]

[Footnote 46: W.G. Sumner, _Life of Hamilton_, p. 139.]

Melancthon Smith was the ablest opponent of the Constitution. Familiar
with political history, and one of the ablest debaters in the country,
he proved himself no mean antagonist even for Hamilton. "He must have
been a man of rare candour, too," says John Fiske, "for after weeks of
debate he owned himself convinced."[47] Whatever could be said against
the Constitution, Smith voiced it; and there was apparent merit in
some of his objections. To a majority of the people, New York appeared
to be surrendering natural advantages in much larger measure than
other Commonwealths, while its concession of political power struck
them as not unlikely to endanger the personal liberty of the citizen
and the independence of the State. They disliked the idea of a far-off
government, with many officers drawing large salaries, administering
the army, the navy, and the diplomatic relations with nations of the
Old World. It was so different from anything experienced since their
separation from England, that they dreaded this centralised power;
and, to minimise it, they proposed several amendments, among them one
that no person should be eligible to the office of President for a
third term. Time has demonstrated the wisdom of some of these
suggestions; but commendable as they now appear after the lapse of
more than a century, they were of trifling importance compared to the
necessity for a closer, stronger union of the States in 1787.

[Footnote 47: John Fiske, _Essays Historical and Literary_, Vol. 1, p.
125.]

Federalists were much alarmed over the failure of New York to ratify.
Although the State ranked only fifth in population, commercially it
was the centre of the Union. From the standpoint of military
movements, too, it had been supremely important in the days of
Montcalm and Burgoyne, and it was felt that a Federal Union cut in
twain by the Mohawk and Hudson valleys must have a short life. "For my
own part," said Hamilton, "the more I can penetrate the views of the
anti-federal party in this State, the more I dread the consequences of
the non-adoption of the Constitution by any of the other States--the
more I fear eventual disunion and civil war."[48] His fear bred an
apparent willingness to agree to a conditional ratification,[49] until
Madison settled the question that there could be no such thing as
conditional ratification since constitutional secession would be
absurd. On July 11 Jay moved that "the Constitution be ratified, and
that whatever amendments might be deemed expedient should be
recommended." This, however, did not satisfy the opposition, and the
discussion continued.

[Footnote 48: _Hamilton's Works_, Vol. 8, p. 187.]

[Footnote 49: _Ibid._, p. 191.]

Hamilton, however, did not rely upon argument alone. He arranged for
news of the Virginia and New Hampshire conventions, and while Clinton,
clinging to his demand for conditional ratification, still hesitated,
word came from New Hampshire, by a system of horse expresses, telling
the glad story that the requisite number of States had been secured.
This reduced the question to ratification or secession. A few days
later it was learned that Virginia had also joined the majority. The
support of Patrick Henry had been a tower of strength to Governor
Clinton, and his defeat exaggerated Clinton's fear that New York City
and the southern counties which favoured the Constitution might now
execute their threat to split off unless New York ratified. Then came
Melancthon Smith's change to the federalist side. This was like
crushing the centre of a hostile army. Finally, on July 28, a
resolution "that the Constitution be ratified _in full confidence_
that the amendments proposed by this convention will be adopted,"
received a vote of thirty to twenty-seven. Governor Clinton did not
vote, but it was known that he advised several of his friends to
favour the resolution. On September 13, he officially proclaimed the
Federal Constitution as the fundamental law of the Republic.

Posterity has never severely criticised George Clinton's opposition to
national development. His sincerity and patriotism have been accepted.
To Washington and Hamilton, however, his conduct seemed like a cold
and selfish desertion of his country at the moment of its utmost
peril. "The men who oppose a strong and energetic government," wrote
Washington to Hamilton on July 10, 1787, the day of Yates' and
Lansing's retirement from the Philadelphia convention, "are, in my
opinion, narrow-minded politicians, or are under the influence of
local views." This reference to "local views" meant George Clinton,
upon whose advice Yates and Lansing acted, and who declared
unreservedly that only confusion could come to the country from a
convention and a measure wholly unnecessary, since the Confederation,
if given sufficient trial, would probably answer all the purposes of
the Union.

The march of events has so clearly proved the wisdom of Hamilton and
the unwisdom of Clinton, that the name of one, joined inseparably with
that of Washington, has grown with the century, until it is as much a
part of the history of the Union as the Constitution itself. The name
of George Clinton, on the contrary, is little known beyond the limits
of his native State. It remained for DeWitt Clinton, the Governor's
distinguished nephew, to link the family with an historic enterprise
which should bring it down through the ages with increasing respect
and admiration.

CHAPTER V

CLINTON'S FOURTH TERM

1789-1792

At each triennial election for twelve years, ever since the adoption
of the State Constitution in 1777, George Clinton had been chosen
governor. No one else, in fact, had ever been seriously talked of,
save John Jay in 1786. Doubtless Clinton derived some advantage from
the control of appointments, which multiplied in number and increased
in influence as term succeeded term, but his popularity drew its
inspiration from sources other than patronage. A strong, rugged
character, and a generous, sympathetic nature, sunk their roots deeply
into the hearts of a liberty-loving people who supported their
favourite with the fidelity of personal friendship.

The time had, however, come at last when Clinton's right to continue
as governor was to be contested. Hamilton's encounter with the New
York opponents of the Federal Constitution had been vigorous and
acrimonious. It was easy to stand with one's State in opposing the
Constitution when opposition had behind it the powerful Clinton
interest and the persuasive Clinton argument that federal union meant
the substitution of experiment for experience, and the exchange of a
superior for an inferior position; but it required a splendid
stubbornness to face, daringly and aggressively, the desperate odds
arrayed against the Constitution. Every man who wanted to curry favour
with Clinton was ready to strike at Hamilton, and they covered him
with obloquy. Very likely his attitude was not one to tempt the
forbearance of angry opponents. He did not fight with gloves.
Nevertheless, his success added one more to his list of splendid
victories. He had beaten Clinton in his intolerant treatment of
loyalists; he had beaten him in obtaining for Congress the sole power
of regulating commerce; he had beaten him in the Philadelphia
convention called to frame a federal constitution; he had beaten him
in a state convention called to ratify that constitution; and now he
proposed to beat him for governor in a State which would have great
influence in smoothing the way for the new federal government.

After the close of the Revolution, there had been local parties in the
various Stales, divided on issues of hard and soft money, on imposts,
on treatment of Tories, and on state rights, and these issues had
coincided in many of the States. During the contest growing out of the
adoption of the Federal Constitution, all these elements became
segregated into two great political parties, those who supported the
Constitution being known as Federalists--those who were opposed to
strengthening the bond between the States being called anti-Federalists.
The latter were clearly in the majority in New York, and Hamilton
rightly inferred that, notwithstanding the people, since the adoption
of the Constitution, manifested a disposition to sustain the general
government, a large majority of freeholders, having heretofore
supported Clinton as a wise, patriotic governor, would not now desert
him for an out-and-out Federalist. To meet this emergency, several
Federalists, at a meeting held February 11, 1789, nominated Robert
Yates, an anti-Federalist judge of the Supreme Court, hoping thus to
form a coalition with the more moderate men of his party.

In support of such politics, of the doubtful wisdom of which there was
abundant illustration in the recent unnatural coalition between Lord
North and the brilliant Charles James Fox, Hamilton wrote to his
friends in Albany that in settling upon a candidate, some difficulties
occurred. "Our fellow citizens in some parts of the State," he said,
"had proposed Judge Yates, others had been advocates of
Lieutenant-Governor Van Cortlandt, and others for Chief Justice
Morris. It is well known that the inhabitants of this city are, with
few exceptions, strongly attached to the new Constitution. It is also
well known that the Lieutenant-Governor and Chief Justice, whom we
respect and esteem, were zealous advocates for the same cause. Had it
been agreed to support either of them for governor, there would have
been reason to fear that the measure would have been imputed to party,
and not to a desire of relieving our country from the evils they
experience from the heats of party. It appeared, therefore, most
advisable to elect some man of the opposite party, in whose integrity,
patriotism, and temper, confidence might be placed, however little his
political opinions on the question lately agitated might be approved
by those who were assembled upon that occasion.

"Among the persons of this description, there were circumstances which
led to a decision in favour of Judge Yates. It is certain that as a
man and a judge he is generally esteemed. And, though his opposition
to the new Constitution was such as his friends cannot but disapprove,
yet, since the period of its adoption, his conduct has been tempered
with a degree of moderation, and seems to point him out as a man
likely to compose the differences of the State. Of this at least we
feel confident, that he has no personal revenge to gratify, no
opponents to oppress, no partisans to provide for, nor any promises
for personal purposes to be performed at the public expense."[50]

[Footnote 50: _Hamilton's Works_ (Lodge), Vol. 1, p. 509.]

To many the selection of Robert Yates seemed almost ungracious. The
Federalists wanted Richard Morris, chief justice of the Supreme Court,
who had encouraged the establishment of a strong government, and, as a
member of the Poughkeepsie convention, had voted to ratify the Federal
Constitution. Besides, he was a gentleman of the old school, of
inflexible integrity, firm and decided in character, whose full,
rounded face and commanding presence appeared to advantage among the
stately and dignified personages who supported knee breeches and silk
stockings, and displayed the delicate ruffles of a shirt under the
folds of a rich velvet coat. Hamilton was fond of Morris, and
recognised the justice of his claims. Their views in no wise differed,
their families were intimate, and at the Poughkeepsie convention,
after listening for three hours to Hamilton's speech, Morris had
pronounced it the ablest argument and most patriotic address ever
heard in the State of New York. But the great Federalist, determined
to destroy Clinton, wanted availability, not fidelity, and so Morris
declined in favour of Yates.

In everything Robert Yates was an anti-Federalist. He dressed like one
and he talked like one. He had been an opponent of the Federal
Constitution, an advocate of the doctrine of state supremacy, and an
ardent supporter of the Governor. With Clinton's approval he had
withdrawn from the Philadelphia convention when the majority favoured
a strong government wielding supreme authority; with Clinton's
approval, he had opposed the ratification of the Federal Constitution
in the state convention at Poughkeepsie, and with Clinton's approval
he declined to change his vote, although New Hampshire's action and
Hamilton's speech had already settled the question of ratification.
What Hamilton proposed, Yates opposed; what Clinton advocated, Yates
approved. After the ratification of the Constitution, however, Robert
Yates charged the grand jury that it would be little short of treason
against the Republic to disobey it. "Let me exhort you, gentlemen," he
said, "not only in your capacity as grand jurors, but in your more
durable and equally respectable character as citizens, to preserve
inviolate this charter of our national rights and safety, a charter
second only in dignity and importance to the Declaration of our
Independence."

Upon the bench Yates distinguished himself for impartiality and
independence, if not for learning. He abated the intemperate zeal of
patriotic juries, and he refused to convict men suspected of
disloyalty, without proof. On one occasion he sent a jury back four
times to reconsider a verdict of guilty unauthorised by the evidence,
and subsequently treated with indifference a legislative threat of
impeachment, based upon a fearless discharge of duty. He could afford
to be just, for, like George Clinton, he had early embraced the cause
of the Colony against the Crown. From an Albany alderman he became a
maker of the State Constitution, and from a writer of patriotic
essays, he shone as an active member of the Committee of Safety.
Together with John Jay and Robert R. Livingston, he had obstructed the
passage of Lord Howe's ships up the Hudson, and with General Schuyler
he devised measures to repel the British from the northern and western
frontier. He had helped to fix the dividing line between Massachusetts
and New York, and, as one of the Council of Administration, he
governed southern New York from the withdrawal of the British until
the assembling of the Legislature.

Having decided to go outside his own party, Hamilton made no mistake
in picking his man. If Clinton was the Hampden of the colonial period,
Robert Yates could well be called its Pym. He had toleration as well
as patriotism. But he also had an itching desire for office. Some one
has said that the close connection between man and a child is never
more clearly illustrated than in the joy and pride which the wisest
statesman feels in the wearing of a ribbon or a star. It could not be
said of Robert Yates then, as it was said, with good reason, six years
later, that his desire for office extinguished his devotion to party
and his character for political consistency, but it was openly charged
that, upon the suggestion of Hamilton, he urged the grand jury to
support the Federal Constitution in order to strengthen himself with
the Federalists. Whether this be true or not, Yates' previous devotion
to the anti-Federalist party set his present conduct in sharp contrast
to that of other distinguished anti-Federalist statesmen of the
time--to men like Samuel Jones and Melancthon Smith, who accepted the
action of the Poughkeepsie convention, but supported George Clinton.
"Men, not principles, are involved," they declared.

All that we know of Yates would seem to deny his surrender of
principle, or his condescension to any act of baseness, to obtain
office. It was indeed a question whether Clinton, or Hamilton through
Yates, should control the state government; but the gubernatorial
contest involved more than that. The new government, soon to be placed
on trial, needed the help of sympathetic governors and legislatures,
and Clinton and his supporters, forced to accept the Constitution,
could hardly be regarded as its wisest and safest guardians. From
Hamilton's standpoint, therefore, it was more principle than men.
However agreeable to him it might be to defeat and humiliate Clinton,
greater satisfaction must spring from the consciousness that while in
its leading-strings, at least, the general government would have the
hearty support of New York.

Hamilton's great coalition, intended to work such wonders, boasted
many brilliant names. Of the younger men Robert Troup, of Hamilton's
age, an early friend of Burr, took a most conspicuous part, while
among the older members of this galaxy was James Duane, a lawyer of
rare ability, the first mayor of New York, for ten years continuously
in the Continental Congress, a man of great force, of large wealth,
and superb character. He was in his forties when Hamilton, a boy of
seventeen, won his heart by a single speech, denouncing the act of
Parliament which closed the port of Boston. The most notable man in
the coalition, next to Hamilton and Jay, was Robert R. Livingston, now
Hamilton's devoted friend, before long to be his bitter enemy. He was
still young, little more than forty, but in everything he was bold and
skilful, vigorous as a writer, eloquent as a speaker, deeply learned
as a jurist, and rich in scholarship. Of the same age as Livingston
was William Duer,[51] who started at eighteen as an aide to Lord Clive
in India. Duer was at one time the most useful man in America. Nobody
could cheat him. As soon as Hamilton became secretary of the
treasury, he made Duer assistant secretary, an office which he held
with credit until 1790, when he resigned to become the chief of a ring
of speculators, who, two years later, left him insolvent and in jail.
Hamilton's coalition also furnished the only instance of the political
association of himself and Burr, although Burr's support of Yates is
said to have been personal rather than political. The story is that
Burr, seeking admission to the bar after reading law less than a year,
induced Judge Yates to suspend the rule requiring three years of
study, because of the applicant's term as a soldier, a service that
laid the foundation of a lasting friendship.

[Footnote 51: It was his son, William Alexander Duer, the brilliant
and accomplished writer, who presided for thirteen years with such
distinguished ability over Columbia College.]

On the opposite side were many men who live in history as builders of
the Empire State. None belong to the gallery of national characters,
perhaps, but John Lansing, Livingston's successor as chancellor, and
Samuel Jones,[52] the first state comptroller, known, by common
consent, as the father of the New York bar, find places in the list of
New York's ablest statesmen. To this memorable company also belonged
Melancthon Smith, the head of the anti-Federalist forces at the
Poughkeepsie convention, and Gilbert Livingston of Dutchess, whose one
patriotic address was the last blow needed to ratify the Constitution.
He was not, like Smith, a great debater, but his ready eloquence
classed him among the orators who were destined to live in the memory
of a later generation. Beside him was James Clinton, brother of the
Governor and father of DeWitt Clinton. A soldier by profession, he had
taken part in several important battles and marches, charging with
Bradstreet at the capture of Fort Frontenac, following the lamented
Montgomery to Quebec, and serving with Sullivan in his famous
expedition against the Indians. Finally, he shared in the glory of
being with Washington at the surrender of Lord Cornwallis. He seems to
have been the real soldier of the family, blending the strong, active
powers of the Clinton mind with the gentler virtues which made him as
sympathetic on the field as he was affectionate in the home.

[Footnote 52: "No one," said Chancellor Kent, writing of Samuel Jones,
"surpassed him in clearness of intellect and in moderation and
simplicity of character; no one equalled him in his accurate knowledge
of the technical rules and doctrines of real property, and his
familiarity with the skilful and elaborate, but now obsolete and
mysterious, black-letter learning of the common law."]

Thus the contest between Yates and Clinton, although the first real
political conflict in the history of the State, became one of the
sharpest and most bitterly fought. For six weeks the atmosphere was
thick and hot with political passion. Veteran observers declared that
their generation had seen nothing like it. But the arguments of Duer,
the powerful influence of Chancellor Livingston, the leadership of
Hamilton, and the phenomenal popularity of John Jay, could not win the
voters who saw nothing more in the arrangement than a question of
individual preference, and while Yates carried the western district by
a large majority and held his own in the southern, Clinton's home
county gave him 1093 out of 1245 votes, making his majority 429 in a
total vote of 12,353.

The call for the Governor was so close that he quickly prepared for a
repetition of the contest in 1792. The inauguration of Washington on
April 30 had given Hamilton control of the federal offices in New
York, and, although of trifling importance compared to state
patronage, they were used to strengthen federalism, and, if possible,
to destroy Clinton. John Jay became chief justice of the Supreme
Court, James Duane judge of the District Court, Richard Harrison
United States attorney, and William S. Smith United States marshal. It
was a brilliant array of talent and legal learning. Of the lights and
ornaments of the law in his day, Richard Harrison excelled in an
intimate knowledge of its intricacies and mysteries. Added to these
officials were Rufus King and Philip Schuyler, United States senators,
and three members of Congress, with Egbert Benson at their head. As
secretary of the treasury and the trusted friend of the President,
Hamilton had also multiplied his personal influence.

Governor Clinton felt the full force of the Federalist combination,
the fear of which had intensified his hostility to the Union; but he
governed his conduct with the toleration and foresight of a master
politician. He declined to punish those who had deserted his standard,
refusing to accept Robert Yates' apostacy as sufficient cause to bar
his promotion as chief justice, and appointing to the vacancy John
Lansing, Jr., who, although a strong anti-Federalist, had already
shown an independence of political domination.

But the master-stroke of Clinton's diplomacy displayed itself in the
appointment of Aaron Burr as attorney-general. After Burr left the
army "with the character of a true knight," as John Adams put it, he
began the practice of law at Albany. Later he removed to New York,
taking up his home in Maiden Lane. Thus far his political career,
limited to two terms in the Legislature, had been insignificant.
During the great controversy over the Federal Constitution he remained
silent. His silence, however, was the silence of concealment. He
shared no confidences, he exploited no principles, he did nothing in
the open. He lived in an air of mystery, writing letters in cipher,
using messengers instead of the mails, and maintaining espionage upon
the movements of others. Of himself he wrote to Theodosia, "he is a
grave, silent, strange sort of animal, inasmuch that we know not what
to make of him." In the political parlance of to-day, his methods
savoured of the "still hunt," and in their exercise he exhibited the
powers of a past-master in stirring up men's prejudices, and creating
divisions among his rivals; but his methods, whether practised in law
or in politics, were neither modern nor moral. He marshalled forces
with equal celerity under either flag.

Shortly after Burr moved into Maiden Lane, Hamilton made his home in
Wall Street. Their first meeting, which occurred on the road from
Harlem bridge to White Plains during the disastrous retreat of
Washington's army from Manhattan in September, 1776, had been
characterised by mutual dislike. Burr, with the rank of major, acted
as aide to General Putnam; Hamilton, as an officer of artillery, was
soon to become an aide to Washington. Both were young then--Hamilton
not yet twenty, Burr scarcely twenty-one; yet their character, then
fully developed, shines out in their estimate of the commander-in-chief.
Burr thought Washington inferior as an officer, and weak, though
honest, as a man; Hamilton thought him a great soldier and a great
statesman, upon whose services the welfare of the country largely
depended. Burr's prejudices settled into positive dislike; Hamilton's
appreciation voiced the sentiment of the people and the judgment of
posterity.

There is a legend that from the first, destiny seemed determined to
oppose the genius and fame of Hamilton with the genius and fame of
Aaron Burr. It is certainly a remarkable coincidence that two men,
born without the State, so nearly of an age, so similar in brilliant
attainments, so notably distinguished in charm of manner and
phenomenal accomplishments, and so strikingly alike in ripeness of
intelligence and bent of ambition, should happen to have lived at the
same time, in the same city, and become members of the same
profession; yet it is not surprising that these men should prove
formidable rivals and deadly foes, since difference in character was
far more real than resemblance of mental attainments. Both were
fearless and brave, but the one was candid, frank and resolute; the
other subtle, crafty and adventurous. Perhaps their only common
characteristic was an ungoverned admiration for the charms of women,
though, unlike Burr, Hamilton neither bragged of his amours, nor
boasted that success attended his pursuit of pleasure.

It can hardly be supposed that in appointing Burr attorney-general,
Clinton did not have in mind the necessity of securing to the ranks of
the anti-Federalists all talented and spirited young men; but it is
none the less evident that Clinton was thinking more of himself than
of his party. Burr figured as an ugly opponent in the recent campaign.
Besides, he possessed the happy faculty of surrounding himself with
young men who recognised in him a superlative combination of bravery,
chivalry, and ability. Hamilton called them "Burr's myrmidons," but
Theodosia, with a daughter's devotion and diplomatic zeal, entitled
them "the Tenth Legion." They had joined Burr when a violent Whig in
1784, sending him to the Assembly for two terms; they had rallied
under his call to the Sons of Liberty, attracting the fierce fire of
Hamilton; and they had broken party bonds to support Robert Yates
because of their chief's personal friendship.

Such a man would attract the attention of any political manager, and
although Clinton up to this time had had no particular relations with
Burr, the latter's enthusiastic support of Yates accentuated his
political value. In after years Burr declared that Clinton had always
been his rival, and Clinton no less frankly avowed his distrust of
Burr, charging him with always being "for sale;" but Burr's rivalry
and Clinton's distrust do not date back to 1790.

If Clinton thought himself fortunate in gaining Burr, he was still
more fortunate in the defection of the influential Livingstons. What
Cæsar said of Gaul used to be said of the Empire State, that all New
York was divided into three parts--the Clintons, the Livingstons, and
the Schuylers. Parton said "the Clintons had power, the Livingstons
had numbers, and the Schuylers had Hamilton."[53] In 1788 seven
members of the Livingston family, with the Schuylers, had overthrown
the Clintons, and turned the Confederation into the Union. Robert R.
Livingston, standing at their head, was the exponent of a liberal
policy toward all American citizens, and the champion of a broader
national life. His associates were the leading Federalists; his
principles were the pillars of his party; and his ambitions centred in
the success and strength of his country.

[Footnote 53: James Parton, _Life of Aaron Burr_, Vol. 1, p. 169. "New
York, much more than New England, was the home of natural leaders and
family alliances. John Jay, the governor; the Schuylers, led by Philip
Schuyler and his son-in-law, Alexander Hamilton; the Livingstons, led
by Robert R. Livingston, with a promising younger brother, Edward,
nearly twenty years his junior, and a brother-in-law, John Armstrong,
besides Samuel Osgood, Morgan Lewis and Smith Thompson, other
connections by marriage with the great Livingston stock; the Clintons,
headed by George, the governor, and supported by the energy of DeWitt,
his nephew,--all these Jays, Schuylers, Livingstons, Clintons, had
they lived in New England, would probably have united in the support
of their class; but being citizens of New York they quarrelled."--Henry
Adams, _History of the United States_, Vol. 1, pp. 108-09.]

Prudence, therefore, if no higher motive, required that the
Livingstons be not overlooked in the division of federal patronage.
There was much of it to divide. Besides cabinet positions and judicial
appointments, the foreign service offered rare opportunities to a few
accomplished statesmen and recognised scholars. Robert R. Livingston,
as chancellor of New York, stood in line of promotion for chief
justice of the United States Supreme Court, but John Jay stood nearer
to Hamilton, just as Philip Schuyler did when United States senators
were chosen. Other honourable and most desirable positions, however,
were open. John Quincy Adams thought a mission to England or France
better than the Cabinet, but Gouverneur Morris went to France, Thomas
Pinckney to England, William Short to Spain, and David Humphreys to
Portugal. The Livingstons were left out.

Hamilton's funding system, especially the proposed assumption of state
debts, then dividing the public mind, afforded plausible cause for
opposing federalism; and ostensibly for this reason, the Livingstons
ceased to be Federalists. Some of the less conspicuous members,
residents of Columbia County, continued their adherence, but the
statesmen who give the family its name in history wanted nothing more
of a party whose head was a "young adventurer," a man "not native to
the soil," a "merchant's clerk from the West Indies." The story is
that the Chancellor convened the family and made the separation so
complete that Washington's subsequent offer of the mission to France
failed to secure his return.

The first notice of the Livingston break was in the election of a
United States senator in 1791. Philip Schuyler, Hamilton's
father-in-law, confidently expected a re-election. His selection for
the short term was with this understanding. But several members of the
Assembly, nominally Federalists, were friendly to Clinton, who
preferred Aaron Burr to Schuyler because of Hamilton's influence over
him;[54] and when the Governor promised Morgan Lewis, the Chancellor's
brother-in-law, Burr's place as attorney-general, Livingston's
disposition to injure Hamilton became intensified, and to the
disappointment of Schuyler, the vote of the Legislature disclosed a
small majority for Burr.

[Footnote 54: In a letter to Theodorus Bailey, Chancellor Kent, then a
member of the Assembly, expressed the opinion that "things look
auspicious for Burr. It will be in some measure a question of northern
and southern interests. The objection of Schuyler's being related to
the Secretary has weight."--William Kent, _Memoirs and Letters of
James Kent_, p. 39.]

It is easy to conjecture that the haughty, unpopular, aristocratic old
General[55] would not be as acceptable as a young man of thirty-five,
fascinating in manner, gifted in speech, and not yet openly and
offensively partisan; but it needed something more than this charm of
personality to line up the hard-headed, self-reliant legislator
against Hamilton and Philip Schuyler, and Burr found it in his appeal
to Clinton, and in the clever brother-in-law suggestion to Livingston.

[Footnote 55: "The defeat of Schuyler was attributed partly to the
unprepossessing austerity of his manner."--_Ibid._, p. 38.]

The defeat of Schuyler was a staggering blow to Hamilton. The great
statesman had achieved success as secretary of the treasury, but as a
political manager, his lack of tact, impatience of control, and
infirmity of temper, had crippled the organisation. In less than three
years the party had lost a United States senator, suffered the
separation of a family vastly more important than federal appointees,
and sacrificed the prestige of victory, so necessary to political
success.

CHAPTER VI

GEORGE CLINTON DEFEATS JOHN JAY

1792-1795

Burr's rapid advancement gave full rein to his ambition. Not content
with the exalted office to which he had suddenly fallen heir, he now
began looking for higher honours; and when it came time to select
candidates for governor, he invoked the tactics that won him a place
in the United States Senate. He found a few anti-Federalists willing
to talk of him as a stronger candidate than George Clinton, and a few
Federalists who claimed that the moderate men of both parties would
rally to his support. In the midst of the talk Isaac Ledyard wrote
Hamilton that "a tide was likely to make strongly for Mr. Burr,"[56]
and James Watson, in a similar strain, argued that Burr's chances, if
supported by Federalists, would be "strong."[57]

[Footnote 56: James Parton, _Life of Aaron Burr_, Vol. 1, p. 187.]

[Footnote 57: _Ibid._, 188.]

Clinton's firm hold upon his party quickly checked Burr's hope from
that quarter, but the increasing difficulty among Federalists to find
a candidate offered opportunity for Burr's peculiar tactics, until his
adherents were everywhere--on the bench, in the Legislature, in the
drawing-rooms, the coffee-houses, and the streets. Hamilton had only
to present him and say, "Here is your candidate," and Aaron Burr would
cheerfully have opposed the friend who, within less than two years,
had appointed him attorney-general and elected him United States
senator. But Hamilton deliberately snuffed him out. The great
Federalist had finally induced John Jay to become the candidate of his
party. This was on February 13, 1792. Two days later, the
anti-Federalists named George Clinton and Pierre Van Cortlandt, the
old ticket which had done service for fifteen years.

In inducing John Jay to lead his party, Hamilton made a good start.
Heretofore Jay had steadily refused to become a candidate for
governor. "That the office of the first magistrate of the State," he
wrote, May 16, 1777, "will be more respectable as well as more
lucrative than the place I now fill is very apparent; but my object in
the course of the present great contest neither has been nor will be
either rank or money."[58] After his return from Europe, when Governor
Clinton's division of patronage and treatment of royalists had become
intensely objectionable, Jay was again urged to stand as a candidate,
but he answered that "a servant should not leave a good old master for
the sake of more pay or a prettier livery."[59] If this was good
reasoning in 1786 and 1789, when he was secretary of foreign affairs,
it was better reasoning in 1792, when he was chief justice of the
United States; but the pleadings of Hamilton seem to have set a
presidential bee buzzing, or, at least, to have started ambition in a
mind until now without ambition. At any rate, Jay, suddenly and
without any apparent reason, consented to exchange the most exalted
office next to President, to chance the New York governorship.

[Footnote 58: William Jay, _Life of John Jay_, Vol. 1, p. 162.]

[Footnote 59: _Ibid._, p. 198.]

There had never been a time since John Jay entered public life that he
was not the most popular man in the city of New York. In 1788 he
received for delegate to the Poughkeepsie convention, twenty-seven
hundred and thirty-five votes out of a total of twenty-eight hundred
and thirty-three. John Adams called him "a Roman" because he resembled
Cato more than any of his contemporaries. Jay's life divided itself
into three distinct epochs of twenty-eight years each--study and the
practice of law, public employment, and retirement. During the years
of uninterrupted public life, he ran the gamut of office-holding. It
is a long catalogue, including delegate to the Continental Congress,
framer of the New York Constitution, chief justice of the New York
Supreme Court, president of the Continental Congress, minister to
Spain, member of the Peace Commission, secretary of foreign affairs,
chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, negotiator of the
Jay treaty, and finally governor of New York. No other American save
John Quincy Adams and John Marshall ever served his country so
continuously in such exalted and responsible place. On his return from
Europe after an absence of five years, Adams said he returned to his
country "like a bee to its hive, with both legs loaded with merit and
honour."[60]

[Footnote 60: To Thos. Barclay, May 24, 1784, _Hist. Mag._, 1869, p.
358.]

Jay accepted the nomination for governor in 1792, on condition that he
be not asked to take part in the campaign. "I made it a rule," he
wrote afterward, "neither to begin correspondence nor conversation
upon the subject."[61] Accordingly, while New York was deeply stirred,
the Chief Justice leisurely rode over his circuit, out of hearing and
out of sight of the political disturbance, apparently indifferent to
the result.

[Footnote 61: William Jay, _Life of John Jay_, Vol. 1, p. 289.]

The real political campaign which is still periodically made in New
York, may be said to have had its beginning in April, 1792. Seldom has
an election been contested with such prodigality of partisan fury. The
rhetoric of abuse was vigorous and unrestrained; the campaign lie
active and ingenious; the arraignment of class against class sedulous
and adroit, and the excitement most violent and memorable. If a weapon
of political warfare failed to be handled with craft and with courage,
its skilful use was unknown.

Indeed, if any one doubts that it was a real time of political
upheaval, he has only to glance at local histories. Federalists and
anti-Federalists were alike convulsed by a movement which was the
offspring of a genuine and irresistible enthusiasm of that strong,
far-reaching kind that makes epochs in the history of politics. The
people having cut loose from royalty, now proposed cutting loose from
silk stockings, knee breeches, powdered hair, pigtails, shoe buckles,
and ruffled shirts--the emblems of nobility. Perhaps they did not then
care for the red plush waistcoats, the yarn stockings, and the
slippers down at the heel, which Jefferson was to carry into the White
House; but in their effort to overthrow the tyranny of the past, they
were beginning to demand broader suffrage and less ceremony, a larger,
freer man, and less caste. To them, therefore, Jay and Clinton
represented the aristocrat and the democrat. Jay, they said, had been
nurtured in the lap of ease, Clinton had worked his way from the most
humble rank; Jay luxuriated in splendid courts, Clinton dwelt in the
home of the lowly son of toil; Jay was the choice of the rich, Clinton
the man of the people; Jay relied upon the support of the President
and the Secretary of the Treasury, Clinton upon the poor villager and
the toiling farmer.

Newspapers charged Jay with saying that "there ought to be in America
only two sorts of people, one very rich, the other very poor,"[62] and
to support the misrepresentation, they quoted his favourite maxim that
"those who own the country ought to govern it," pointing to the State
Constitution which he drafted, to prove that only the well-to-do could
vote. The Dutch, largely the slave holders of the State, accused him
of wishing to rob them by the abolition of slavery. Dressed in other
rhetorical clothes, these stories did service again in 1795 and 1798.

[Footnote 62: George Pellew, _Life of John Jay_, p. 275.]

But the assumption of state debts, and Hamilton's financial system,
became the fiercest objects of attack. To them were traced the "reign
of speculators" that flowered in the year 1791. "Bank bubbles,
tontines, lotteries, monopolies, usury, gambling and swindling
abound," said the New York _Journal_; "poverty in the country, luxury
in the capitals, corruption and usurpation in the national councils."
Hamilton's system had given the deepest stab to the hopes of the
anti-Federalists, since it taught people to look to the Union rather
than to the State. Internal taxes and import duties were paid to the
United States; coin was minted by the United States; paper money
issued by the United States; letters carried and delivered by the
United States; and state debts assumed by the United States. All this
had a tendency to break state attachments and state importance; and in
striking back, Republican orators branded the reports of the Secretary
of the Treasury as "dangerous to liberty," the assumption of debts as
"a clever device for enslaving the people," and the whole fiscal
system "a dishonest scheme." The failure and imprisonment of William
Duer, until recently Hamilton's trusted assistant, followed by riots
in New York City, gave colour to the charge, and, although the most
bitter opponents of the great Federalist in no wise connected him with
any corrupt transaction, yet in the spring of 1792 Hamilton, the
friend and backer of Jay, was the most roundly abused man in the
campaign.

The Federalists resented misrepresentation with misrepresentation.
Clinton's use of patronage, his opposition to the Federal
Constitution, and the impropriety of having a military governor in
time of peace, objections left over from 1789, still figured as set
pieces in rhetorical fireworks; but the great red light, burned at
every meeting throughout the State, exposed Governor Clinton as
secretly profiting by the sale of public lands. The Legislature of
1791 authorised the five state officers, acting as Commissioners of
the Land Office, to sell unappropriated lands in such parcels and on
such terms as they deemed expedient, and under this power 5,542,173
acres returned $1,030,433. Some of the land brought three shillings
per acre, some two shillings six pence, some one shilling, but
Alexander McComb picked up 3,635,200 acres at eight pence. McComb was
a friend of Clinton. More than that, he was a real estate dealer and
speculator. In the legislative investigation that followed,
resolutions condemning the commissioners' conduct tangled up Clinton
in a division of the profits, and sent McComb to jail. This was a
sweet morsel for the Federalists. It mattered not that the Governor
denied it; that McComb contradicted it; that no proof supported it; or
that the Assembly acquitted him by a party vote of thirty-five to
twenty; the story did effective campaign service, and lived to torture
Aaron Burr, one of the commissioners, ten years afterward. Burr tried
to escape responsibility by pleading absence when the contracts were
made; but the question never ceased coming up--if absence included all
the months of McComb's negotiations, what time did the Attorney-General
give to public business?

It was a deep grief to Jay that the Livingstons opposed him. The
Chancellor and Edward were his wife's cousins, Brockholst her brother.
Brockholst had been Jay's private secretary at the embassy in Madrid,
but now, to use a famous expression of that day, "the young man's head
was on fire," and violence characterised his political feelings and
conduct. Satirical letters falsely attributed to Jay fanned the sparks
of the Livingston opposition into a bright blaze, and, although the
Chief Justice denied the insinuation, the Chancellor gave battle with
the enthusiasm of a new convert.

As one glances through the list of workers in the campaign of 1792, he
is reminded that the juniors or beginners soon came to occupy higher
and more influential positions than some of their elders and leaders.
DeWitt Clinton, for instance, not yet in office, was soon to be in the
Assembly, in the State Senate, and in the United States Senate--a
greater force than any man of his time in New York, save Hamilton.
James Kent had just entered the Assembly. As a student in Egbert
Benson's office, his remarkable industry impressed clients and
teacher, but when his voice sounded the praises of John Jay, few could
have anticipated that this young man, small in stature, vivacious in
speech, quick in action, with dark eyes and a swarthy complexion, was
destined to become one of the most famous jurists in a century.
Ambrose Spencer had not yet scored his first political honour, but his
herculean frame and stately presence, with eyes and complexion darker
than Kent's, are to be seen leading in every political contest for
more than forty years.

There were also Smith Thompson, taught in the law by Chancellor Kent
and tutored in politics by George Clinton, who was to follow the
former Chief Justice and end his days on the United States Supreme
bench; Joseph C. Yates, founder of Union College, and Samuel L.
Mitchill, scientist and politician, who has been called the Franklin
of New York. Younger than these, but equally alert, was Cadwallader A.
Colden, grandson of the royal lieutenant-governor of Stamp Act days.
He was now only twenty-two, just beginning at the bar, but destined to
be the intimate friend of Robert Fulton, a famous leader of a famous
bar, and a political chieftain of a distinguished career.[63]

[Footnote 63: Interested in this exciting campaign was yet a younger
generation, who soon contested their right-of-way to political
leadership. Erastus Root was a junior at Dartmouth; Daniel D. Tompkins
had just entered Columbia; Martin Van Buren was in a country school on
the farm at Kinderhook; John Treat Irving was playing on the banks of
the river to be made famous by his younger brother; and William W. Van
Ness, the rarest genius of them all, and his younger cousin, William
P. Van Ness, were listening to the voices that would soon summon them,
one in support of the brilliant Federalist leader, the other as a
second to Aaron Burr in the great tragedy at Weehawken on the 11th of
July, 1804.]

At the election, the people gave Jay a majority of their votes; but at
the count, a majority of the state canvassers gave Clinton the
governorship. This was the first vicious party precedent established
in the Empire State. It has had many successors at the polls, in the
Legislature, and at the primaries, but none bolder and more harmful,
or ruder and more outrageously wrong. Under the law, inspectors of
election sealed the ballots, delivered them to the sheriff or his
deputy, who conveyed them to the secretary of state. In Otsego County,
Richard R. Smith's term as sheriff had expired, and the new sheriff
had not yet qualified, but Smith delivered the ballots to a person
specially deputised by him. Tioga's sheriff turned the ballots over
to his deputy, who, being taken ill on the journey, handed them to a
clerk for transmission. In Clinton the sheriff gave the votes to a man
without deputation. No ballots were missing, no seals were broken, nor
had their delivery been delayed for a moment. But as soon as it became
known that these counties gave Jay a majority of about four hundred,
quite enough to elect him, it was claimed that the votes had not been
conveyed to the secretary of state by persons authorised to do so
under the law, and the canvassers, voting as their party preferences
dictated, ruled out the returns by a vote of seven to four in
Clinton's favour. The discussion preceding this action, however, was
so acrimonious and the alleged violation of law so technical, that the
board agreed to refer the controversy to Rufus King and Aaron Burr,
the United States senators.

Burr had many an uneasy hour. He preferred to avoid the
responsibility, since an opinion might jeopardise his political
interests. If he found for Clinton, his Federalist friends would take
offence; if he antagonised Clinton, the anti-Federalists would cast
him out. Thus far it had been his policy to keep in the background,
directing others to act for him; now he must come out into the open.
He temporised, delayed, sought suggestions of friends, and endeavoured
to induce his colleague to join him in declining to act as a referee,
but King saw no reason for avoiding an opinion, and in answering the
question of the canvassers, he took the broad ground that an election
law should be construed in furtherance of the right of suffrage. The
act was for the protection of voters whose rights could not be
jeopardised by the negligence or misconduct of an agent charged with
the delivery of the ballots, nor by canvassers charged with their
counting. It was preposterous to suppose that the sudden illness of a
deputy, or the failure of an official to qualify, could disfranchise
the voters of a whole county. If it were otherwise, then the foolish
or intentional misconduct of a sheriff might at any time overturn the
will of a majority. There was no pretence of wrong-doing. The ballots
had been counted, sealed, and delivered to the secretary of state no
less faithfully than if there had been a technical adherence to the
strict letter of the law. He favoured canvassing Tioga's vote,
therefore, although it was doubtful if a deputy sheriff could deputise
a deputy, while the vote of Clinton should be canvassed because a
sheriff may deputise by parol. As to Otsego, on which the election
really turned, King held that Smith was sheriff until a successor
qualified, if not in law, then in fact; and though such acts of a _de
facto_ officer as are voluntarily and exclusively beneficial to
himself are void, those are valid that tend to the public utility.

Burr was uninfluenced by respect for suffrage. Being statutory law, it
must be construed literally, not in spirit, or because of other rights
involved. He agreed with his colleague as to the law governing the
Clinton case; but following the letter of the act, he held that
Tioga's votes ought not to be counted, since a deputy could not
appoint a deputy. The Otsego ballots were also rejected because the
right of a sheriff to hold over did not exist at common law; and as
the New York statute did not authorise it, Smith's duties ceased at
the end of his term; nor could he be an officer _de facto_, since he
had accepted and exercised for one day the office of supervisor, which
was incompatible with that of sheriff. In other words, Burr reduced
the question of Jay's election to Smith's right to act, and to avoid
the _de facto_ right, so ably presented by Senator King, he relied
upon Smith's service of a day as supervisor before receiving and
forwarding the ballots, notwithstanding sheriffs invariably held over
until their successors qualified. Seven of such cases had occurred in
fifteen years, and never before had the right been seriously
questioned. In one instance a hold-over sheriff had executed a
criminal. When urged to appoint a sheriff for Otsego earlier in the
year, Governor Clinton excused his delay because the old one could
hold over.

After this decision, only Clinton himself could avert the judgment
certain to be rendered by a partisan board. Nevertheless, the Governor
remained silent. Thus, by a strict party vote of seven to four, the
canvassers, omitting the three counties with four hundred majority in
Jay's favour, returned 8,440 votes for Clinton and 8,332 for Jay.
Then, to destroy all evidence of their shame, the ballots were burned,
although the custom obtained of preserving them in the office of the
secretary of state.[64]

[Footnote 64: A few days after Clinton's inauguration Burr wrote a
Federalist friend: "I earnestly wished and sought to be relieved from
the necessity of giving any opinion, particularly as 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.... 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.... Some pretend, but none can believe, that I am
prejudiced in his favour. I have not even seen or spoken to him since
January last." This letter had scarcely been delivered when Clinton
appointed him to the Supreme Court, an office which Burr declined,
preferring to remain in the Senate.]

News travelled slowly in those days. There were no telegrams, no
reporters, no regular correspondents, no special editions to tell the
morning reader what had happened the day before; but when it once
became known that John Jay had been counted out, the people of the
State were aroused to the wildest passion of rage, recalling the
famous Tilden-Hayes controversy three-quarters of a century later. A
returning board, it was claimed, had overturned the will of the
people; and to the superheated excitement of the campaign, was added
the fierce anger of an outraged party. Wild menaces were uttered, and