already fully mentioned. Its cardinal principles were eco nomy, peace, simplicity, and a strict limitation to all the powers of the government, and no one could have carried them into effect with more fidelity, or greater success. But it is on his merits as a lawgiver and political philosopher, that his claims to greatness chiefly rest: it is for these that he is to be praised or condemned by posterity; for beyond all his contemporaries has he impressed his opinions of government on the minds of the great mass of his countrymen. He thought he saw the sources of misgovernment in the conflict of interests and of passions between the rulers and the people; and that the only effectual way of avoiding this conflict was, by placing the government in the hands of a majority of the nation. All his political schemes and institutions were framed with a view to this object. Such were his opposition to the funding system, to banks, to court ceremonies, to the Cincinnati, to the independence of the judiciary, to the county courts of Virginia. His zeal in behalf of a general system of popular instruction; of his ward system; of the extension of the right of suffrage, all aimed at the same object of placing the power of the state in the hands of the greater number. It was these objects of his untiring zeal which won for him the title he most prized, "THE MAN OF THE PEOPLE." How future ages will regard this character it is perhaps not given to the present generation to anticipate; but from pregnant signs of the times, his friends have reason to believe that posterity is quite as likely to exceed as to fall short of their own veneration for the political character of THOMAS JEFFERSON. APPENDIX. [A. p. 81.] THE following extracts of letters from an actor in this interesting scene, briefly give its history and result. They are from John Randolph to his father-in-law, St. George Tucker. Chamber of the House of Representatives, Seven times we have balloted-eight states for J.- six for B.- two, Maryland and Vermont, divided. Voted to postpone for an hour the process; now, half-past four, resumed-result the same. The order against adjourning, made with a view to Mr. Nicholson, who was ill, has not operated. He left his sick bed-came through a snow storm-brought his bed, and has prevented the vote of Maryland from being given to Burr. Mail closing. Yours with perfect love and esteem, J. R. JR. My dear Sir, Thursday morning, February 12th. We have just taken the nineteenth ballot. The result has invariably been eight states for J., six for B., two divided. We continue to ballot with the interval of an hour. The rule for making the sittings permanent seems now to be not so agreeable to our federal gentlemen. No election will, in my opinion, take place. By special permission the mail will remain open until four o'clock. I will not close this letter until three. If there be a change I shall notify it; if not, I shall add no more to the assurance of my entire affection. JOHN RANDOLph, Jr. Chamber of the House of Representatives, February 14th, 1801. After endeavouring to make the question before us depend upon physical construction, our opponents have begged for a dispensation. from their own regulation, and without adjourning we have postponed, (like able casuists) from day to day, the balloting. In half an hour we shall recommence the operation. The result is marked below. Twelve o'clock, Saturday noon, We have balloted thirty-one hours. eight for J., six for B., two divided. Same result. Postponed till Monday twelve o'clock. JOHN RANDOLPH, Jr. Chamber of the Representatives, On the thirty-sixth ballot, there appeared, this day, ten states for Thomas Jefferson-four (New England) for A. Burr, and two blank ballots, (Delaware and South Carolina.) This was the second time that we balloted to-day. The four Burr-ites of Maryland, put blanks into the box of that state. The vote was, therefore, unanimous. Mr. Morris, of Vermont, left his seat, and the result was, therefore, Jeffersonian. Adieu, Tuesday, two o'clock, P. M. I need not add that Mr. J. was declared duly elected. [B. p. 82.] J. R. JR. The following vindication of Mr. Jefferson for a note in his ana concerning the late Mr. Bayard of Delaware, is from the pen of Mr. Madison, and was first published in the National Gazette of February 5th, 1831. From the National Gazette. 25th January, 1831. Mr. Editor-The National Gazette of January 1st, contained a publication, edited since in pamphlet form, from two sons of the late Mr. Bayard; its object being to vindicate the memory of their father against certain passages in the writings of Mr. Jefferson. The filial anxiety which prompted the publication was natural and highly commendable. But it is to be regretted, that in performing that duty, they have done great injustice to the memory of Mr. Jefferson, by the hasty and limited views taken of the evidence deducible from the sources to which they had appealed. The first passage on which they found their charges is in the following words: “February 12, 1801.-Edward Livingston tells me, that Bayard applied, to-day or last night, to General Smith, and represented to him the expediency of coming over to the states who vote for Burr, that there was nothing in the way of appointment which he might not command, and particularly mentioned the Secretaryship of the Navy. Smith asked him if he was authorized to make the offer. He said he was authorized. Smith told this to Livingston, and to Wilson Carey Nicholas, who confirms it to me." [See Mr. Jefferson's Memoirs, Vol. IV. p. 515.] From this statement it appears, that Mr. Jefferson was told by Mr. Livingston, that he had it from General Smith, that Mr. Bayard had applied to him [General Smith,] with an offer of a high appointment, if he would come over from the Jefferson party, and join that of the rival candidate for the presidency. It appears that this information of Mr. Livingston was confirmed to Mr. Jefferson by Mr. W. C. Nicholas, who also said he had it from General Smith. It appears that the communication thus made to Mr. Jefferson, was reduced by him to writing on the day on which it was made; and that the incident which was the subject of it, took place on the morning of the same day, or at furthest on the night before. It is found also, that what was in this case reduced to writing, made no part of what was first reduced to writing on the 15th of April, 1806. [see Vol. IV. p. 521] but that it was then expressly referred to, as having been reduced to writing at the time. Opposed to this memorandum of Mr. Jefferson is first-the declaration of Mr. Livingston on the floor of the Senate of the United States, after a lapse of about twenty-nine years, "that as to the precise question put to him, [touching the application of Mr. Bayard to General Smith,] he must say that after having taxed his recollection, as far as it could go, on so remote a transaction, he had no remembrance of it;" implying that he might have had a conversation with Mr. Jefferson relating to the remote transaction, not within the scope of the precise question. Second-the declaration of General Smith in the same place, and after the same lapse of time, "that he had not the most distant recollection that Mr. Bayard had ever made such a proposition to him," adding "that he never received from any man any such proposition." On comparing these declarations, made after an interval of so many years, with the statement of Mr. Jefferson reduced to writing at the time, it is impossible to regard them as proof, that communications were not made to him by Mr. Livingston and Mr. W. C. Nicholas, which he [Mr. Jefferson,] understood to import, that Mr. Bayard had made to General Smith the application as stated. And if Mr. Jefferson was under that impression, however erroneous it might be, his subsequent opinion and language in reference to Mr. Bayard, are at once accounted for, without any resort to the imputations in the publication. That there has been great error somewhere is apparent; that respect |