John Jay Papers
Documents filtered by: Author="Troup, Robert" AND Recipient="Jay, John"
sorted by: editorial placement
Permanent link for this document:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jay/01-05-02-0223

To John Jay from Robert Troup, 3 June 1792

From Robert Troup

Sunday, 3 June 1792

My dear Sir

Yesterday afternoon I returned from WestChester County where I have been attending the County Court for the whole week— Upon my return I found the election in a more favorable state than any of us expected. In the Southern District Clinton led you only 138, which was owing to a majority of one hundred & thirty odd you had in this City, and a majority of near 500 which West Chester County yielded you. In Orange County Clinton had a majority of between 4 & 500 & the Canvassers are now in Dutchess County which thus far has given you a majority of one sixty odd. In this County the votes of two towns remain to be canvassed, but they are not very important towns & the one favorable to you & the other against you— The probability is that you will have a majority of about 200 in Dutchess. Ulster, Columbia &c & so upwards are yet uncanvassed— I do not see that it is possible that Clinton when he arrives at Columbia will have a majority of more than 600. If the Otsego votes be canvassed we have not a doubt—not even the smallest one—that the election will be ours— What will be the fate of these votes is a question which no human understanding can yet determine— Brockholst and his vertuous colleagues are stuffing the news papers with dissertations upon the subject—1 Mr. Harison on our side has written a very ample & able refutation of all the arguments urged in these dissertations and the refutation will appear in tomorrow’s paper.2 When I wrote you on Sunday last I informed you that I had received the opinion of Mr. Lewis of Philadelphia upon a very particular state of the case transmitted by me and Mr. Hoffman.3 This opinion is favorable to an extreme— Since receiving this opinion we have also obtained one from Mr. Lush of Albany who has been altogether inactive in the election & whose wishes are supposed to be with Clinton— This opinion is also decided that the Sheriff de facto was the proper returning officer—4 I can find no opinions against us but those of Brockholst—Ned—the Chancellor—Clinton &c—

Mr. Jones is inclined to believe that the Otsego votes will not be rejected, but he is like the rest of us tortured with serious apprehensions. The old gentleman is of the last importance to us upon the canvass— He has hitherto discharged his trust with great ability and integrity—5 If the Otsego votes be rejected we think there will notwithstanding be a good chance of your success— In this case the event will be extremely critical—

Brockholst has almost turned Bedlamite— Since the canvass began he has fought a battle royal with a Mr. Durie—a merchant in town who is very zealously attached to your interest—6 Besides this proof of neutrality which Brockholst affects he has been very constant in his attendance upon the canvassers & has never failed upon all questions which arose in the course of the canvass to converse with Melancton Smith—Tillotson &c7 and officiously give his advice—

Upon the whole we are all in high spirits & what tends to make the prospect of your election the more agreeable is—the probability that the Legislature will consist of a majority of your friends— The election of assemblymen & senators as far as the event is known to us has pretty generally proved favorable to our wishes.8

I have no further accounts from Dr. Ramsay.

As I understand there will be no Circuit held in Vermont this is the last letter I shall write to you— The one I wrote on Sunday last was directed to you at Portsmouth.9 With every sentiment of esteem & affection I am, My dear Sir, Your friend,

Rob. Troup

Honble John Jay Esqr

ALS, NNC (EJ: 07192). Endorsed: “Col. Troup / 3 June 1792 / recd. 8 June 1792—”.

1The writings of Brockholst Livingston have not been identified, but for pieces opposing acceptance of the Otsego ballots, see, for example, the writings of “A.B.”, New-York Journal, 30 May and 2 June; “X.Z.”, Daily Advertiser (New York), 1 June; “Hortensius,” Daily Advertiser, 5 June and 8 June; and “Fair Play”, in the Daily Advertiser, 5 June.

2Richard Harison’s piece has not been identified, but is possibly “Vidis”, dated 3 June, appearing in the Daily Advertiser of 5 June. For a later statement dated 7 June by Harison and other New York lawyers supporting JJ, see the Daily Advertiser, 9 June; and Impartial Statement of the Controversy description begins An Impartial Statement of the Controversy Respecting the Decision of the late Committee of Canvassers (New York, 1792; Early Am. Imprints, series 1, no. 24421) description ends , 22–24.

3For William Lewis’s opinion, dated 25 May, see Appendix to the Impartial Statement description begins An Appendix to the Impartial Statement (New York, 1792; Early Am. Imprints, series 1, no. 24054) description ends , 8.

4Probably a reference to the opinion signed by Stephen Lush, Theodorous Van Wyck Graham, and Abraham Van Vechten, dated 24 May, printed in Impartial Statement of the Controversy description begins An Impartial Statement of the Controversy Respecting the Decision of the late Committee of Canvassers (New York, 1792; Early Am. Imprints, series 1, no. 24421) description ends , 21.

5Samuel Jones, one of the canvassing committee who voted to support the validity of the ballots.

6Possibly Thomas Durie, a New York merchant, former assistant commissary of forage, and deputy commissary of prisoners, and member of the St. Andrew Society.

7Thomas Tillotson, one of the Clintonian members of the canvassing committee, who, like Melancton Smith, voted to reject the ballots.

8The Clintonians retained control of the legislature by a narrow margin. On the election controversy and its outcome, see the editorial note “The Disputed Election of 1792,” above.

Index Entries