From John Jay to Egbert Benson, 12 May 1807
To Egbert Benson
Bedford 12th May 1807
Dear Sir
I recd. on Saturday last your Letter dated “Wednesday,”1 relative to the Paragraph in the Herald of the 29th April—in which the Editor says: “I am authorized to declare, that Govr. Jay has said that he cannot possibly conceive that any Man who calls himself a Fœderalist, can ever give a vote for a Candidate set up by the Clinton Party.”2
My Son, apprehending that this had been an erroneously inferred from a Conversation between ^him and^ Mr. Coleman,3 & him wrote a Letter to that Gentleman, mentioning the Error, and desiring him to correct it.4 On
seeing that Letter, you acquaint me that the Paragraph was founded on Information from You; and to support it you refer me to our Conversation when I had the pleasure of seeing you here on your Return from Albany.
My Opinion is in fact ^so far^ the Reverse of the ^illiberal^ one ascribed to me by that Paragraph I can easily conceive of Cases in which a Federalist not only [illegible] and ^but^ ought ^I can easily concieve of Cases in which I should think it my Duty^ to vote for a meritorious well qualified Candidate, by whatever Party set up. Respecting that[?] an opinion ^or Position [illegible]^ [illegible] ^Our^ Conversation, ^however,^ did not comprehend any such ^that^ Topic ^nor any such an unqualified Expressions—^
Whether it would be proper for a Fœderalist to vote for Mr. Tomkins at the then ensuing Election?, is a Question on which we did converse; and in that Conversation I did say, that If the Federal Party came forward and declared for Mr. Lewis, it would in my opinion be improper for any Fœderalist to vote for Mr. Tomkins. Where the Rectitude of a ^Party^ Measure is useful ^out^ of Question, and the Expediency of it is the only Doubt, I do think that after it has been considered and Fairly carried and adopted, the minority should faithfully cooperate in giving it Effect.
It may be asked how I could, consistently with this opinion, decline voting for Mr. Lewis. [illegible] to this Question as it appears ^(altho’ [illegible] not material to the purpose of this Letter) I will give the answer which will appear^ from the following Extracts of two Letters which express my sentiments relative to certain federal Proceedings
“Bedford 18 May ^April^ 1807
Dear Sir,
Your Letter by Mr.——gave me great Pleasure … As to the ^ensuing^ Election for Govr. … a Fœderal Candidate should in my opinion have been named— if that had been deemed inexpedient, the Fœderal Party should I think have adopted an unequivocal plain Line of Conduct relative to the present Candidates— explicitly deciding to vote for neither of them; or openly Resolving to support the one whom they considered as the least objectionable.”5
“Bedford 4 May 1807
Dear Sir,
Accept my Thanks for your Friendly Letter of the 18th of last month … as to the Election— It is not clear to me what will be its precise Effect in Relation to the Federalists— If as a Party they judged it to be expedient to favor Mr. Lewis, I think they should as a Party, have openly and decidedly ^declared^ and resolved that they would support him. The Language of ^held by^ the
Fœderal Leaders ^[illegible]^ to the Party, seems to amount to this, vizt. on this occasion you may leave your Standard— you may go home, and every Man is at Liberty to do what may be right in his own Eyes: but we nevertheless intimate to you as an opinion to which we incline, but do not expressly adopt, that it may be better for us to have Mr. Lewis than Mr. Tomkins for our Govr. I do not like measures of this kind. I fear that they tend to disorganize and severs us; and that they do not manifest That Degree of Resolution, Self Respect and Dignity which our Motives Objects and Situation demand—Had the Party resolved to support Mr. Lewis, I certainly should have voted for him. As a mere Individual, judging what was proper for me to do, I declined voting for either of the Candidates—”6
I am however This letter will I am persuaded evince both to You and to Mr. Coleman the Propriety of correcting an Error which, however innocently ^caused &^ committed, imputes to me an opinion which certainly has never been one of mine.7 I am Dr Sir With affte Regard Your He & Obt Servt
Egb. Benson Esqr.
Dft, NNC (EJ: 07524). For Benson’s reply, see his letter to JJ of 19 May, below.
2. This piece appeared in New-York Herald of 29 Apr., under the heading “To The Federalists in the Seventh Ward,” and had appeared two days earlier in the Herald’s sister publication New-York Evening Post. William Coleman, the paper’s editor, wrote the piece upon hearing that Nicholas Romaine (Romayne) (1756–1817), a local physician and founder of the New York College of Physicians and Surgeons, was disseminating information in the Seventh Ward, and elsewhere in the city, that JJ backed the gubernatorial candidacy of Daniel D. Tompkins, the Republican candidate. Coleman refuted Romaine’s claim, assuring his readers that the story was “totally destitute of foundation” and that JJ never offered his support for the “Clinton Party”. As JJ observes in the letter above, Coleman based this assumption on a conversation that he had with Benson.
The Federalist-leaning People’s Friend (New York), of 29 Apr. reported that “Dr. Romaine’s story that Governor Jay was friendly to the election of D. D. Tompkins, has been disproved with shame to the propagator.” People’s Friend (New York), 29 Apr. 1807.
3. William Coleman (1766–1829), of New York City, editor of the pro-Federalist papers the daily Evening Post (1801–20) and the semi-weekly New-York Herald (1802–17).
4. PAJ to Coleman, of this period, not found.
5. Extract from JJ to William P. Beers, 18 Apr. 1807, above.
6. Extract from JJ to Peter Van Shaack, 4 May 1807, Dft, NNC (EJ: 09435), letter referenced within is Van Shaack to JJ, 18 Apr. 1807, ALS, NNC (EJ: 09433).
7. Coleman later wrote to JJ about this matter on 6 June (see below), and also issued a public correction in his New-York Evening Post. After quoting the passage from the initial article refuting the claim that JJ had politically supported the Clintonians, Coleman continued:
In consequence of the appearance of this paragraph, one of more letters have passed between Governor Jay and my informant, the result of which, is a request from both that I would publish the following passage from one of the letters to Gov. Jay, viz:
“I never meant to repeat from you a sentiment so unfit as that, whatever might be the pretensions or worth or competency of a candidate, or whatever changes might take place in the community still, that his being nominated by the Clinton party, would be decisive with you to forbear voting for such candidate.”
I could have no hesitation to publish the above explanatory sentence, but I at the same time declared to my informant, that I must add, and he readily consented to it, that the inadvertence to making the use of terms this general, unqualified and unlimited in the original paragraph, was not mine; for after its publication, it was carefully perused in my office, and recognized by him as being literally correct, as he had communicated it.
New-York Evening Post, 24 June; New-York Herald, 27 June 1807. The quoted passage in the article is taken from Egbert Benson to JJ, 19 May 1807, below. For more on this episode, see also William Coleman to JJ, 6 June 1807; and JJ to Coleman, 18 June 1807, both below.