John Jay Papers

To John Jay from Robert Troup, 10 June 1792

From Robert Troup

Sunday June 10 1792

My Dear Sir

Upon looking over the memorandum you left with me I think I may venture to write you one letter more— This City at present is extremely agitated— The election ^canvassi[n]g^ has proceeded so far as to reduce it to a certainty that you will be elected if the Otsego votes be counted— Albany County yielded you a majority of 734, which has proved decisive— Montgomery— Tioga— Otsego— Ontario, & Clinton Counties remain yet to be canvassed— In Montgomery we expect a majority of between 2 & 300— Ontario will yield a majority for you & Clinton a majority of 100 for Clinton— Tioga will most probably not be canvassed—as the box was delivered by a person deputed by a deputy— All parties allow you the majority if the Otsego votes be received— I suppose from the best information I can get the final majority for you will be about 200 or 250.1

As to the Otsego votes the question is extremely doubtful— Some say it is to be determined this day—others that it will be decided in the morning— There has been a great deal of writing upon the subject & every possible maneuvri[n]g practised by Clinton & his copartners, the Livingstons, to drill the canvassers— Some days ago the Canvassers referred the question respecting the Otsego Votes & some question respecting those of Clinton & Tioga Counties to Burr & King for their opinions— This reference was understood by us all as intended to procure a cloak for the Canvassers to cover their villainy in rejecting the votes of Otsego— They knew Burr to be decidedly with them, & that he would give them an opinion to suit their views— Burr & King were conferi[n]g together for near two days with a view to concur as Burr affected to wish.

The quibbles & chicanery he made use of are characteristic of the man— They finally separated, & have given opinions directly opposite to each other.2 Kings is bottomed upon sound legal & political principles— Burr’s is a most pitiful one & will damn his reputation as a Lawyer— It is flatly against canvassing the Otsego votes & is grounded upon the British statutes respecting sheriffs—[which we have shewn to defeat his position?] ^A refutation of the principal ground of Burr’s opinion is contained in a^ publication just sent to the Printer3 We all consider Burr’s opinion as such a shameful prostitution of his talents—and as so decisive a proof of the real infamy of his character, that we are determined to rip him up— We have long been wishing to see him upon [illegible] paper, & we are now gratified with the most favorable [exi?]bition he could have made—

After Burr’s & King’s opinions were received, the canvassers met and discussed the subject for upwards of two hours & then adjourned without coming to a decision— The next day the Lawyers who are friendly to your interest met, & we determined to address the public on the subject of the Otsego Votes & give a formal ^opinion^ upon it as Lawyers— The address with our opinion & names subscribed to it appeared yesterday—4 We have taken a bold and decisive part & one which I think became us as independent citizens— The address which is short concludes with a challenge to the opposite Lawyers to come forward with their [case?] and argue the legality of our opinion—

The publishing of our opinion threw the city into a greater ferment & encreased the indignation ag[ains]t. the attempt to reject the votes— It threw the Clintonian Lawyers also into a ferment— They were traveli[n]g about the City to & from the place of canvassi[n]g like mad men— The canvassers had early yesterday morning determined to go on with canvassi[n]g— They did so— and in canvassi[n]g the votes of their ^Clinton’s^ strong town in Montgomery they found a majority of no more than thirty odd for Clinton—instead of between 1 & 200— Upon this discovery, they broke up in confusion & said they were determined to decide the question respecti[n]g the Otsego votes before they went further— They adjourned to Corre’s to be more private & after several hours discussion broke up again without decidi[n]g the question— In this state the thing remains— It is said that today or tomorrow morning the determination will take place— The law required them to finish the business of canvassing on Tuesday next. We have hopes that the Canvassers will not— at least that all of them will not take so desperate a step as to reject the votes and declare Clinton Governor agt. the known & acknowledgd voice of the people— My hopes however are not very strong—considering the situation of that infamous party— Jacob Morris5 is attending the canvassers as a special deputy from the County, & claims of them as matter of right that the votes be canvassed— I am persuaded if the votes be rejected the business will become very serious in the State at large—

Clinton is now about 500 ahead of you— With the Montgomery— Ontario & Otsego Votes we are confident of success— This is admitted by Clinton’s adherents.— I have no further tidings from Dr. Ramsay— The copy of the letter you sent to me I have enclosed in a letter of my own & given the packet to a trusty friend to forward by the first vessel6

I am in the utmost haste & anxiety— Gansevoert has hitherto battled the [watch?] with the canvassers— our friend Jones is well prepared and reserves himself till the last meeti[n]g—7 He is as firm as a rock— Your friends have done every thing that was right & consistent with their own characters & their regard to yours God bless you

Robert Troup

Honble John Jay Esqr

ALS, NNC (EJ: 07193). Endorsed: “Col. Troup / 10 / recd. 24 / ansd.25} June 1792”.

1On the challenge to the Ostego votes, see the editorial note “The Disputed Election of 1792,” above.

2For the opinion of Aaron Burr, completed on 8 June and first printed on 18 June, see PAB, 1: 117–22, and for the background, 106–17; Daily Advertiser (New York), 18 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 , 7–9. “A Friend to Mr. Jay” had challenged Burr to publish his opinion in a piece addressed “For A.B, late A.G. of this State,” Daily Advertiser, 16 June. For Rufus King’s opinion, undated, see the Daily Advertiser, 18 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 , 9–11.

3Probably the piece dated 11 June and signed “Gracchus” that appeared in the Diary, or, Loudon’s Register, the New-York Morning Post, and the New-York Daily Gazette, on 12 June.

4For the statement of the seven Jayite New York City lawyers, dated 7 June, see 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.

5Jacob Morris (1755–1844), son of Lewis Morris, former aide to Charles Lee and Nathanael Greene, and a general of the state militia, had settled at Otsego in 1787. One of the largest landholders in the area, he served as county clerk and town supervisor of Otsego. In 1792 he declined running for state senator but was elected to the assembly and was chairman of the Cooperstown election committee supporting JJ. He was among the signers of the address by Otsego citizens dated 20 June, protesting the loss of their voting rights, and, as county clerk, was deputized to present their case to the canvassers. Clintonians later accused Morris, along with William Cooper, of intimidating local voters during the election and challenged the validity of his votes for assemblyman. See the Diary, or Loudon’s Register, 27 Mar.; Albany Gazette, 12 Apr., 4 and 25 June; Daily Advertiser (New York), 23 June and 3 Dec. 1792; Catskill Packet, 7 Jan. 1793; Young, Democratic Republicans description begins Alfred F. Young, The Democratic Republicans of New York: The Origins, 1763–1797 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1967) description ends , 238, 274, 321–22, 508.

6Letter not found, but see JJ to Troup, 25 May 1792.

7Leonard Gansevoort and Samuel Jones, two of the pro-Jay canvassers.

Index Entries