CHAPTER VIII.

SPEECH OF HON. ELISHA WILLIAMS.

The affray gave rise to more law, ill feeling and vindictiveness than any occurrence that ever took place in Albany. For this murderous attack, Gen. Van Rensselaer subsequently had all the parties arrested, and those concerned in the several encounters went to law about their grievances. [The difficulty which caused these suits took place at Albany, on the 21st day of April, 1807, a few days previous to the general election, at which time the republican candidate Daniel D. Tompkins was elected over Morgan Lewis of the federal party.] The actions were commenced in the Supreme Court, and, by consent of parties, referred to SIMEON DE WITT, Esq., Mr. JAMES KANE and Mr. JOHN VAN SCHAACK, as arbitrators, and was tried at Albany in Aug. 1808. ABRAHAM VAN

VECHTEN and JOHN WOODWORTH, Esqs., were associated with ELISHA WILLIAMS, as counsel for Mr. Van Rensselaer, and THOMAS R. GOLD, EBENEZER FOOTE and JOHN CHAMPLAIN, Esqs., were opposed. SPEECH OF HON. ELISHA WILLIAMS in the causes of Elisha Jenkins vs. Sol. Van Rensselaer. Solomon Van Rensselaer vs. John Tayler. The same vs. Charles D. Cooper. The same vs. Francis Bloodgood.

"The great importance of these controversies to my client, as they respect his feelings, his property and his character, is the only apology I shall offer to you, gentlemen, for the observations I am about to submit. The high confidence reposed in you (who are selected by the parties themselves) may be more finely expressed by the opposite counsel, but cannot be more sincerely felt than by ourselves. Nor, gentlemen, can a more sure and ample pledge of your ability, candor, and integrity, be required, than that which you have furnished in the patience and impartiality you have displayed through the tedious details of this unprecedented investigation. These considerations, inspire a confidence that the few observations I shall now submit to you, will be attentively heard and duly appreciated. "The opposing counsel have confined their observations to the transactions of that unfortunate day, when, on the one hand insolence and insult were justly chastised, and when on the other, unbridled rage and brutal violence finally triumphed in the destruction of a patriot and a soldier. They have described General Van Rensselaer as the baleful star, which arose in the morning, and produced and justified all the fatal excesses and crimes perpetrated throughout the day. Upon this theme, they have poured forth torrents of declamation, and evinced all the fiction, all the melancholy madness,' if not the inspiration of poetry.

"But, gentlemen, I must beg the favor of you to travel back with me to an earlier period, to examine the causes, which produced the misfortunes of that unhappy day. And if, in this examination, we find that the political elements were in violent commotion, prior to that lamented day, if we find that the machinations of the evil genius of our country, had prepared all things for an explosion, if in fine, we find the hand of Napoleon even in this thing,' let us hear no more of the baleful morning star,'

and its baleful mid-day influence. Rather let the guilty authors of those horrid transactions, those incendiaries, who, to gratify an unholy ambition, dared to attack and stigmatize the fair fame of a soldier, to torture his honorable feelings with the most unfounded calumnies, until at length they compelled him to raise his arm in defense of his injured character, let these calumniators be dragged before the public, and let them feel from your hands, gentlemen, the punishment which their dastardly conduct merits.

"What, then, is the real cause of all these outrages, where and when did they commence, and by whose hand was the fatal apple of contention thrown among these parties?

"It had pleased Mr. Edmund C. Genet, by some means, to procure from a Mr. Nicholas Staats, an affidavit, deeply impugning the character and conduct of the adjutant general. [Said to be a bribe to vote for Gov. Lewis.] The adjutant general, then, not suspecting the dark and extensive system which had been planned for the destruction of his character, accompanied by his aged father, called on Staats for an explanation of his affidavit. He was referred to Genet, whose bureau, it seems, had now become the grand arsenal, whence were to be drawn all the political weapons and democratic ammunition which the approaching contest might require. Staats, acknowledging the errors which his affidavit was calculated to propagate, declared to the general that he had long refused; but finally was prevailed upon to swear by the incessant and pressing solicitations of Genet; and, at the same time, referred him to the citizen for an inspection of his oath. The General and his father then repaired to the house of Genet, there it was that the offensive observations were made which are detailed in the affidavit of those gentlemen. There it was, that this Frenchman painted the power, the designs and the intentions of the Corsican tyrant: Bonaparte, he said, had now disposed of all his European enemies, excepting England and Russia. They soon would fall before his power; and then, if America did not treat him with more respect, she must expect that chastisement which his imperial master had never failed to inflict upon national insolence and national impudence, foolishly styled national independence. These, gentlemen, were the observations which my client and his aged father felt it their solemn duty to submit, under their oaths to their fellow citizens. In this were they wrong? Did they violate any rule of justice, any principle of honor in this procedure? No. It was a public conversation, nor, with a semblance of truth, can it be said, that any confidence was violated. Nay, gentlemen, had they concealed it, had they failed to give it every degree of publicity in their power, then indeed might they justly have been charged with treason against the independence of their country. Who was this man, who menaced our country with the vindictive power of Bonaparte? A Frenchman! a man who, from birth, from education, from habit, and, perhaps, from principle, was well calculated to subserve the cause of his imperial master. A Frenchman, by birth, by education, a very Talleyrand in all the mysteries of political intrigue; allied, extensively, to the leaders of the triumphant party; his influence almost unbounded over that party; this man now stood forth the commander in chief of the republican forces of the northern department. To awe the federalists into silence, when art and intrigue, when calumnies and affidavits had failed, he now, as the dernier resort, brandishes over their heads the powers and the vengeance of his imperial master.

"Gentlemen, conduct like this is not new in the annals of the French nation, for the last twenty years. Look at all those miserable countries which France has deceived, betrayed, revolutionized and conquered, and you will find the same means in full operation. Not a nation but has been first corrupted by the emissaries of the tyrants of the terrible republic. And if patriots have resisted the ruin of their liberties, if they have detected and exposed the delusions, the deceptions of their enemy, then have they invariably been menaced with the vengeance of the tyrants of the world. But, gentlemen, these emissaries, who in every form, spread like locusts through every country, have always been able to delude and lead astray the majority of the people. They corrupt the presses, the very sources of information. They flatter the ignorance, the prejudices of their intended victims, they wrap around them the glittering robe of liberty, which veils a thousand deformities, they become the friends of universal liberty, the genuine defenders of the rights of man, they represent France as engaged in the great cause of philanthropy and liberty. They constantly, and through a thousand channels, pour upon the people whole floods of high sounding terms and metaphysical jargon, and thus they succeed in bewildering the judgment, and corrupting the integrity of millions. In this seductive form, they have constantly proffered their accursed principles to the world; and on the eastern continent, nation after nation have drunken the medicated draught, nor dreamed of the lurking poison, until, racked by convulsions, they awoke to expire!'

"Gentlemen, are not these facts established beyond the power of controversy? Do you not already perceive, even in this our native country, that this sentiment, which, when first expressed by Genet, was deemed so infamous as to call forth its condemnation from the united suffrage of the party, is now heard with approbation? Yes, it now passes current for sound republican doctrine; and the very thoughts and sentiments then first broached by Genet, are daily ushered into public, through the columns of the Boston Chronicle, the Baltimore Whig, and even Col. Duane's Aurora, with the silence, at least, if not with the approbation of the republican party. With a full knowledge of all these circumstances, gentlemen, let me now ask to whom were these insolent menaces uttered? To Gen. Van Rensselaer, an old and faithful, servant of his country, an officer of the revolutionary army, who had little left but his honor and his wounds, to entitle him to the notice of his country; and to his son, the first military officer of the state. These American officers heard this language from a Frenchman, with that indignant spirit which should ever inspire the defenders of our country. They were bound by every principle of honor and virtuous patriotism, to caution their fellow citizens against the intrigues and principles of a man, dangerous from his connections and influence. They felt the full force of the obligation, and their affidavits came before the public, supported by the oaths of M'Donald and Rockwell, in whose presence Genet had made similar declarations.

"The federal meeting, referring to the affidavit, and extracting the paragraph, express of Genet, his sentiments, and his political conduct, their warmest abhorrence. In the estimation of certain gentlemen, who styled themselves republicans, it became important to clear their northern manager from the imputation of sentiments and designs so detestable, and then so unpopular. But how was this to be effected? Two American patriots, two gentlemen of unblemished character, had, by their oaths, convinced the public of their truth. To remove that conviction, the most violent and

imposing measures must be adopted. First, Genet must be called on to deny the assertion of those gentlemen. He, however, declines making his affidavit. He surveys himself with all the complacency and pride of conscious greatness, and asks 'shall I, who but yesterday a great minister of the terrible republic; who assisted in the production of a revolution which has wholly overthrown the land-marks of civil society, shall I, who, with impunity, attacked the character of the god-like Washington; who appealed from the constituted authorities of this country, to the populace, and shook to the very center the government and constitution of this republic, shall I, who sanctioned in my own country all those principles which finally mingled in one mighty ruin the throne and the altar, shall I, who even now bask in the dazzling glory, and greatness of Bonaparte, I, who am myself a Frenchman shall I, stoop to kiss the Gospels of God to sanction what I publish? No. Two American officers have sworn to a fact. Singular indeed must be the state of the republican mind, and all my efforts and intrigues must have wholly failed of their wonted succees, if the very troops 1, command, are not yet prepared, upon my word of honor, to pronounce those officers guilty of perjury. Gentlemen, was he mistaken? Not at all. As though inspired by his genius, a republican meeting was called at the seat of government: a ci-devant republican secretary of state, descended to the rank of a republican secretary of this electioneering convention. This universal secretary, introduces to this meeting, a resolution substantially adopting the assertion of his manager, as truth, and substantially declaring that General Van Rensselaer was guilty of perjury. Yes, gentlemen, an officer of our government, dependent upon his superiors, if not upon Genet for a future salary, thus descends from his high station, to become the propagator of the basest slander. But he did not stop here. Not contented with this private blow at the character of the general, he steps forth into the gazettes of the day, and sanctions by his name and his official character, the basest slander that ever transpired. That this name gave a character, weight and deadly influence to this calumny, which it never would have derived from ten thousand anonymous publications, is not to be disguised.

"Much has been said of the character, the exalted standing, the extensive influence of the secretary. We admit them all. But surely in proportion to that character, standing, and influence, when he gave his name to the propagation of the slander, he inflicted a wound upon Gen. Van Rensselaer's character more deep and deadly. And in the same proportion, was the injury he inflicted and the crime he perpetrated, more aggravated, more destructive. And here, gentlemen, let it be remembered, that Gen. Van Rensselaer was not a volunteer before the public. He was drawn out in self-defense against the foul aspersions of Staats, upon whom Genet has prevailed to swear to conversations implicating the general's reputation. He was not the first to cheapen oaths,' by making voluntary affidavits. No, this very Citizen Genet, who afterwards disdained to swear to a suspicious statement, he was the man, that first induced the attack in the form of an affidavit. How, then, can his advocates indulge in declamation against Gen. Van Rensselaer, for the course he adopted? Away with all this French mummery-this squeamishness of cheapening oaths.' They are observations which should blister the mouths of the advocates of the man, who imposed the painful duty on my client of repelling with his oath a base and insidious slander, to which Staats had been made to swear.

6

["The federal republican cause, founded on the basis of the common

good, and having for its objects the preservation of social order and the protection of general liberty, is a common cause, in which the interest of free citizens in general are concerned: That it is a common duty of federal republicans without regarding local distinctions, to support that cause wherever it is questioned, to assert and maintain its principles wherever they are assailed, and to defend the reputations of our most virtuous and distinguished patriots whensoever, and by whomsoever they are calumniated."]

"But it is now denied that Mr. Jenkins referred at all to the affidavit of Gen. Van Rensselaer. He referred, say his counsel, only to the resolutions of the federal meeting. Gentlemen, if those resolutions were before him, the marks of quotation therein used, clearly demonstrate from whom the extract was made. If the public papers of the city were before him, the affidavit itself was under his eye. If in short the denial, the word of honor of Genet was before him, then he was referred to the affidavit, and then all pretense of not referring to the general's affidavit, while he cites its language with such scrupulous exactness, must appear a hollow pretense and a puerile evasion. I disdain to spend another moment in exposing this weak subterfuge of conscious guilt. What grounds then, gentlemen, had Jenkins to publish to the world a charge of perjury against Gen. Van Rensselaer? Is his veracity questionable? Is the story improbable? Is there any opposite testimony? On the contrary, he is fully supported by three witnesses of unimpeachable veracity. Yet, says Mr. Jenkins, I believe these gentlemen guilty of perjury, because Mr. Genet denies the charge. I believe his naked assertion though opposed to the oaths of four American citizens, characters above suspicion. But why believe Genet? Because this meeting have incontestible evidence of his attachment to this country.' And where is that evidence? Is it to be found in the calumnies which he heaped upon the immortal Washington? Is it to be found in his early attempts to drag this country into the wars of Europe; in his efforts to involve us in all the horrors of the French revolution? In the insults which he profusely dealt out to our firmest patriots? Or is it to be found in those wretched remnants of jacobin clubs which a la mode de Paris he scattered through the continent? Where is it to be found? What exploit for American independence exists of which he is the author? What monument of patriotism, of bravery or of wisdom will remain to tell posterity even that he ever existed? You search in vain! Not so my honorable client and his venerable father! The one even in youth a veteran. The other long a faithful servant of his country both in the cabinet, and in the field. Let them bare their scars, those honorable testimonials of their long and faithful services to their native country; and to them let this adopted citizen boast of his warm attachment to our republic.

6

"But the meeting further say Genet had married into a respectable family, that he has several children, that he had been naturalized and, was the purchaser of real estate. I dispute not the respectability of the family with which he is connected. But if this consideration is to affect the question, I ask, from what family has my client descended? Search the annals of the state, and you will find from its earliest settlement that family has never ceased to be honorable. The children of Mr. Genet, I grant, are conclusive evidence of the soundness of his constitution; but by what species of necromancy the secretary could drag them in to bolster the veracity of their father, is wholly unknown to me; nor can I perceive