Читать книгу Aaron Burr: A Biography - Nathan Schachner - Страница 46

Table of Contents

The Attorney-Generalship was just then a particularly important position, involving immense labors and the determination of a host of knotty legal questions. The respective obligations and status of the State and Federal governments had not been thoroughly worked out as yet, and it was necessary to discriminate between claims that were legitimately the obligation of the State and those which might be thrust upon the Federal nation. There were an enormous number of claims arising out of the chaos of the Revolution; creditors clamoring for immediate payment, soldiers for back pay and because of disabilities incurred, damages alleged to have been sustained by expropriation and confiscation, losses arising out of the depreciated currency.

Burr found himself at once submerged under a welter of petitions that a harassed Legislature promptly shifted to his desk for legal consideration. There were no precedents, no well-established principles by which he could test the validity of individual claims. Accordingly, commissioners were appointed by the Legislature to report a basis for orderly settlements. The commission consisted of Gerard Bancker, State Treasurer, Peter T. Curtenius, State Auditor, and Aaron Burr, as Attorney General.

The report, when submitted, was Burr’s creation. It was a masterful and exhaustive study, codifying the groups of claims, establishing uniform rules of procedure for their orderly examination, and treating all classes of claimants with rigorous fairness and impartiality. The Legislature entered the report on April 5, 1792, unanimously, and it was made the basis for all future settlements.

As Attorney General, Burr was also ex-officio a Land Commissioner. The other members of the commission were J. A. Scott, Secretary of State, Gerard Bancker, State Treasurer, Peter T. Curtenius, State Auditor, and Governor George Clinton.

The State of New York was possessed of 7,000,000 acres of unappropriated land. This immense domain literally cried for settlement, and the State Treasury as vehemently required funds. Yet sales along normal lines were proceeding slowly. In order to quicken the tempo the Legislature in 1791 authorized the commissioners of the Land Office to dispose of any waste and unappropriated lands, in such parcels and on such terms and in such manner as they deemed in the public interest. It was a broad designation of powers that opened the door wide to what actually followed.

Under this unlimited authority the Commission sold forthwith, during the year, 5,542,173 acres for a total purchase price of $1,034,483. Less than 20 cents an acre average. But included in this total was one regal donation—it could hardly be called a sale—to Alexander McComb of 3,635,200 acres at 8 pence an acre, payable in five annual instalments without interest, with a discount of six per cent for immediate payment. The other parcels, even those of considerable extent, were disposed of at much higher rates, ranging from a shilling to 3 shillings an acre.

Instantly an outcry arose. Ugly charges were bandied back and forth. The Federalists pounced upon the matter and elevated it to a distinct major scandal. Talbot, from Montgomery County, rose in the Assembly and offered some severely condemnatory resolutions. He intimated very plainly that Clinton and his friends had personally feathered their nests in the matter of the sale to McComb. An investigation was instituted. But, though on the face of it favoritism, if not corruption, seemed rampant, no factual evidence was forthcoming. Talbot’s resolutions were finally rejected by the Assembly, and the report of the Land Commission (and, inferentially, their conduct) was approved by a vote of 35 to 20.

Burr’s complicity in this transaction is the subject of dispute. Davis claims that “these resolutions [Talbot’s] exempted Col. Burr from any participation in the malconduct complained of, inasmuch as the minutes of the board proved that he was not present at the meetings (being absent on official duty as Attorney General), when these contracts, so ruinous as they alleged, to the interest of the state, were made.”^[181]

Hammond, however, maintains that the resolutions made no such express exemption, though they did refer only to “such of the commissioners as had an agency in the sales.” He is skeptical, moreover, of Burr’s alleged absence, alleging that Davis cited no supporting evidence. He feels that inasmuch as the transactions complained of extended over a period of months, Burr must have known and, knowing, approved of what was being done.^[182]

An examination of the facts must dispose of the controversy summarily, in Burr’s favor. The Legislative grant of powers to the Commission was made on March 22, 1791. The letters that passed between Burr and Theodosia prove that he was away from New York—at Kingston, Claverack and Albany—from at least the beginning of June, 1791, engaged on a “very laborious task,” and that he did not return until sometime in August.^[183] And in October he was in Philadelphia, ready to embark on his Senatorial duties, already resigned from his office as Attorney General. The entire scandal over the land sales occurred during his absences, and after he was no longer a member of the Commission. He must therefore be absolved of all possible complicity.

As for the routine duties of his office, it was said that “in State prosecutions, a disposition to aggravate the enormities of the accused was never attributed to him.”^[184]