limits of political animadversion.  Burr himself made no objection to that particular phrase; he did not allude to it except by way of explanation.  The use of such language was common.  In his celebrated attack upon John Adams, Hamilton had spoken of Mr. Jefferson as an “ineligible and dangerous candidate.”  The same words had been publicly applied to Burr himself, two years before.  He did not see anything despicable in the opinion then expressed.  A man may be unfit for office from lack of capacity, and dangerous on account of his principles.  The most rigid construction of the Code of Honor has never compelled a person to fight every fool whom he thought unworthy of public station, and every demagogue whose views he considered unsound.  If Dr. Cooper, then, was able to discover a despicable opinion where most people could find none, might he not have seen what he called a more despicable opinion in some remark equally innocent?  Burr did not ask what were the precise terms of the remark to which Cooper alluded; he demanded that Hamilton should disavow Cooper’s construction of that expression.  He took offence, not at what had been said, but at the inference which another had drawn from what had been said.  The justification of such an inference devolved upon Cooper, not Hamilton,—­who by no rule of courtesy could be interrogated as to the justice of another’s opinions.  These difficulties presented themselves to the mind of Hamilton.  He stated them in his reply, declared that he was ready to answer for any precise or definite opinion which he had expressed, but refused to explain the import which others had placed upon his language.  Unfortunately, the last line of his note contained an intimation that he expected a challenge.  Burr rudely retorted, reiterating his demand in most insolent terms.  The correspondence then passed into the hands of Nathaniel Pendleton on the part of Hamilton, and William P. Van Ness, a man of peculiar malignity of character, upon the part of Burr.  The responsibility of his position weighing upon Hamilton’s mind, before the final step was taken, he voluntarily stated that the conversation with Dr. Cooper “related exclusively to political topics, and did not attribute to Burr any instance of dishonorable conduct,” and again offered to explain any specific remark.  This generous, unusual, and, according to strict etiquette, unwarranted proposition removed at once Burr’s cause of complaint.  Had he been disposed to an honorable accommodation, he would have received Hamilton’s proposal in the spirit in which it was made.  But, embarrassed by this liberal offer, he at once changed his ground, abandoned Cooper’s remark, which had previously been the sole subject of discussion, and peremptorily insisted that Gen. Hamilton should deny ever having made remarks from which inferences derogatory to him could fairly have been drawn.  This demand was plainly unjustifiable.  No person would answer such an interrogatory.  It showed