Since I wrote you last Tuesday in Boston I have received another letter from you, dated the 21st: of August, which has completed the satisfaction I enjoyed in the receipt of those which had preceded it— After a painful expectation of nearly three weeks, I was thus compensated by four letters in the course of as many days—1 I was not mistaken in my calculation upon your punctuality, but am still ignorant by what accident three of the letters were so long detained before their arrival. The most probable account I can imagine of it is that two, were kept at the Post-Office in Boston, although they are directed to send them all out here as they arrive— I consider however all the anxiety I endured as less than a feather’s weight since I have learnt that you and the children were well.

I always feel obliged to you for your advice, and have often derived useful advantage from your counsels and admonitions— The precautions which you have more than once intimated to me, I know are founded in the purest and tenderest affection— Of the perfectly pacific character of my temper, I believe you have no doubt, and I believe you will never complain of my not going far enough to avoid 428 contention— But I can neither sacrifice my honest and deliberate opinions, nor the expression of them when and where it appears to me proper, upon any consideration; and least of all could I find it in my heart to give them up, from motives of personal apprehension— On this subject I can only add, that I hope you will never have cause to blush for the conduct of your husband on any occasion.

Your observation that all resentments ought to be buried in the grave, are at once indicative of a good heart and a sound understanding— I am so far from extending any animosities further than this life, that I cannot harbour them for any length of time against the living— But the estimate of a man’s character and temper is one thing—forming such an estimate upon grounds of hatred or malice is another— The man who has injured me, I can sincerely and heartily forgive— But if he has injured me without provocation, and without atonement, I can never view him as deserving marks of honour, esteem, or affection, living or dead— To join in any such marks would be a species of hypocrisy to which I cannot descend.— The inky cloak, and customary suits of solemn black, says Hamlet do but seem—for they are what a man may put upon—2 Now I think that these ought not to be assumed, when a man has not that within which passes Show— Upon this principle I refused to wear crape last Winter, for S. Adams, and old Pendleton—3 Upon the same principle I would neither wear crape nor join in a funereal procession for Hamilton— I had no respect for the men— Of old Pendleton I knew very little, and that little was not to his honour— Adams and Hamilton neither of them had ever personally offended me, but one of them had betrayed a sacred trust of my father, and the other had slandered him in a lying pamphlet, besides innumerable other injuries to another near connection— Could I have united in testimonials of veneration, of admiration, of gratitude to such men without being myself a traitor and a liar?— In my opinion I could not.

In saying this I hope you will not consider me as intolerant.— I have great respect for many of the characters who have gone the farthest in this posthumous idolatry of Hamilton— To mention only Mr: Ames, whose eulogy you have doubtless seen, and admired; there are few men in the world whom I more truly esteem, and respect than Ames—4 I am persuaded he firmly believed in all the hyperboles he has lavished upon his memory— But if Ames will believe in political transubstantiation I have no objection— I must only decline adopting his creed— My belief of Hamilton is that he was a man of considerable, but overrated abilities, openly and scandalously vicious 429 in his private character, and of views and projects worse than equivocal as a public man— This opinion of mine, as he says of that he entertained of Burr, may be erroneous, but is not taken up on light grounds—5 I could produce glaring facts for every word of it— His tragical end, I lament as much as any man— The distress of his family, I feel for in common with the warmest of his friends; but in very deed I do not think he was either a demi-god or a Saint.

The death of Mrs: Sargent was an event at which I could not but be in some degree affected— Soon after I first arrived from Washington, on meeting her husband, I enquired how her health was, and he told me she had been very ill— I concluded however that it was merely an illness usual in her situation, and that she had recovered— The next I heard of her was that she was dead— But without intending to affect either indifference or sensibility, I must assure you that I lamented her loss as I should have done that of any other young woman the wife of my friend— The sentiments I had felt with regard to her for at least ten years, were those of a Common acquaintance, coupled perhaps with a peculiar coldness of reserve— I had none of the feelings of St: Preux in Rousseau’s Heloïse; and might very safely have gone upon a water party, with her, without the least temptation of plunging her and my self headlong over-board—6 I never felt the wish to see her, nor was I conscious of a wish to avoid her— It is not in my recollection that since my return from Europe, I ever saw her more than two or three times— As to your suspicions of her disposition towards me, I imagine there was little or no foundation for them— Judging from what I had told you my self, and from what perhaps others had told you of the early attachment that once subsisted between us, you naturally construed every thing that you might witness in her words or actions, with a bias towards the opinion you had formed, and helped in fancy the inferences you drew— I sincerely join you in the hope that she is removed to a better world.

The Supreme Court of the State has been in Session this fortnight, at Boston, and has occasioned my going there three times in the week just expired— But the Court adjourned yesterday without coming to the Causes in which I was engaged— They took up an whole week in trying the cause of Mr: Boylston, against Mr: Gill, of which you have often heard— Mr: Boylston has recovered a Judgment, for one hundred and six thousand dollars—7 So you may suppose he is in high Spirits—

I generally call at Whitcomb’s when in Boston— His wife is as 430 round as the terraqueous globe; and not very well; but as I heard a man say in Court the other day, her sickness will soon fall into her arms—8 The House at Concert-Hall is still repairing; and will be very elegant— The dancing Hall is lengthened nearly one half; and widened in proportion. But I doubt whether he will make so much of it as he did of his Coffee-House.— I have at length leased for three years the house he was in, to a frenchman named Delisle—A Restorator—which is another name for A Coffee-House—So it has not changed its destination— But he is to give me a hundred dollars a year Rent more than Whitcomb gave—9 The House has been two months empty.—

The drought, and heat, and dust are excessive— A very light thunder shower while I have been writing has cleared up without cooling the atmosphere— But it grows so dark, and my paper comes so near to a close, that I have scarcely space or light more than to add, that in space or out, in light or in darkness I am ever affectionately yours.

Your letter, Madam, of the 18th. of Aug. has been some days recieved, but a press of business has prevented the acknolegement of it: perhaps indeed I may have already trespassed too far on your attention. with those who wish to think amiss of me, I have learnt to be perfectly indifferent: but where I know a mind to be ingenuous, & to need only truth to set it to rights, I cannot be as passive.

the act of personal unkindness alluded to in your former letter is said in your last to have been the removal of your eldest son from some office to which the judges had appointed him. I conclude then he must have been a Commissioner of bankruptcy. but I declare to you on my honor that this is the first knolege I have ever had that he was so. it may be thought perhaps that I ought to have enquired who were such, before I appointed others. but it is to be observed that the former law permitted the judges to name Commissioners occasionally only for every case as it arose, & not to make them permanent officers. nobody therefore being in office there could be no removal. the judges you well know have been considered as highly federal; and it was noted that they confined their nominations exclusively to federalists. the legislature, dissatisfied with this, transferred the nomination to the President, and made the offices permanent. the very object in passing the law was that he should correct, 432 not confirm, what was deemed the partiality of the judges. I thought it therefore proper to enquire, not whom they had employed, but whom I ought to appoint to fulfil the intentions of the law. in making these appointments I put in a proportion of federalists equal I believe to the proportion they bear in numbers through the union generally.1 had I known that your son had acted, it would have been a real pleasure to me to have preferred him to some who were named in Boston in what were deemed the same line of politics. to this I should have been led by my knolege of his integrity as well as my sincere dispositions towards yourself & mr̃ Adams.

You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the sedition law. but nothing in the constitution has given them a right to decide for the executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. both magistracies are equally independant in the sphere of action assigned to them. the judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because that power was placed in their hands by the constitution. but the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it; because that power has been confided to him by the constitution. that instrument meant that it’s co-ordinate branches should be checks on each other. but the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature & executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.

Nor does the opinion of the unconstitutionality & consequent nullity of that law remove all restraint from the overwhelming torrent of slander which is confounding all vice and virtue, all truth & falsehood in the US. the power to do that is fully possessed by the several state-legislatures. it was reserved to them, & was denied to the general government, by the constitution according to our construction of it. while we deny that Congress have a right to controul the presses freedom of the press, we have ever asserted the right of the states, and their exclusive right, to do so. they have accordingly, all of them, made provisions for punishing slander, which those who have time and inclination resort to for the vindication of their characters. in general the state laws appear to have made the presses responsible for slander as far as is consistent with their useful freedom. in those states where they do not admit even the truth of allegations to protect the printer, they have gone too far.

The candour manifested in your letter, & which I ever believed you to possess, has alone inspired the desire of calling your attention once more to those circumstances of fact and motive by which I claim to be judged. I hope you will see these intrusions on your time to be, what they really are, proofs of my great respect for you. I tolerate with the utmost latitude the right of others to differ from me in opinion without imputing to them criminality. I know too well the weakness & uncertainty of human reason to wonder at it’s different results. both of our political parties. at least the honest portions of them, agree conscientiously in the same object, the public good: but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. one side believe it best done by one composition of the governing powers, the other by a different one. one fears most the ignorance of the people: the other the selfishness of rulers independant of them. which is right, time & experience will prove. we think that one side of this experiment has been long enough tried, and proved not to promote the good of the many; & that the other has not been fairly and sufficiently tried. our opponents think the reverse. with whichever opinion the body of the nation concurs, that must prevail. my anxieties on the subject will never carry me beyond the use of fair & honorable means, of truth and reason: nor have they ever lessened my esteem for moral worth, nor alienated my affections from a single friend, who did not first withdraw himself. wherever this has happened I confess I have not been insensible to it: yet have ever kept myself open to a return of their justice.

I conclude with sincere prayers for your health & happiness that yourself & mr̃ Adams may long enjoy the tranquility you desire and merit, and see, in the prosperity of your family, what is the consummation of the last and warmest of human wishes.