I have to thank you for the transmission of the letters from General Gates, La Motte, and Hauterive.  I perceive by the latter, that the partisans of the one or the other principle (perhaps of both) have thought my name a convenient cover for declarations of their own sentiments.  What those are to which Hauterive alludes, I know not, having never seen a newspaper since I left Philadelphia (except those of Richmond), and no circumstances authorize him to expect that I should inquire into them, or answer him.  I think it is Montaigne who has said, that ignorance is the softest pillow on which a man can rest his head.  I am sure it is true as to every thing political, and shall endeavor to estrange myself to every thing of that character.  I indulge myself on one political topic only, that is, in declaring to my countrymen the shameless corruption of a portion of the Representatives in the first and second Congresses, and their implicit devotion to the treasury.  I think I do good in this, because it may produce exertions to reform the evil, on the success of which the form of the government is to depend.

I am sorry La Motte has put me to the expense of one hundred and forty livres for a French translation of an English poem, as I make it a rule never to read translations where I can read the original.  However, the question now is, how to get the book brought here, as well as the communications with Mr. Hammond which you were so kind as to promise me.

This is the first letter I have written to Philadelphia since my arrival at home, and yours the only ones I have received.

Accept assurances of my sincere esteem and respect.  Yours affectionately,

Th:  Jefferson.

LETTER CLXXVII.—­TO JAMES MADISON, April 3, 1794

TO JAMES MADISON.

Monticello, April 3, 1794.

Dear Sir,

Our post having ceased to ride ever since the inoculation began in Richmond, till now, I received three days ago, and all together, your friendly favors of March the 2nd, 9th, 12th, 14th, and Colonel Monroe’s of March the 3rd and 16th.  I have been particularly gratified by the receipt of the papers containing yours and Smith’s discussion of your regulating propositions.  These debates had not been seen here but in a very short and mutilated form.  I am at no loss to ascribe Smith’s speech to its true father.  Every tittle of it is Hamilton’s except the introduction.  There is scarcely any thing there which I have not heard from him in our various private, though official discussions.  The very turn of the arguments is the same, and others will see as well as myself that the style is Hamilton’s.  The sophistry is too fine, too ingenious, even to have been comprehended by Smith, much less devised by him.  His reply shows he did not understand his first speech; as its general inferiority proves its legitimacy, as evidently as it does the bastardy