To John RANDOLH.

Washington, December 1, 1803.

Dear Sir,

The explanations in your letter of yesterday were quite unnecessary to me.  I have had too satisfactory proofs of your friendly regard, to be disposed to suspect any thing of a contrary aspect.

I understood perfectly the expressions stated in the newspaper to which you allude, to mean, that ’though the proposition came from the republican quarter of the House, yet you should not concur with it.’  I am aware, that in parts of the Union, and even with persons to whom Mr. Eppes and Mr. Randolph are unknown, and myself little known, it will be presumed from their connection, that what comes from them comes from me.  No men on earth are more independent in their sentiments than they are, nor any one less disposed than I am to influence the opinions of others.  We rarely speak of politics, or of the proceedings of the House, but merely historically; and I carefully avoid expressing an opinion on them in their presence, that we may all be at our ease.  With other members, I have believed that more unreserved communications would be advantageous to the public.  This has been, perhaps, prevented by mutual delicacy.  I have been afraid to express opinions unasked, lest I should be suspected of wishing to direct the legislative action of members.  They have avoided asking communications from me, probably, lest they should be suspected of wishing to fish out executive secrets.  I see too many proofs of the imperfection of human reason, to entertain wonder or intolerance at any difference of opinion on any subject; and acquiesce in that difference as easily as on a difference of feature or form:  experience having long taught me the reasonableness of mutual sacrifices of opinion among those who are to act together for any common object, and the expediency of doing what good we can, when we cannot do all we would wish.

Accept my friendly salutations, and assurances of great esteem and respect.

Th:  Jefferson.

LETTER VIII.—­TO MR. GALLATIN, December 13, 1803

THOMAS JEFFERSON TO MR. GALLATIN.

The Attorney General having considered and decided, that the prescription in the law for establishing a bank, that the officers in the subordinate offices of discount and deposit, shall be appointed ’on the same terms and in the same manner practised in the principal bank,’ does not extend to them the principle of rotation, established by the legislature in the body of directors in the principal bank, it follows that the extension of that principle has been merely a voluntary and prudential act of the principal bank, from which they are free to depart.  I think the extension was wise and proper on their part, because the legislature having deemed rotation useful in the principal bank constituted by them, there would be the same reason for it in the subordinate banks to