Judge Benson left on my desk this morning your last letter to him containing an editorial paragraph to be adopted by me & published as my own.1 I need not, Sir, observe, that I should experience no reluctance in acknowledging the mistake alledged to have been committed, nor should I have the least hesitation to say that the original article was written hastily & without due consideration, if I could do so consistent with the truth. But as I cannot, I am sure you would be the last person on earth to desire it of me. I can however suppose it would have been satisfactory had I ^published it^ omitting the word “hastily”, but neither can I reconcile it to my ideas of candour & integrity to adopt the paragraph thus corrected.

My original article, was, as I believe, not merely in substance, but verbatim as I received it from Judge Benson; indeed, he has since admitted it to be so. But if I now understand the point in dispute between yourself & the Judge, it is that the observation was given as unlimited, whereas, you meant to confine it to the case before you: if so, it would stand corrected by substituting the definite article the, [“the Clintonian candidate”] instead of “a [Clintonian candidate”] (the word “ever” to be deleted). The correction now sent me, however, & which it is asked of me to adopt, is far from being explicit as to this precise idea: it is less as a matter of possible inference & I should appear to have taken a very unwarrantable liberty with your name.

If an paragraph ^article^ of the following import would be satisfactory, I shall with pleasure publish it on receiving your acquiescence.

“During ^Immediately preceding^ the last election, with a view to counteract an improper use that we found certain persons were making of Governor Jay’s name in behalf of Mr. Tompkins, we published the following article declaration:

“I am authorised to declare that Governor Jay has said that he cannot possibly conceive that any man who calls himself a federalist can ever give a vote for a candidate set up by the Clinton party.”

“We have just ^since^ discovered that the above declaration is stated in too broad terms ^a latitude:^ our informant was so far mistaken or at least expressed himself to us in terms so little guarded, as to turn that into a general sentiment which was meant to be confined to the case in question. With a trifling verbal correction the representation would have been just. Thus:

“I am authorised to declare that Governor Jay has said that he cannot possibly conceive that any man who calls himself a federalist can give a vote for the candidate set up by the Clinton party.”

“Although the occasion is past, yet we owe it ^to truth &^ to the high respect we have for the exalted character of Governor Jay ^not^ to permit an expression ^a sentiment^ to pass as his, which is not so & which, when well considered, is perhaps not altogether a correct one.”

Any alterations, Sir, that you may be desirous of, not inconsistent with the general view I have of this affair, will be cheerfully adopted. I trust in no part of it is any blame imputable to me.2 I am inconscious of any. With the highest respect Esteem & gratitude I am Sir & ever shall be Your hbl Servt.