practice in General Washington's
administration was most friendly to business, and was absolutely
equal; sometimes he wrote to the Governors, and sometimes the heads of
departments wrote. If a letter is to be on a general subject, I see
no reason why the President should not write; but if it is to go into
details, these being known only to the head of the department, it is
better he should write directly. Otherwise, the correspondence must
involve circuities. If this be practised promiscuously in both classes
of cases, each party setting examples of neglecting etiquette, both will
stand on equal ground, and convenience alone will dictate through whom
any particular communication is to be made. On the whole, I think a free
correspondence best, and shall never hesitate to write myself to the
Governors, in every federal case, where the occasion presents itself to
me particularly. Accept assurances of my sincere and constant affection
and respect.

Th: Jefferson,

LETTER CCLXXXVIII.--TO A COMMITTEE OF MERCHANTS, July 12, 1801

_To Elias Shipman and Others, a Committee of the Merchants of New
Haven_.

Washington, July 12, 1801.

Gentlemen,

I have received the remonstrance you were pleased to address to me,
on the appointment of Samuel Bishop to the office of Collector of New
Haven, lately vacated by the death of David Austin. The right of our
fellow-citizens to represent to the public functionaries their opinion
on proceedings interesting to them, is unquestionably a constitutional
right, often useful, sometimes necessary, and will always be
respectfully acknowledged by me.

Of the various executive duties, no one excites more anxious concern
than that of placing the interests of our fellow-citizens in the hands
of honest men, with understandings sufficient for their stations. No
duty, at the same time, is more difficult to fulfil. The knowledge of
characters possessed by a single individual is, of necessity, limited.
To seek out the best through the whole Union, we must resort to other
information, which from the best of men, acting disinterestedly and
with the purest motives, is sometimes incorrect. In the case of Samuel
Bishop, however, the subject of your remonstrance, time was taken,
information was sought, and such obtained as could leave no room for
doubt of his fitness. From private sources it was learned that his
understanding was sound, his integrity pure, his character unstained.
And the office