To your question respecting chief Justice (with gratefull ^proper^ impressions of your friendly feelings in the matter) I say ^answe^ no. The situation in which by the favour of the State I have been placed is perfectly satisfactory to me, and whatever others may from time to time have for mischievous purposes suggested, I have not had, nor have I now, the least disposition to change it. On the subject of the Judges, of which you speak, I have only to say, that having entire confidence in the Governor & Senate, if they from motives of magnanimity or policy, think proper to reappoint all the present incumbents, I shall hold it for the best, and as a good citizen, as well as party man, do the little in my power to sustain them (the Govr & Senate) in the honest exercise, of the power we have confided to them. But if the Senate coming ^as they do^ from every section of the state and representing in that body the opinions and feelings of the Republicans of the State ^more fully^ than was ever before done, should prefer a change, I should ^would^ regard the nomination of all the old judges by the Governor, as endangering the harmony of the party, & hazarding the ascendancy we now possess, & which has been acquired at such great expense and sacrifice, without adequate or justifiable inducement. I have said more on this subject than your letter called for in consequence of learning that notwithstanding the unimportance of my sentiments, they have been deemed of sufficient moment to be ^mis-^represented. We have nothing of particular interest here at this moment. The Senate are engaged on the Subject of imprisonment for debt, with respect to which there will certainly be much talking & possibly but not as certainly something done. All profess to be in favour of the principle of abolishing imprisonment for debt, but their exceptions & reservations are as broad as the rule they lay down.