The official letter from the Commissioners to me--dated the 8th of last month--promising their sentiments on the subject of compensation, so soon as a meeting was had with Mr Johnson, prevented my acknowledging the receipt of your private letter of the same date and on the same subject, until now; nor shall I do more than slightly touch on it until I receive the further sentiments of the board thereupon. It may not be amiss, however, in this friendly & confidential manner, previously to regret that the expectations of the Commissioners and the opinions of those who were consulted on the compensation proper to be made them for past and future services, should accord so little. It is to observed (as was mentioned in my last) that the law authorizing the appointment contemplates no pay. Justice however, requires it--and therefore such as it was conceived would meet the concurrence of the public was allotted. In similar cases it rarely happens that high, if any salleries are allowed. Instance the Directors of the Potomac Company--of the Canal Navigation of this State--the Banks, &c &c--I do not quote these cases, however, to prove that Salleries ought not to be allowed in the case of the Commissioners of the federal district for the past, and compensation for their future services; but only to shew the necessity of their being as low as could comport with Justice--With respect to your ideas of a future allowance I am bold in assuring you as my opinion that, no fixed Sallery in the United States (however they have been reprobated for their extravagance), from the Chief Magistrate to the door-keeper of the House of Representatives, is equal to one thousand Dollars clear of expences. The reasons are too obvious to stand in need of enumeration--and I must candidly declare that I see little use for a Superintendant if more will be required of the Commissioners than either to form or to adopt plans;--give the great outlines thereof in Instruction;--and leave the details and execution to the Superintendant, who ought, as I have declared in a letter to you dated the 30th of November last, to be always on the Spot--(unless the duties of the trust should take him away, to facilitate the objects of it)--Under this idea, could it suit any person better than yourself to visit the federal City once every three or four months--suppose every two months--when you have an Estate opposite to it that has a claim to a share of your attention,--as to the suspicion which may arise--if you serve for daily pay--that your sessions will be prolonged by it, they are not worth regarding--The malevolence of man is not to be avoided.--But instead of _touching_ the subject only, in the manner I proposed, I find I am enlarging upon it, and therefore will change it.