Th: Jefferson presents his compliments to Mr. Clinton, and his thanks for the pamphlet sent him. He recollects the having read it at the time with a due sense of his obligation to the author, whose name was surmised, though not absolutely known, and a conviction that he had made the most of his matter. The ground of defence might have been solidly aided by the assurance (which is the absolute fact) that the whole story fathered on Mazzei, was an unfounded falsehood. Dr. Linn, as aware of that, takes care to quote it from a dead man, who is made to quote from one residing in the remotest part of Europe. Equally false was Dr. Linn's other story about Bishop Madison's lawn sleeves, as the Bishop can testify, for certainly Th: J. never saw him in lawn sleeves. Had the Doctor ventured to name time, place, and person, for his third lie, (the government without religion) it is probable he might have been convicted on that also. But these are slander and slanderers, whom Th: Jefferson has thought it best to leave to the scourge of public opinion. He salutes Mr. Clinton with esteem and respect. TO GEORGE HAY, ESQ. WASHINGTON, May 26, 1807. DEAR SIR,--We are this moment informed by a person who left Richmond since the 22d, that the prosecution of Burr had begun under very inauspicious symptoms by the challenging and rejecting two members of the Grand Jury, as far above all exception as any two persons in the United States. I suppose our informant is inaccurate in his terms, and has mistaken an objection by the criminal and voluntary retirement of the gentlemen with the permission of the court, for a challenge and rejection, which, in the case of a Grand Jury, is impossible. Be this as it may, and the result before the formal tribunal, fair or false, it becomes our duty to provide that full testimony shall be laid before the Legislature, and through them the public. For this purpose, it is necessary that we be furnished with the testimony of every person who shall be with you as a witness. If the Grand Jury find a bill, the evidence given in court, taken as verbatim as possible, will be what we desire. If there be no bill, and consequently no examination before court, then I must beseech you to have every man privately examined by way of affidavit, and to furnish me with the whole testimony. In the former case, the person taking down the testimony as orally delivered in court, should make oath that he believes it to be substantially correct. In the latter case, the certificate of the magistrate administering the oath, and signature of the party, will be proper; and this should be done before they receive their compensation, that they may not evade examination. Go into any expense necessary for this purpose, and meet it from the funds provided by the Attorney General for the other expenses. He is not here, or this request would have gone from him directly. I salute you with friendship and respect.