Page:The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 Volume 3.djvu/537

 CCCXCIV.

Montpr Mar 10, 1834

You give me a credit to which I have no claim, in calling me “The writer of the Constitution of the U. S.” This was not like the fabled Goddess of Wisdom, the offspring of a single brain. It ought to be regarded as the work of many heads and many hands.

CCCXCV.

Montpellier, Sept. 27th, 1834.

“Hamilton’s Life (the forthcoming volumes) I (N.P.T.) mentioned to Mr. M. [Madison], without telling him the source, what I had heard with regard to the bearing of the work upon him. His report of Hamilton’s speech (in the convention which formed the Constitution), of which report I knew Mr. M. had furnished a copy to the son of A.H., was to be proved to be incorrect, and he was to be represented as having deserted Colonel Hamilton. Mr. M., ‘I can’t believe it.’ Thereupon, I (N.P.T.) told him that my information as to the bearing of the forthcoming book upon him, came from the son of Colonel Hamilton himself—the son engaged in writing the life of his father, who had had a conversation on the subject with Professor Tucker of the University of Virginia, who has just returned from a trip to New York. Professor Tucker had mentioned it to Professor Davies, and the latter to me. I added, what I had heard, that there was nothing like unkind feeling towards him (Mr. Madison) manifested by young Mr. Hamilton, but the reverse. Such, however, was to be the complexion of the work as to himself.

“Mr. M., ‘Sorry for it.’ After a pause: ‘I can’t conceive on what ground the fidelity of my report of Colonel H.’s speech can be impugned, unless it should proceed from the error of confounding together his first speech and his second. The first, I reported at length. It was a very able and methodical one, containing a lucid expression of his views: views which he made no secret of at the time or subsequently, particularly with persons on a footing of the ordinary confidence among gentlemen thrown into political relations with each other on subjects of great moment. The second speech was little else than a repetition of the other, or parts of the other, with amplifications. That I did not report, for the reason just stated, and because he had told me of his intention to write it out himself, and