Virginia Argus

RICHMOND:
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 12.

FOR THE VIRGINIA ARGUS.

To JOHN MARSHALL, Esquire.

SIR,

Having in your letter of September 20th, admitted the "right of every citizen to know the political sentiments of the man who is proposed as his representative." you will oblige one of those citizens, by giving him further satisfaction relative to yours, in answer to the following Queries.

1st. From your having said that you "do not think the Alien and Sedition bills fraught with all those mischiefs which many gentlemen ascribe to them," and also "that you would have opposed them because you think them useless, &c." I have inferred that you do not think them unconstitutional: --otherwise you would certainly make that ground the principal basis of your opposition. Be pleased to say whether this inference is correct or not?--If it is, please also to put your finger upon that clause of the Federal Constitution, which confers on Congress a power over either of the subjects of the said laws? -I mean the freedom of the press and trial by jury--If you cannot point out such a clause, but yet infer the power, under any general clause in that instrument, be pleased to say, what security we have for any other inestimable right which Congress may deem it expedient to invade? --And if such is your opinion, how it can be reconciled with that noble and excellent defence of the liberty of the American press, which is contained in the late letter of our Envoys to the French Minister of Foreign Relations?

2d. You have also said "that you believe if these laws had been opposed on your principles, by a man not suspected of intending to destroy the government," or of being hostile to it, "they never would have been enacted." Say, Sir, if you please, is it already come to this, that the political party with whom you act, regards more the quarter from which any measure shall come, than the rectitude of the measure itself? -This is precisely the definition of an unprincipled faction: and although I have long feared that such an one did exist in our public councils, this is the first time I have heard it admitted by its friend.. But if by "government" you mean the "constitution," what right have you to suspect those members of a design to destroy that constitution, who have advocated the same, in opposing the above laws, and on many other eminent occasions, on grounds which are believed to be unanswerable?--On the contrary, are they not hostile to the Constitution, who under ambiguous clauses of that instrument (to admit the most) assert a power, not warranted by any fair construction, and in the highest degree subversive of the rights of the late government, and the people?

3d. Admitting with you, that the danger of being invaded by a foreign enemy is great, which danger however you seem to think may be averted by the seasonable aid of the British fleets, is there not equal danger, in augmenting in an excessive degree the power of the President ;-in the rapid progress of the funding system and public debt :-and in the system of patronage lately adopted by the government ?:-which has, in many instances, rewarded with lucrative offices, the most active members of the court-party, and thus may tend to seduce from their fidelity, the immediate representatives of the people.--The appointment of Messrs. King, Smith, Ellsworth, Murray and Sitgreaves, may, for the present serve you as examples.

4th. As you seem to be of opinion, that the five directors of France, with their enormous standing armies, have prostrated the liberty of that country; and as human nature, and the tendency of Executive power, is every where the same, is there no reason to fear that our one director, with his unlimited power to borrow money, his standing army, navy, and long train of executive dependants, may produce the same effects ?--If I choose an example of Mr. Adams's apostacy in politics, be pleased to read the signatures to the declaration of Independence in 1776, and turn to his book entitled "A Defence of the American Constitutions."

5th. Do I understand you rightly as approving, in your 3d answer, the whole of the British Treaty? If so, what good policy could have dictated the 7th article thereof? Are the British subjects therein mentioned, guaranteed in their right to remain here, as well as in their titles to the lands therein contemplated? If not, why secure to them their lands? If so, what effect does the power given the President, by the Alien law, to banish alien friends, have upon such British subjects? Or is it the policy of the general government, that British subjects are the only aliens to be protected in their right to reside here?

A FREEHOLDER.
October 11th, 1798.