Alexandria Daily Advertiser

From the Philadelphia Gazette

Washington, 1st mo. 9th.

Friend:

I record the political death of that great Junius, that ingenious Lord Littlegood alias Farmer, alias Levi Lincoln, formerly the honorable Levi Lincoln, Attorney General of the United States, or rather the apology for one. This melancholy event, as I am informed, took place some time last week. The most knowing political physicians here have long since discovered symptoms of natural imbecility, to which is attributed the more immediate cause of his decease. No cries of lamentation I have not heard, and the sound of rejoicing will probably be known only to his successor. Report says that he received hints from "good authority," that if he resisted a peaceable death, he should be killed outright. Whether this cruelty occurred or not, I cannot say. It seemeth hard indeed for one who hath rendered such services to the United States as attorney general. Thou hast heard that a considerable sum of money was saved in procuring an attorney for the treasury department during the absence of Levi Lincoln. Thou hast heard that in the business relating to the sugar refiners, the U. States did not pay several hundreds of dollars to Dallas for arguing in their behalf, on account of the inability of Levi to get beyond the second point in his speech. And as gall the eloquent pleadings of this great lawyer, are they not written in water? In short when thou takest into consideration all his services, wilt thou not say that he hath well deserved the ten or twelve thousand dollars that he hath condescended to receive from the mouth of labor. On shame, where is thy blush?

Who will be his successor? How many laborers in the weeds and wilds of democracy are almost cracking the strings of their lyres, anxiously looking for the reward of their labors.

I informed thee some time since, that J. Randolph had moved a call on the postmaster general for a statement of contracts made for carrying the mail. The only reason I have heard assigned for this is Randolph's hope of finding that Grainger had made profitable contracts with certain members of congress, with the expectation that those members would vote in favor of the Georgia claims which claims are violently opposed by Randolph. & in the recovery of which claims it is said that Grainger is much interested. Randolph & Grainger are certainly much opposed to each other; & it is suggested that before the elapsing of many months Grainger will resign.

On the subject of retroceding the district of Columbia, the principal arguments in favor of the resolution were the expense to the United States in taking up the time of congress to legislate for them: and the abject state of the inhabitants of the district, in not having a representative in congress. The first argument would be of no validity if congress would only spend part of the time they waste the first three or four weeks of every session; or if they would spend a tenth part of the time that is wasted in needless debates, arising from the negligence or incapacity of some of their framers of bills. The second argument arises from that unconquerable desire so prevalent with the possessors of liberty of extending that liberty to all persons whether they wish it or not. But I apprehend that this second argument is merely ostensible, not seriously urged.

The most important objections arise, first, from the unconstitutionality of the resolution. The constitution says that Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over such territory, not exceeding ten miles square, as shall, by the cession of particular states, become the seat of government. Congress shall have power... This power in Congress cannot rest with any one Congress; hence should this Congress recede the next must have the power of resuming. The ten miles square has become the seat of government and cannot be changed: but if in part be receded, the seat of government is changed. if three fourths can be receded, nine tenths may. But Congress shall possess this power; the people of the United States are a party and Congress cannot give up a power they are bound by the constitution to retain. The people of the district are sentenced as they are, and are very much adverse to returning to their former estate. it is uncertain whether the states of Maryland and Virginia will consent to accept.

Friend Lucas of thy late commenced this day the debate. I was at some distance from him; and could only catch sentences. So Babel like is his pronunciation, that however neat, I find it impossible to
I understand him fully. I am informed that he has talents and information, and that his speech this day, was not without much sound reasoning; but so ungrammatical and so Frenchified is his dialect, that I can never gather his ideas but in part. He was opposed to the resolution. He argued that the district could not be retroceded without the consent of the inhabitants. At the close of his speech, he took the liberty of ridiculing Eppes for his great solicitude to extend the right of suffrage, and requested him to exercise his benevolence that way to his own state.

I will give you some idea of his grammar and his pronunciation by exhibiting some parts of sentences I occasionally caught. "Eet ees de shuld of legislation, and Congrez may do wid him as he please." ... It is the child of legislation, and Congress may do with it as it pleases.

"Ihese diestrick." - [This district.] "To bos." .. [To both.]

Those liberty which they intended to secure to themselfs. Even wionemin and shildren rezhoice. [Even women and children rejoice.] "Wede peep ofde United Statea. We must oder [other] kecp dem or transfer cem to demselfs.

Polivrickal [political] annectated [annihilated]. I should suppose that friend Lucas would have acquired a better knowledge of both grammar and pronunciation before he offered himself a candidate for Congress; yet if a knowledge of the grammar of our vernacular tongue were a requisite, without which no person should be qualified to a seat what would become of half the democrats now there.

After Lucas, on the same side of the question, rose friend Thatcher of Massachusetts, and in a short but handsome and pertinent speech refuted the assertion that Congress had not time to attend to the affairs of the District. He enlarged on the inability of Congress to yield the power of legislation, the right of a future Congress to resume, the violation of public faith, the folly of imposing on the inhabitants what they were solicitous not to receive the propriety of having the seat of government not under the jurisdiction of any one State, imperium in imperio, or rather, the sovereign authority in the hands of a subordinate authority.

Friend Iaggard followed on the same side of the question and enforced the principles before advanced with a variety of new arguments, and placing several subjects in a new light.

After which we came to the vote of the business which however did not run deep: Erastus Roots spoke next, and favored the retrocession. He was honest enough to acknowledge that he wished the whole district retroceded; he wished a removal of the seat of government. I could not help smiling at a Smilieism of his: He spoke of the power of legislating "over the whole and afterwards over a less part."

Dawson next in favor of the resolution. His voice is so maiden-like I could not hear much. I heard him say, however, that representation is "God's best gift to man!" He quoted a line of Shakespeare, which he probably learned when a school boy, for I little think he has seen much of Shakespeare of late. Shall we barter this "God's best gift to man" for so much trash as may be grasped thus"?

G. W. Campbell, of oscillating memory, spoke against the resolution at considerable length. After whom Friend Goddard closed the debate, in replying to some remarks that had fallen from Eppes.

The committee rose at 3. I hardly expect that the question will be taken before Sixth day.

FINIS.