Alexandria Daily Advertiser

Hitherto the Editor of this paper has satisfied himself with affording the Expositor an opportunity to promulgate his own, and his party's sentiments in Alexandria, by letting the public know that Democracy no longer rears its head--this he has been induced to do by a disposition, inherent in him, of not wishing to trample on a fallen foe. It is sufficient gratification to him to know that sound principles and respectable characters have triumphed over those of a different cast, in opposition to all the falsehoods published by the Expositor and asserted by a certain scribe and others at the different caucuses.

In the Expositor of Tuesday the Editor says-- "In consequence of the result of Friday's Election of Common Councilmen," that is, the Election of three Federalists, "for the second ward, he feels it his duty to offer some remarks as to the views and principles of Federalism." In these remarks he professes to be governed by no personal motives; yet in a few lines we find him stating that the Printing for the Corporation, which had been in the hands of the proprietors of that establishment for eight years, is taken from him and given to the Federal Printer, (there's the rub) and then goes on to hold out an idea that the present Federal Council have been intolerant in their election of officers for the Corporation.

The very reverse of his we are bold to say is the fact, and we dare him to deny it.

The Expositor says that "early in February an election was held for councilmen under the charter of Alexandria, and that a considerable majority of Democrats were chosen," this we are not disposed to deny, but we would just bring to the recollection of that personage, that in consequence of assurances from proper sources, that the New Bill would pass during the session of Congress, no exertions were made to counteract the election of the very respectable ticket proposed by the Democrats.

Fortunately for the Town of Alexandria, the Bill did become a law very soon after; it then became the duty of the new council, to superintend the treasury and appoint persons to superintend under the new regulation--just they executed in such a manner that their own partisans cried shame--they not only appointed every man of them democrats, but out of twelve commissioners five at least were candidates for seats in the council: this shameful conduct roused the federalists from their lethargy, and with a becoming spirit they determined to shew that Alexandria still had some pretensions to respectability; the issue was such as might be expected from the justness of their cause, and the honorable means taken to attain it.

The Expositor then states, "When, however, the election came on, many difficult points were found, almost unintelligible, and the opinion of counsel, of the most deserved eminence were taken, under these the then judges of election acted." &c. That the opinion of counsel might have been taken is possible; but if so, how did it happen that every set of commissioners acted on different principles--this was notoriously the case, and it is also of equal notoriety that so far from disfranchising good men, under the new charter, more votes were taken in than ever were known to have been taken at any election in the town.

It may not be amiss in this place to state a few facts, relative to the occasion of the election held on Friday last, in the second Ward, and which has drawn forth remarks from the Editor of the Expositor. At the first election it was supposed the commissioners had laid down certain fixed principles, by which they were to be governed. It however, so happened; that one of the commissioners differed from the other two in his opinion of what constituted the legal qualification of voters, and it likewise so happened, that this circumstance turned out very convenient to the majority of them--for it enabled them to leave their minds open to conviction, and when a man of their own sect possessed of certain qualifications: offered himself as a voter, very little argument was necessary to convince one of them that he had taken up wrong ideas, and consequently the vote was a good one, but when a person differing from them in politics came forward, it was fixed by the majority of the commissioners that his vote was not admissible; and in addition to this shameful inconsistency, votes were received which were notoriously known to be bad, and some of which we conscientiously believe one of the commissioners knew to be so. The consequence was that two of their men were returned as duly elected:

Such glaring misconduct induced one of the candidates on the Federal ticket to contest the validity of the election, and he was enabled to prove so clearly to the Council the unfair principles on which the election was conducted that they could not hesitate a moment in setting it aside--a convincing proof of their own conviction that under the direction of proper judges they would stand no chance to effect their purposes, so their not attempting to run any candidate on Friday last of their own politics, the only opposition they did make was by running a good staunch Federalist in the hopes to divide the Federal interest, and thereby keep out the man who had been the most active in bringing to view their nefarious practices--in this they were likewise disappointed.

The Expositor of Saturday last and again on Tuesday asserts that the Commissioners refused the vote of a person who had taken the oath of allegiance and again of a Citizen of the State of Virginia. We presume in this he alludes to the case of Mr. Lumsden, if so. either he must have asserted a falsehood, knowing it to be so. or Mr. Lumsden tells two stories--For on the day of the election the Editor of this paper happened in company with Mr. Lumsden, when the conversation turning on the election, he said they (the commissioners) had refused to let him vote, notwithstanding he had resided here nearly ten years and held considerable real property--he was asked on what principle his vote was refused? He replied, on the principle of his being an alien. We then remarked that we had always thought he was a citizen, to which he replied that he had never yet taken the oath of allegiance, that he had once went to Dumfries for that purpose and had made his declaration preparatory to doing it, and that he had again made his declaration in this court and intended to have taken the oath at the last term, but was prevented by the rising of the court sooner than was expected. Such we believe to be the plain matter of fact, so far as it relates to the refusal of the votes of Citizens of the United States and State of Virginia, so much harped on by the Expositor, and for which he is endeavouring to cast odium on the characters of gentlemen as far above him as the sun is from the earth.