Virginia Argus

VIRGINIA ARGUS.

RICHMOND:

SATURDAY, JANUARY 22, 1814.

Extract of a letter from a member of Congress, to the Editor, dated Washington, Jan. 15.

"The president yesterday nominated to the Senate as envoys to negotiate with the British Commissioners at Gothenburg, Henry Clay and Jonathan Russell as adjuncts to Messrs. Adams and Bayard—the Senate will no doubt act on the nominations this day, and it is expected will ratify them. The appointment of Mr. Clay will make it necessary for our house to look out for another Presiding Member, and to supply his place adequately will not I am sure be an easy matter. Several members have been spoken of, but I cannot say yet who will probably succeed.

"Speculations here as to the probable result of the negotiation are very various; I think however, the better opinion is there will be peace. In the mean time, we are actively engaged in measures to promote the enlistment of men, by offering high bounties. It is hoped this mode will succeed, as there is a deficiency in numbers at this time of a very serious nature.

"We are much gratified at the assumption of the states' quota of the direct tax—those acquainted with the many real difficulties attendant on that measure, know best how to appreciate its real merit, and the patriotism of those who carried it into execution."

Extract from another Member, dated January 17.

"We have an army bill now before us, & under a tedious, desultory debate, and in my opinion very improperly allowed by the majority to continue. The situation of our military matters is such, and the period so fast approaching when our forces should be again in the field, that all possible dispatch ought to be given to every bill, the object of which is to raise more troops: and yet from day to day is this bill allowed to be discussed—the principal topic of which discussion on the part of the opposition consists of declamation against a prosecution of the war upon the Canadas. Allowed to be discussed, did I say? It might be more proper to say that the discussion has been rather invited on the side which should discourage it, and when the obligation to prosecute and furnish the means of effectual prosecution is strong and imperious—when the fault will be inexcusable and irreparable too, if by delays, which they might prevent—which under existing circumstances, it is their duty to prevent—any thing pertaining to our military undertakings should be lost—or any thing should not be gained which might be gained by dispatch and expedition in passing the necessary laws for recruiting and enlarging our armies. The avowed ground taken by the opposition against measures of this description, is their aversion to any military operations against the Canadas. Were a stranger therefore, who had previously heard nothing of it, to be suddenly ushered into the galleries, and listen to the debate on both sides, he could scarcely fail to conclude that the House had before it a solemn proposition for abandoning the prosecution of the war upon the Canadas, and that the members were gravely and solemnly discussing that proposition—the one side pouring forth invectives against it—the other side answering their invectives, jogging and striving with all their might, as if they were really afraid that without the support of their harangues there would be a majority for giving up the war as to the Canadas.—The fact is, I believe there exists unfortunately too much of a sort of cacoethes loquendi, which at the risque of the dearest objects must be indulged. The college hall is not yet forgotten and therefore some must regale us with their academic flourishes, or in their own estimation they should be guilty of an unpardonable fault. They must not let slip such an opportunity of illuminating the House. Others again fresh from the bar, must spout forth long harangues just as unnecessary as those which they often address to a jury, and which, while they are thought by themselves, very handsome and very profound in knowledge, are truly painful and truly disgusting to most of their hearers, because out of time and quite unnecessary.

"When I said that the debate alluded to was improperly allowed, I meant that it was improperly allowed on the occasion of this bill—not that I would be understood to mean that the opposition members should not be allowed at any time at all during the session to discuss the policy of the war, &c. if they choose to do so—so far from this, there is another subject referred to a committee of the whole house, on which, after the necessary measures for prosecuting the war shall be taken, it was expected they were to discuss it."