Alexandria advertiser and commercial intelligencer. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1800-1803, 1802-06-24
FROM THE GAZETTE OF THE Y. STATES.

OF the 1aCODlnS, anu III iOiuSuSS 49, PSiuaPSS
,hro' the mifnanagement of It's advocates,
has afTumed an aipect wholly foreign to its
character, and extremely forbidding to the
bulk Of the community. II is held out as
aberting the intereits of the rich, in oppo-
fition to thofe of the poor, and of aiming
to e1ablilh an ariaocracy founded on the
invidious AID forbid difintion of wealth.
While this delu6on prevails, it is not at
all 10 be wondered at, that the cauie ihould
be unpopular, and that the mouth Of labor
fhould be clamorous againit 6 a feet"
Whole Object is underfood &c be, to de-
,priye it ofthe bread which it earns. Mel
fher is it furprizing, or eyineive OF any
itupendous degree Of ability, that men who
are capable Of ttooping 70 the bale arts OF
deception, Mould relott TO this expedient,
and avail rhemielyes of 70 obyiou; and TO
tritc trick TO blaa their opponents, and
exalt themfelves in the opinion Of thoie,
in whole hands is placed the power ofpul-
ling down and fetting up. But il popula-
rity, coate gu'I coats, is to be coniidered
asahe teit ofmerit, far be it from me to at
tempt to lsGen Its value, or to grudge it
to Jingle individual. To the Duanes,
the JeFerlons, and the Gileses, let it ex-
clufvely belong. Of the glory of petard-
mg the doors of honor and confidence, let
fhefe very honorable perlonages unmolelf-
eddy hold divjlum imperiam.
But let us examine the imYutation--
and to begin with the contribution of the
United States. Does this inarument,
framed by the federalias, warrant the
charge Does it sea ANY executive privi-
leges in the rich, or deprive the poor of a
Jingle right? Does it not recognize per-
feet equality in all the members Of the COM
n,unity, is not eligibility to Office common
TO all, and the right of outrage eaabliihed
to the fame extent as in the itate govern
snentss None OF theie things can be al
ledged, and yet this contribution was the
executive production of the denounced
feet.
Is the accufatiop better lappcrted from
the administration of general Warrington.
What are the ariGocratic features of his
.minifry! The funding lyfem was indeed
efablilhed, and that dreadful monied in
terea created, which is 70 feelingly depre-
Gated by citizen Giles, and denounced by
citizen jackfon. But why is monied
interelt fuch bug bear? Is il more arif-
tocratic TO. pofeis money than lands, and
negroes, and coaches Did republication
require that the public faith ihould be yio-
lated, and holders of the iecurities which
were .thc price of our dependence, de-
trauded ? If the rich were, in general, the
holders of this fpecies of property it was
but the natural effect of wealth, which in
every iociety will be able to procure what,
poverty cannot obtain. Even in the great
democratic dominion, as ! takeit, the pal.
lid citizen, who loIls within the coach,
may purchafe what his footy, fcarikined
brother on the ous!ide may dgh for in vain;-
and in that pure region Of equality, the
mouth of labor would fand but q forty
chance, I fear, in competition with the
mouth of presidential or congregational elo-
quence. It is the Virginian policy, !
have heard, to take eipecial care of the
land holder. No agrarian laws there,n in
folent plebian creditor tripping the demo.
cratic lordliog of his pa;rimonial domain.
Why then, Q why, ye men of acres, ye
advocates for political juaice, will We not
extend your equal protection to the mo-
ney-holder?
But this standardization gave birth to the
horrid excite law, the itamp-att, and thor
refco referens) the coach tax. Let US fee
how thefe affect the mouth of labor. AS
to the frtf, it cannot certainly be faid to
have deprived it of the bread it had earn
ed, however it might have encroached ur-
on its 1vbJesy; bur admitting for mo.
,nent thar this mouth has been fomewhat
ungeneroaly dealt with, il will not be