Our quotation must be recollected to understand the remarks it suggests. It may be thus condensed. In such countries as England and America, election will produce every species of villainy; the greatest rascals will succeed; and being once elected, will retain their power."
Mr. Adams does not perceive, that iiis eagerness for hereditary orders, has here again entangled him in an inconsistency. For their sake he labours to inculcate an abhorrence of election, without recollecting, that he relies upon it for one branch of his own theory. Will he say, that election, united with hereditary orders, will be purged of its bad qualities? That it is abominable, applied to a senate, governour or president ; but admirable, applied to a house of commons? And will he, by escaping from the inconsistency through these assertions, pass final sentence upon our policy in the opprobrious epithets of the extract ?
But Mr. Adams cannot be permitted to avail himself of these assertions; and therefore his disapprobation of election, must stand, unqualified and unequivocal. It cannot be conceded as true, that election in England exhibits fewer vices, than in the United States; or that the elected order of that country, are less corrupt than the elected functionaries of this. If, therefore, he explodes the whole of our policy by discrediting election, he also explodes so much of his as depends upon the same principle, and leaves to his own theory, nothing that he commends, hereditaiy representation excepted.
It is not by inconsistent railings and unbounded applauses, that we are edified. It is not by magnifying the defects of election, and concealing its benefits, that we can estimate its value. Had a fair comparison been drawn between the state of election, in the United States and io England, a vast superiority in point of purity, would have appeared on the side of the United States. If so, frequency and purity of election, are in concord ; and nobility and purity of election, in discord.
