Mr. Harris disposed of one knotty point in this controversy with so much ingenuity, that it deserves to be more generally known.  Our adversaries had brought the accusation of luxury against the American government, inasmuch as it was said to furnish both a town and a country palace for the President—­a degree of magnificence little suspected in France.  This point was not treated as a matter of any importance by us, though General Lafayette had slightly and playfully alluded to it, once or twice.  The words of Mr. Harris shall speak for themselves:  “Le General Lafayette parait surtout avoir ete frappe de l’erreur dans laquelle est tombe l’auteur de la Revue, a l’egard de la belle maison de campagne dont il a dote la presidence; et c’est peut-etre la ce qui l’a porte a faire appel a M. le General Bernard et a M. Cooper.”

“L’erreur de l’auteur de la Revue, au sujet de la maison de campagne du president, est de tres peu d’importance.  Personne ne sait mieux que le General Lafayette que la residence affectee par la nation a son president, dans le District de Columbia, est situee de maniere a jouir des avantages de la ville et de la campagne.”

Here you perceive the intellectual finesse with which we have had to contend.  We are charged with the undue luxury of supporting a town and country house for a public functionary; and, disproving the fact, our opponents turn upon us, with a pernicious subtlety, and show, to such a condensing point has the effeminate spirit reached among us, that we have compressed the essence of two such establishments into one!  Mr. Harris might have carried out his argument, and shown also that to such a pass of self-indulgence have we reached, that Washington itself is so “situated as to enjoy the advantages of both town and country!”

I have reason to think Mr. Harris gained a great advantage over us by this tour de logique.  I had, however, a little better luck with another paragraph of his letter.  In pages 22 and 23 of this important document, is the following; the state alluded to being Pennsylvania, and the money mentioned the cost of the canals; which Mr. Harris includes in the cost of government, charging, by the way, not only the interest on the loans as an annual burden, but the loans themselves.  I translate the text, the letter having appeared in French:—­“The greater part of this sum, about twenty-two millions of dollars, has been expended during the last twelve years—­that is to say, while the population was half or two-thirds less than it is to-day, offering an average of not more than 800,000 souls, (the present population of Pennsylvania being 1,350,161:) It follows, that each inhabitant has been taxed about two and a half dollars, annually, for internal improvements during this period.”