"If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour?"

Thomas Jefferson highlights his skepticism and frustration regarding the efficiency and habits of the legislative body, the Congress of his time. He draws attention to the excessive and often unproductive discussion that consumes their proceedings. Jefferson points out that this tendency toward verbose debate is hardly surprising given the professional makeup of Congress. He notes that a large number of the members are lawyers, specifically mentioning "one hundred and fifty", a figure he uses to make a broader point rather than a precise count.

Lawyers, by their training and disposition, are accustomed to questioning everything, resisting agreement, and engaging in prolonged argumentation. Their occupation requires them to examine issues from every angle, challenge assumptions, and maintain adversarial stances as a matter of skill and habit. Jefferson suggests that these traits, while potentially useful in certain contexts, become problematic when carried en masse into the legislative arena. Instead of fostering clarity, decision, and progress, the dominant presence of lawyers encourages persistent debate, refusal to concede, and an environment in which productive discussion gives way to endless, sometimes self-indulgent oratory.

He implies that systemic inefficiency is an almost inevitable byproduct when so many individuals trained in legal disputation and rhetorical persistence are tasked with governance. This environment can stymie decision-making and cripples the ability to reach consensus. Jefferson’s satirical tone reveals his belief that the makeup of Congress is itself responsible for its shortcomings, as the habits developed in the legal profession are not ideally suited for legislative efficiency and collaboration.

Ultimately, he warns that the character of representatives determines the character of legislative work, and that overrepresentation by any single profession, especially one predisposed to contention, may inhibit the effective functioning of democratic institutions.