We are informed that congress has definitely adopted a flag. The bad wood cut will give the reader a clear conception of it, though a very moderate standard of the art of wood engraving in Richmond. As will be perceived, the maker has taken pains to inscribe his name beneath it, and we will volunteer a statement of his terms, which were five dollars for what the reader sees.

The flag is thus described in the terms of English heraldry [the worst of all the schools]:

On a field quiex (red) a saltier argent (white); a Norman shield azure (blue) charged with a sun or (yellow).

This flag answers several requisites. It is sufficiently original. It is brilliant. It is easily discernable. The chosen emblem, the sun, is tolerably characteristic of a southern country. These are the main wants, and the flag complys [sic] with them.

There are also objections to it. The chief is the fact that the sun is difficult to represent at all, and almost impossible in heraldic style. It has been tried. The sun was the chosen emblem of LOUIS XIV. It is still to be seen on his innumerable monuments, in bronze, marble, granite, gold, and silver, and the effect is always poor. The glory and beauty of the sun is its light, which cannot be represented, and the armorial type of it is nothing better than a sun-flower.

We are not disposed to quarrel with the flag-decided on, but think that the committee would have done better had they selected a simpler and less difficult emblem. A horse rampant would have nobly designated the equestrian South; a bull lowering his horns would have fitly characterized its courage, strength and defensive temper; either would have become a beloved and peculiar national type. As to the colours, red, white and blue belong to everybody. We still retain the opinion that black and white are not only our national colours, familiar to the eye from the common dress of the people, unappropriated by any other Christian nation, but are the most elegant, simple and dignified that we could have chosen.--

Not one of the objections urged against them--such as the difficulty of distinguishing the national banner from the flags of truce on land, or the foam of a wave at sea--will bear examination. We fear that the true reason why they have occurred to the reflections of few, and have found favour with the taste of a still less number of persons, is the fact that they are not gaudy.

Daily Richmond Examiner, 19 April 1862.