In A Late Number Of The "Signal Of Liberty," We Find An Art...

In a Inte nmnber of ihe "Signa] of Liberty, ' we find ar article, written wiih considenblc severity, against the las: Legislature, for lejalizing fornication, scduction and adultery. - So far as the sentimrnls of that nrticle are concrrneiJ, wecordiully ngree with ihe SjgntiJ. lt was nn net wliich ought to condemn ils nuthors to public execrnlioii; for it opens wiile the floodgates of iniquity, and paya to the rotten he.irtcd debancheo, "praclice your obscene and loiitlisome rites, mul lenve the slime and fillh of your abominations in eery place where you can find admittanco, by fair means or fonl, with no law to molest or mnke you afrnid." Bul what rieht has the editor of tl:e Sgnal of Liberty to complain or to censure? Títere is no per ton in the. wide war ld icho has labor ed more zealously, not to sa y ejfeclivrty, (o secure the s ipremacy of Loaifocoisin, tht.u kehasiand this Lerrisl'aiive efibrt lo convert the State of Mtciiigan into onc vast brothel, is but the impersomtion, the natura! ófFspjing, the express iinae of Locofoco principios, wherever Ibund- principies wliich inheiemly and necessarily bhght and corrupt whatsoever things are honest, just, pure, lovely or of good report. Let the editor of the SigMnl then have the {H-ace to hold his peace, on this subject, unti) heshall ecu f e to aidand to glory in the evationofsueh metilo office- unlil his political action shnll imlicíite a disposition to snstain virtuons rulers and virtuous principies. .Marshaü Statesnum. Il does not belong to us to defend the principies of the Democratie party froni the charge of "inherent corrupt ion.'' Those implicated can speak for themselves. But we affirm that so much of the ahove as we have marked in Italic, by whicli we are charged with laboring t o secure the 6upremacy of Locofocoism, and aiding and glorying in the elevation of those corrupt men to office who repealed theformcaion and adultery laws, is unlrue in ils general scope, in every particular, and in all its aspecls. We utterly deny the allegations, and cali on the Statesnian for proof. We never voted for the legislators in question, nor advocated their election, nor 4aidcd" them in any way whatever. Had the Liberty candidutes been elected, such nn outrageous act would not have pnssed the Legislature. They are ofavery different character. We supportcd ond voted for (kern: the whigs for their candí - dates; and the Democrats wero fcuccessful, le.iving the Whigs all used up, and the Liberty men with only a retnnant.Will the Statesman picase to state, explicitly, in what way the Liberty men, any more than the Whígs, have "aidei1" in electing the Locos to power? If the Editor wül think of it a moment, Iris usual candor will compel hiin to etale the specifications,or retract the charge. Indeed, the charge itself is so barefaced thnt we cannot believe the Editor wrote it. We k.now, from the character of that pnper, that its patrons must embrace many excellent and candid men. How unjust, then, is it to prejudice thcm againstus by such a wholesole false aasertion, without one partiële of proof! But enppose we were Locofocos entiiely and profesedly, by what logic can he prove it is incumberit on us to "hold our peace,'' when unprincipted men of any party are throwiiijr down the legal defences of virtue, in order to convert the State oí Michigan inlo one vast brothel?' Ie appears to us that if we had aided in theelevauon of men of this character, it would be our especial duty "to eomplain and censure"- to cry aloud and spare not, until they should be thrust out of the offices they had abused. The Editor givca us leave to complam andcensure, when our 'poliíical action ehall sustein virtuous rulcrs and virliiutis principies." - Have we ever siistained principies or rnon other thon virtuous? If so, when ór whenel