Selections

(GWe publish the following as a specimen of the spirit and temper with which the Anti-Slavery cause is met, in this community by Whigpoliticians. From the Michigan Stnte Journal. A REVEREND CALÜMNIATOR. Rev. Guy Beckley is principal editor of the Signal of Liberty. He and his as sociate have, in numerous instances, ren dered themselves obnoxious to the sever est public censure for their unmitigated falsehoods. However, they have been exposed to this community. On Saturday Mr Howard, whom they thought to slan der . with impunity, addressd a very large audience of our citizens. Then, for the first time, was the Signal of Liberty placed in his hands. Both the slanderers were present. Mr. Howard said that, before proceed ing to discuss the political topics which properly belonged to the occasion, he fel bound to notice certain charges whid had been brought against him by the edi itor of a newspaper which he had in his hand, called the "Signal of Liberty,' charges which were of so extraordinary a character, that justice to himself as wel as the people of the district required him to notice them. Among other charges against me in thi paper, said Mr. H. I find the following '♦He is in favor of eternal slavery in the federal district and the national terri tory. He has acted for their continuance so far as he has acted at all." "He is for perpetuatinga Slave Mar ket at Washington. This is an entireh different thing from the abolition of slave ery there." "He has not faithfully defended tii rights of his constituents. He has per mitted their petitions to be thrown unde the table in the most disgraceful manner or refused a reception, without uttering one manly word in defence of their rights. Such a candidate is unworthy to represen freemen." If, said Mr. H. I have been guilty o. these things, then I entirely concur wit the writer, that I am unworthy to repre sent freemen! But upon what authority does this writer, with whom I have not hac the pleasure of a personal acquaintance presume to charge me with those gross delinquences? Let him point to a single act of my life, public or private, in whicl I have avowed or shown myself in fav.o of "eternal slavery in the federal distric or the national territories," or a friend o "perpetuatinga Slave Market at Wash ington," or in which I have "permitted the petitions of my constituents to be thrown under the table in the most disgraeefu manner, or refused a reception, without uttering one word in defence of their rights!" I pronounce these charges, one and all, foul and injurious falschoodsl - They are made by an editor who knows (and if he does not know he is equally base and culpable for neglecting the means of knowing,) that they are calumnious and false. I appcal to my recorded votes in the house of representatives, to the lists of ayes and nays upon every occasion in which the question of the reception of abolition petitions has been fairly raised, to give the He to this base and shameless accusation, and to show that I have uniformly voted to maintain that right, and against the odious "21st Rule" which prohibits their reception. Let this------ landerous and unblushing writer, now as am told present in the meeting, look to he facts - let him look to the official reord of my acts, and he wiU find that I ave thus voted; and it isbut fair to preume that he is fully aware of the fact. - What ground then has he-for this raaligant and cowardly assault? What apolgy for fabricating against me, a northern man acting with northern men, with norhern Whigs - the vile and infamous calmny that I am in favor of eterna! slavey, of a "slavc market at Washington," nd against the right of petition! Does ie not know the fact which the journal tows, tbat the last congress by a majoriy, consisting almost entirely of northern 'higs, of whom I was one, actually resinded the 21st rule of the House? It is true, that owing to a change of opinión f a few members jt was soon after resored; but the writer. was bound to know nd doubtless „did know the fact which I ow state. What good purpose then can e obtained by the fabrication of a calumy so foul and ridiculous? What justifiation can be offered for so miserable a iece of i mposition ! W hoeve r k nows any ling of my public conduct, or of my pinions or feelings expressed either in public or private, knows that I am not a upporter ofslavery; that I am opposed to the injurious and unconstitutional restriction imposed on the right o? petition on that subject, by the 21st rule. I say unconstitutional, for the constitution itself guaranties to the people of the United States the right of petition in its broadest extent. And I hold it to be the duty of Congress to receive all petitions, whatever may be the object prayed for, whether constitutional or unconstitutional, subject only to the condition that such petitions be couched in respectful language, and in reference to slavery in the District an( the territories I do not hesitate to declare that in my opinión congress possesses ful and ampie power under the Constitution to abolish it in those places. If the pow er does not exist in that body it exists nowhere. But what right has this unscrupulous writer, who has no private acquaintance with me whatever but who has every rea son to presume the contrary to be true, to charge me with being in favor of perpet uating a Slave Market at Washington - a thing as he says entirely different from the abolition of Slavery there? I can only reply that this charge is an infamous and unblushing falsehood! Base am wicked indeed must be the heart which conceived it! And I hand both it am its contemptible author over to the scorn of the honorable men of all parties, wheth er abolitionists, democrats or whigs, who detest the character of the calumniator and his dirty work.