Notwithstanding our deiermination to have no controversy on this subject, we feel obliged to correct the misapprehension ot our views inio which some have fallen. Our anide on this subject has called forth a spiiited editorial from the Detroit Adveniser, in whichwe are taken to task for our positions, alihough in courteous and gentlemanly language. And here we will talce occasion to say. that the Advertiscr, for ireedom from low scurrility and blackguardism, is of late, far in advance of many of the political papers. First, then, it will be observed that we did not take ground against a Tariffof duties on foreign imports. The thing did not enter our minds. It is obvious, at Ã±rst sight, that the government must have a revenue. This revenue must be raised either by duties on imports, or by direct taxation. In the present state of society, the latter method. whether it be best or not, appears'to be impracticable. It follows, then, that a tariÃTof duties on foreign import, is indispensable to raisc an adequate revenue for the nation; and, we have no doubt, that whatever party mny be in power , a sufficient revenue will be raised in this way. - How heavy these duties shouid be, and what discrimination shouid bc used in imposing t hem on the different anieles for the purposes of a revenue, are points, on which we expre3sed no opiniÃ³n wiiatever. But we suppoaed, and so stated, that the Tariff party wished to impose heavy duties on foreign imports in order to secure a favorable ni&rket abroad for Ar.itr-ir. pcÃ¶duqtjons. W s fggested the inquiry wheiher this object cou'iA not as well be attained by a mutual diminuciÃ³n of lUUes, as by a course which might lead to a mutual increase. We raised this question merely as a matter deserving of inquiry. This is the head and front of our offending, so far as opposition to a Taiiffis concerned. But we -do not deny that wc took positions in opposition to the support of a Tariff partt. We have carefully reviewed them since, and find in ihem nothing to altor or rtractWe said to our readers, and to all that class of community vvho emertain a regard for the rights and libmies ol tl'Ãªir fellow men, as weil as a desire for the increase of thcir wealth, that we considcred the Tariff paity unworthy of thcir politi cal support as a party, because it was hmited in its plan, being a mere scheme of finance, amoun.ing to nothing more than a proposition to impose a duty of 30 or 40 per cent, or more. on certain anieles, instead of 10 or 20 per cent, more or less - sectional in its charactcr- cntirely pecuniary in its object, conversant only with dollar3 and cent9, lo the exclusiÃ³n of all other subjects - totally opposed to the success, or even the existence of the Liberty party - pro-slavcry, in miny respects, in its niaterials, affinities, and predileciions. and calculated, il succeosful, to extend and perpeluale the reign of the Slave PowekoÃ this nation. These positions we then supposed to be correct, and we do not perceive that the Advertiser has called in question any orle of them Until they can be shown to be incorrect, we shall consider them entitled to the senous oonsideration of our readers, and of the community generally. Bui the Advertiser, in this very article, has Ãurnished the evidence of the truth of some of our allegations. lt manifestsits hosttlity to the Kberty party, by urging the moral suasion abolitionists not to follow the leaders of political abo'.itionism, jecausc of " their hostility to Northern interest(!) and Northern Rights" (!!)- because of "the dangerous influence of political conv.miaiions and stratagems"- just as though the tariff pa rty was not a political combinador. - because of "the selhsh and corrupting motives of pnnizan politics" (are not your politics "partizan," Mr. Advertiser?) because ''ourfirstdury is toprotect and benefit our own citizens" - nnd because the political abolitionists are "crusading ia a doubtfal er.Urprisctfor the relief of distant strangers." This string of reasons demunstratcs that the Advertiser, the leading Tariff paper in the State, is fully committed against the principies of the Liberty party. 1 he real question proposed by the Tarifl advo. cates to abolitionists for decisiÃ³n is this: whether they will hold on to the support of principies they know to be just, and right, and practicable, unlil lÃieir final triumphshail come, aseÃ³me itwill, as sure ap there is a righteous Governor of the Universe - or whether they will now choose, when the Providence of God is iavoring them. on every side, Ly events propitious beyond their expectations, to abandon .their political and religious l'aith, join themselves to the same party that oiiginated and sustained the Hard Cider revelries of 1840, and tliua forever bid adieu to thosc great objects, for which, through reproach and ignom.ny, they have hitherto laboied, and toiled, and prayed. We have no unkindness oÃ feeling towards the supporters of the Tariff party - we appreciate the large amount of intellectual and moral wonh that is lound among them: but we desire to have no connection whatever with their political proj - ect8, and while we would wish that they could cordially unite with us ior the attainment of objects that ve believe to bc of paramounl importance, if we cannot be gratified in this, we desire to bc excused from enlis'ing with them in a political comes;, which, whatever may bo said of it in other respects, will certainly prove injurious to those interests we scek to promote.