The Liberty Party--Its Hypocrisy, Perjury, &c.

..- The Whigs of Jackson Uounty appear to have been quite stirredupintheir minds by the recent labors of Messrs. Treadwki.l and Stewart in that County. - We learn from an article in the Democrat, by D. M. Bagley, that "at a late meeting of the Clay Club, Liberty men weresigmatizcd as "disunionists," "demagogues," "disorganizers," "hypocrites," and traitorsto their country. Mr. Bagley was desirous of repelling these assertions, and inquired of the Secretary of the Club if they hadany provisión made for free discussion, and was answered Ihcy had notl Mr. Bagley then wrote an able reply to these aspersions,but it was refusedaplaee in the Gazetie, the Whig paper, and was publishedin the Democrat. About the sanie time, the following rather queer apology appeared in the Gazette. "POLITICAL AB0LIT10N. The following was last week inadvertently copied into our paper. We have no desire to take the responsibility of such general and contemptuous denunciations: Advice. - Let it be a principie of every Whig to spurn, with honest indignation, any attack which the self-styled liberty men may make. They are wol ves in sheep's clothing - dastard hypocrilesV. But when we make thls disclaimer of the willing use of the opprobrious terms of the abové extract, we do not wish it understood that we would either ask or accede to any proposition by which our political destines should be united with the fate of a party that has openly avowed in public convention that they regard the Constitution of the Uriited States of 'no binding force,' and 'nuil and void' whenever in the plentitude of their wisdom they adjudge it interferes with 'natural rights.' Neither would we have it understood from the explanation that we here make, that we do not regard the acts of those who are striving to elévate a man to an office which he cannot hold except as the sworn supporter of the Constitution - who has publicly declared that he considers that instrument of 'no binding force;' and are urging men to sustain him asachristian duty, as hypocritical and traitorous to the government under whichwo uve - Dut we wouia not aenounce as dastard hypocrifes those who are parties to such acts. It is our right - our privilege to speak of the doings of our politica! opponents, but we claim not the prerogative of questioning their motives.- If their acts do not accord with their professions, we shall not hesitate to cali them hypocritical; and urge our friends to spurn with honest indignation any and all efforts they. may make to induce others to sustain upon christian principies, a man or a party that is the open and avowed advocate of a course of conduct that would involve a President of the United States in the crime of perjury. Though our course heretofore has been ín somedegree conciliatory toward the political abolitionists,we now feel that the day is past when further charity is a duty - and that we are constrained to speak of their organization as a political party under that organization and of their acts, in termsof merited rebuke. While, as the avowed fnend of the slave,they pught to free him from the chains of bondage by legitímate and constitutional means, they merited and received our aid and support. But now that they have denounced the supreme law of the land as 'nuil and void' in its influence over them, and have appealed to religious feelings as a motive to induce men to vote for an individual who has avowed that his oath would be a mockery, we must hereafter walk separate and apart from them. Men entertainingsuch sentiments. we cannot but regard as enemiestoour government. Profeesing to be influenced by christian motives - they may be deluded - but we cannot but esteem their conduct as tending to bring christianity into contempt. - They will therefore, hereafter meet our decided opposition. It may be important to resort [resist] their aggressions upon the constitution, and stay their influence as the professed, but as we think deluded followers of those desciples who taught submission to the powers that be; but nevertheless we feel that duty requires usto do what we can to make our opposition felU At another time we may recur lo this subject again". - Michigan S. Gazetíe. It will be seen from the preceding, that the Whigs are down upon the Liberty men in great wrath, "because their time is short." The Liberty men in Jackson County are about two thirds as numerous as the Whigs, and are pressing hard on their heels, aad th reaten soonto outstrip them in the popular vote, and leave them in the rear. The Whig Editor therefore renounces his old plan of alternately scolding and coaxing, and comes out for open war. This is as it should be. - Give us open friends and open enemies. But do not teil us any more about being the more favorable party, that Mr. Williams, if elected to Congress, will secure the objects desired by Liberty men, Sec Let us hear no more of it in future. The Editor of the Gazette says this "advice" was "copied" into his paper. - Will he please to name the paper from which it was extracted? If thetion of dastard hypocrites" emanated frotn any Whig or Whig paper ín Michigan, it comes with a poor grace froin a party tliat has been repeatcdly called upon todiscuásthe Liberty principies, either by debate or through the press. and has as often refused for fear of the consequences. A combatant who refases thé proffered battle of his opponent ought, indeed, to pronounce the word "dastard" witli a peculiar accent, when he applies it to those whom he daré not meet. In an article in the Democraten reply to Mr. Bagley, Mr. Bates, Editor of the Gazette, re-asserts that the acts of Politica] Abolitionistsin supporting Mr.Birney, are "hypocritical and inimical to the constitution." He quotes ín proof the resolution of the BufTalo Convention in re[erence to fugitive slaves, ffsuppressing the proamble, which is an important part f H =L0 anc argües that Mr. Birney cannotbecome President without perjury or hypocrisy. Now, without going into any correlative arguments, and without availing ourselves of the quibbles and technicalities either of pro-slavery or anti-slavery men, we will exhibit, in few words, what we conceive to be a straight fonvard, comraon sense view of The Constitutional Qüestion'. 1. In 1787, ourfathers, being, with out a permanent Constitution, determined to establish such a one as would secure the blessings of Liberty, personal, civil, religious, and political, to themselves and their posterity. This object is declared. in the preamble, and is carried out by ampie provisión for protection of property and person. 2. The sla veholding States would not assent to these admirable provisions, unless slaves might be imported for twenty years, unless slaves might be represented in Congress, and ucless fugitives should be üelivered up by the free States when they should escape. The word "slave" is not found in the Constitution, but that the clauses here referred to, were meantto include slaves, ihere can be no doubt. 3. Thus the Constitution istwo-sided - Janus-faced, and the sum of it is, that our fathers determined to secure the blessings ofliberty tothemselves and posterity to as gveat extent as could be done, consist]y with these pro-slavery articles, which they expected would soon become a dead letter by the extinction of Slavery itself. 4. They were in error. Under the operation of this Constitution, at the end of half a century, one sixthof the people are held as absolute slaves, and the libertiesof the rcmainder are encroached upon, and threatened with annihilation by the overgrown political power of the slave holders. Under this instrument, slavery has extended its borders, enlarged its infiuence, usurped the control of Government, and threatens its own perpetuity. 5. What shall be done? This Constitution, which works thus disastrously, must be amended. The Massachusetts resolutions propose this. The future unconstitutional action of the Federal Government in favor of slavery, must be checked and past be retraced; and its action be made to subserve the interests of Liberty, and not of Slavery. 6. The clause authorizing the importation of slaves is no longer operative. - We propose to amend the Constitution, in the way that instrument provides, by expunging the three-fifth representation for slaves, and the clause restoring fugitives. Surely Mr. Bates will find no fault with amendments, secured in this manner? 7. But these amendments, to the propriety of which we suppose he will assent, as well as to the manner of obtaining them - may not be attained for some - In the mean while, fugitive slaves come among us by thousands; shall we deliver them up? Such an act is forbidden by the Snpreme Rüler of the Universe, by the dictates of Natural Justice, andby Revealed Religión, and we may not do it. - We subscribe to the following preamble and resolution drafted,webelieve, by Rev. John Pierpont, and adoptedby the National Liberty Convention at Bunaio, Aug. 31, 1843: -Whereas, the Constitution of these United States is a series of agreements, covenants, or contracts between the people of the United States, each with all, and all with each; - and, Whereas, it is a principie of universal morality, that the moral laws of the Creator-are paramount to all human laws; or, in the language of the apostle, that "we oughttoobey God,ratherthan man;" - and, Whereas, the principie of Common Law, - that any contract, covenant, or agreement, to do an act derogatory to natural right is vitiated and annulled by its inherent immorality - has been recognized by one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, who, in a recent case expressly holds that '■'any contract that rests upon such a basis is uoid" - and, Whereasj the third clause of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States - when construed as providing fo the surrender of fugitive slaves - does "rest upon such a basis," in that it is a contract to rob a man of a natural right,- namely, his naturalright to hisown libertyj-r-and is, thereforc absolutely void. Thcrefore, Resolved, That we hereby givo it to be distinctly uiiderstood, by this nation and the world, that, as nbolilioniats, considering that the strenglh of our cause lies in its righteousneas - andourhape for it, in our conformity to the Laws of God, and our respect tor the iughts of man. we owe it to the Sovereign Ruler of the Univcrse," as á proof of our allegiance to Him, in all our civil relations and offices, whetherns prrvate citizens, or as pubiic functionaries sworn to support the Con-stituíion of the United States, to regard und to treat the tjvrd clause of the second section of the fourth article of that instrument, wheneyer applied to the case of a fugitive sluvc, as utterly nuil and void, end consequently, ns forming no part of the Constitution of the United States, whenever we are called upon, or eworn to suppot it." 8. To our minds, this is conclusivo. - When God, Natural Justice, and Reveiation, connnand us to do any thing, ond the Constitution requires us to do the reverse,the former aro to be ubeyed, and the latter disregarded. What ground will Mr. Bates take on ïhis? Is God snpreme, or not? Will he obey God, or Men? "Shajll wr oíjey our Dead Father.-s, or ouu Living God?" 9. We hope Mr. Ba Les will meet the queétiou like a man, and answer these two inquiries without evasion or dodging 1. Is the clause respeciing the ceivery o; fngilive slaves contrary to the requirements of God, Reveiation, and Justice, or not? 2. lf eo, which ought to be obeyed? Now don't attempt to mystify tho matter neighbor; but let us know at once wherein we diSer, and wherein we agree. Let us now consider the charge of perjury, which crime he thinks Mr. Birney may comrait, and to which all who vote f br him wil be accessory. Should Mr. Birney be elected, he must take the following oath: 'M do soleranly ewear (nr affirm) that I wil "faithfully execute the ofBce bf1 President o "the United States, and will, to the best of "my ability, preserve, protect and defend the "Consul ntion of the Uniced States." Mr. Bates th'nks Mr. Birney cannot subscribe to this oath, and at the same time sub, scribe to the rqsolution of the Buffalo Convention, to which he hos virtually assented, that he regards a portion of the ConstitutioR as fnuU and void." How Mr. Biiney may regard this objection, we know not: bat it may be properly answer. ed in two ways: Ï.The resolution of the National Convention does not regard as "nuil and void" any clause in the Constitution. There is no such thing iu it, or in the preamble. But bolh treat the clause as nuil and void "whenever api'lied to a FUtfmvR SLAVE." Tbis Ieave8 the clause in full operation in cages of apprentices and others. Th;s many suppose to be the only proper construction of the clause, when viewed in refeience to the objects ol the U. S. Constitution as set forth in its preamblp. Her.ce no part whatever of the Constitution is nuHified, hut only a particular construction of that instrument. If Mr. Birnoy holds to this view of the subject, he may consistently take the oath. 2. This declaration of toe Convention anc of Mr. Birney, that they regard, not the Constitution, hut the common construction of one cla'ise of it, to be nuil and void, has been publicly proclaimed throughout the nationj and should Mr. Birney be elected President by the freemen of the United Statee, with a full knowledge of this fact, he may properly take the oath of office. We cannot see ony wiU ful, positive, delibérate design to swear falsely, which is an indispensable requisite to constitute perjnry.We must leove this argument which is borro wed from Junius for this week, and on a future occasion we shall givè some thoug-hts on the Pro slavery Position of the Whig party, as exhibited in the folio w ing extract from the Christian Freeman, a Liberty paper. "Theoath to support the Constitution either involves a pledge to sustain Slarery, or it does not. If it does not, as Liberty men believe, then all Ihis outcry about perjury is the resuit of either ignorance or hypocrisy.: - If it does, then all who take that oath, directly or impliedly, beiieving that they thereby pledge their support to Slavery,are pro-slave - ry. There is no escape from this. "We interpret the Constitution as a slavery instrument, and swear to support it as 6uch,v say Junius and his employers. Then, gentlemen, you svvear io support Slavery,do jou? And you come and ask us to help you in your diabolical purpose! And vet, you profess to be "the anti-slavery party!" Can hypocrisy go further than this? Take another view. It is either ïight or wrong to sustain Slavery. If the Junius party believe it right, then are their antislavery pretensions deceptive, and themselves unWorthy the confidence of any party. If they believe it wrong, then, according to their own showing, tiiey are intelligently swearing to do a wrong, and caunot be safely trtisted by any one, for the man who will swear to do one wrong, knowing it be such, will not scruple to do another, and another, as often as opportunity occurs. Beware then, we say, of these men who swear to svpport Slavery, while they adsiit that "it is undoubtedly a wrong."- And such people talk of "perjury," do they? Calling God to witness that they will trample upon His lawr and affecting at the same time tobe the coservators of that law! Beautiful moralista they! Excellent preacheis of righteousness! Why, perjury itself were a mere peccadillo compared with the impudent blasphemy involved in conduct like this! Now Jnnius and his endorsers may impale themselves upon which horn of this dillemma they prefer - we feel under no obligation to release them from either." QCf Every Liberty man who votes for the other parties at town meeting will straightway be counted as an adherent of Clay or Van Buren, and justly too. Remernber that, and do not vote any part of their ticket, for any local purpose whatever. The resuit in the end will bc disastrous.