Who Is Responsible?

We have do disposition to "growl at a mark " nr dfaarge noglienee upon any ono; but it doos seoin to us that somo ono is responsible for tho defcat of Col. Mulligan and his noble band at Lcxington. It is Dot sufiicient to say that hc fought superior numbers, or succumbed for want of water. It was knovn all over tho country that the eneiny iv:is marching upon him in force, and re-enforcements might and should have been sent to hun. If Gen. Frkmont had men ut Lis command and neglected to aid Mulliuax. then upon Gen. FebHONT rests the responsibüity of the surrender of Loxington ; but if tho powors that bc at Washington have left Fre.mont without men to drive back the rebels and prevent them over-running and subduing Missouri, then the responöibility resta upon tho Washington govornment, There was certainly no need of this reverse ; not even to teach us humiliation and subtnission. ïhereare ccrtainly men enouarh in the West to drive tbc robel hordes out of Missouri, and they ouijht to Ie in the right place, and not posted in sinall detachments to bo cut off by superior numbers, espeeially when the approach of the enemy is made with such a floarisb of trumpets as altnost to bc known on tho other continent. Thero is inconipeteney somowhere, and no mistake. - Latest advices from Missouri say that McCulloch is marching rapid'y to re-enforce Price, at Lcxington ; and also that Geus. Lane, Hunter, and Sigel had arrived at Lcsington and attacked Price. It is eertain that Fremont bas announced his intention to loso no time in attacking the enemy, and an engagement has probably taken place before this, or will tako place soon.