Policy Of The Liberty Party

Last week we published an extract from the ËmancTpator, the most prominenl Liberty paper at the East, touching the propriety of taking ground on queslióhs of Public Policy other than SJsvecy We now givo an extract on the same subject from the Cincinnati Ilerald and nnd Philaiilliropist, the oldest and most nfluentiid Libeiiy paper of the West - a paper presenting good claims to ability, candor, and ndepcïndencc: 'On all important questions, of interest to the public, we deern it unmanly and improper to have any reservations with our readers. The Democratie Editor tells me that he agrees with me m regard to Slavery, but the interests of the great questions under the peculiar charge oí his party, forbid a public expression of his opinions upon that delicate subject. I reply, are you not a frecinan? How ihan can your conscience and self-respect nllow you to stifle yourconvictions on any important qucstion? Is not your party a piotesscd champion of the largest liberty? IIow then can it wilh consistency condemn you lor fi-eely discussing whatever subjects you think of vilal inpoi lance, especialiy when it can take no exception to your fidelity to your Democratie principies! "Shall I tben p rapt ice the policy I denounce ju him? Questions concerning Free Trade, Banking.Public Lands, &C., are far inferior in importance and commanding interest to the question of Slavery j this with me is the paramount question ; but thcy, stil!, are vastly important, and consequences touching almost every interest of the country are involved in their proper settlemcnt. Must I,because a Liljorty man, be tongue-tied on these questions? Must I forego my liberty of thought and utterance as aman, because I ara devoted chiefly to the ndvocacy of the anti-slavery movemem? Ifso, then while pleading for Liberty, I submit to Slavery - while essaying to disenthral a fellow being, I voluntarily put the yoko upon my own neck. 'We liave used the Ego in this represr.ntation to make the case a strong one - we now drop the phraseology, and say, we can submiltono Despotism of Party or Public Opinión. We have never- I nsked thn Liberty Party to adopt onr opinions - wc have ncver claimed lo represent its opinions on any subject but thut ofShivery and Emanciparon, and then, we have not feit at liberty to hold it responsiblc for every statement or argument. Nor would we wish for a moment to see the questions of Banking or tarifls introduced into its conventions. On the contrary, in its party capacity we should say, lel ihem alone. Il ís organized fora specific object - Iet that object engross its attenlion, nnd determine its policy. - But, ils mcmbers are not organized fora s-pecific object - editors advocating its vies are not organized for a specific and single object. God never made A MAN, to be controlled or possessed by One Idea. Men may unite, and t often becomes necessary Ihat they should unite, to accomplish one Furpose - and the One Idea must and ought lo control their association. But only a partofaman's life is in asaociatión. He who sinks manhood, comprehensivo, all-inquiring manood, in the slavery of Pnrtjr or Sect, lias lost the íVeedom of the Sons of God - he violates his nature, nnd becomes blind to tho exalted destiny to which his Maker ordained him. "The Liberty party, asa pirly, in its f.onventions, and by its official manifestoes, should, in our opinión, confine itself to ilsgreat object - the discussion of Slavery, and the exlinction of the evil by constilutional means. Thisisits mission - ;his the reform committeed to its hands. Rut as Liberty editors and Liberty men are not ahvays acting in a parly capacily, they should claim and exercise the right 10 think and speak freely on all questions which can affect the weal or woe of their country or their race. Otherwise, so far from being Liberty men, they believe their name, and are the veriest slaves."On ihis we have several thoughls to present. 1. On tho propriety of individually discussing "the other inlerests," there is no dificrence of opinión betwee n us and the Ilerald. We deern Ihem 'vastlyimfortaxt, and consequences iouching almos t ever y interest of the country are involved in thcir scttlcment .' Henee the propriety ofdiscussing them in our papers and elsewhere. 2. But if thcy be thus important, we propose to act upon them. What is the use of the discussion of evils, if we cannot remedy them. Now the course of action recommended by the Uerald cuts off the Liberty men for so long a time as they belong to the party, from directly acting upon any political evil except Slavcry! Why should this be so? Are not Liberty men as deeply interested in all these matters as any other class ofcitizens? And how can we expecl that a majority of the people will join our party while we declare to them that we will, as a party, forever refuse tosay or do any thing on subjects which we acknowledge to be "vaslly important" to us all? We nre organized, to secure by associnted aciion, one good thing. Why not use the same associated power to obtain many measures of public benefit? lf a hundred Liberty men may properly express themselves in favorof Low Salaries or Legal Reform at their own firesides, why may they not do the same in the capacily of a political convention? 3. But the argument of Dr. Bailev in favor of the expreession of Free Thoughts by individuals is cqually strong when applied to the expression of the same thoughts by a political party. We find fault with Üiè other parties, not because ihey takeground on many politicnl .ects, but beeause ihey refuse ta take ground in favor of abolishing the greatest of political evils- slavery . We teil them they are timeserving and cownrdly for nol grappling with this great political monster, tylight they not retort upon the Liberty party with force, - "You are timeserving and cowardly ! Wby do you not tnke ground on those political questions which you acknowledge to bo "vastly important" Why not face nll these evils ns you do Slavery 1 Yon can have but one answer to give - vou are af raid il toill dislract or divide your party That is the true reason ; and it is also the true reason why we let alone the subject of Slavery beeause ifs agilation will hurtour party. We are no more bound to discuss Slavery, or act upon it,than you act to upon the Bank or Tai-ilF questions : in failing to do your duty on them, you are as guilt} ns we aro in refusing to act on stavenand ihe motive in both of us is alike - the fear qfinjuring our respective parficsu To show the conclusiveness of thieasoning, w-c mny Amber cite the Docor's argument, almost word for word, putting the Democratie and Liberty parlies in the place of individuals of those larties, thus: "The Democratie party tells us that it igrees with us in regard 10 Stavery, but Lhe interests of the great questions under ihe poculiar charge of that party, forbid i public expression of its opinions upon that delicate subject. We reply, are you not the party professing the grealest freedom? llow then can your conscience and self-respecl allow you to stifle your convictions on any important question? Is not the Democratie party a professed champion of the largest libertyï How then can itconsistently forbear discussing whatever subjects it thinks of vital importance, especially when it involves no exception lo fidelity to Democratie principies? "Shall the Liberty party then practico the policy it denounces in the Democratie party? Questions coticerning Frfie Trade, Banking, Public Lands, &c, are far inferior in importance and commanding interest lo the question of slavery: tkis, with us, is the paramoJnt question; but they, still, are vastly important, and consequences touching almost every interest of the country aro involved in their settlement. Must the Liberty party then, because it is such, be tongue-tied on these questions? Must it forego Überty of thoughtand ulterance as a jiarly, because it is devoted chiefly to the advocacy of the anti-slavery movement? If so, then while pleading for Liberty, it submits to slavery: while essaying to disenthral another party, it voluntarily puts the yoke on iis own neck." We likc this argument first rato. If Dr. Bailey thinks he can successfully answer himself on this point, let him try.