O The Detroit Adverteer representa that tho ticlc in our lastpnper froni the Washington ( fi, purpoiting to be a comparison of the rates ' duty levied by the TarirTs of 1842 and '16, ( as jjroesly erroneous and false: and i minÃate? iat wc must have scen the exposure oÃ its fulsejods in the Advertiser or soino other paper. - 7e have nut aven any such expos-jre. Our onobject iu publisliing tho ortiele was for a coinÃ¯riaon of the two TarifTs. VVhen we find lis Isohoods pointcdout from any crediblo source, e wi!l correct the table. I3ut wo havo seen noOur tuble of the duties on luxuries, proDunced groesly innccuraie. it.'iis o never pubshed. Tho Advcrtiser is in error in attributing to us io character of a clergyman. We niake no retensions bcyond those whicli may conÃ¶erÃ¯lrate i a layinan.