EDITORIAL. 



PUBLIC MORALS IN POLITICS.— Public moralists have long 

 I noticed with regret, that the political contests of this country are 

 conducted with intemperance wholly unstated to conflicts oil reason, 

 and decided, in a great measure by the efforts of the worst class of 

 people. We apply tins phrase, not to those whom the aristocrasy 

 designate as the " lower orders;'' but to those only, whether well or 

 ill dressed; and whether rich or poor, who enter into the struggle 

 without regard for the inherent dignity of politics, and without ref- 

 erence to the permanent interest of their country and of mankind; 

 but animated by selfish objects, by personal preference or prejudice, 

 the desire of office or the hope of accomplishing private ends through 

 the influence of party. Elections are commonly looked upon as 

 mere game, on which depends the division of party spoils, the dis- 

 tribution of chartered privileges, and the allotment of pecuniary 

 rewards. The antagonistic principles of government, which should 

 constitute the sole ground of controversy, Are lost sight of in the 

 eagerness of sordid motives; and the struggle which should be of 

 pure reason, with no aim but the achievement of political truth and 

 promotion of the greatest good of the greatest number sinks into a 

 mere brawl, in which passion, avarice and profligacy are the promi- 

 nent actors. 



If the question of government could be submitted to the people in 

 the naked dignity of abstract proportions, men would reason upon 

 them solemnly, and frame their opinions according to the prepon- 

 derence of truth. There is nothing in the intrinsic nature of politics 

 that appeals to the passions of the multitude. It is an important 

 branch of morals, and its principle, like those of private ethics ad- 

 dress themselves to the sober judgment of men. A strange specta- 

 cle would be presented, should we see mathematicians kindle into 

 wrath in the discussion of a problem, and call on their hearers in 

 the angry terms of demagogues, to decide on the relative merits of 

 opposite modes of demonstration. The same temperance and mod- 



