It is evident, if another Presidential canvass passes over, that some grand issue must come up to give the people inspiration, and which will be of such character as to _divide_ them, not such as would _unite_ them unanimously; for to this last condition, it is to be feared, we have not yet arrived _though there may be such things arise as will command as much unanimity_ as Washington commanded; but this could not be, _except revolution_ occurs and it becomes the result of it. With a young intelligence such as we represent, no old issues can be made to divide parties. Upon such questions as have heretofore been made the distinguishing features of political parties, there should be no misunderstanding. That there is, demonstrates that the principles of government have not been taught to the people. It teaches that party leaders have built up theories which lack the support of science and principle; and in this way all those issues upon which the permanent vitality of the country depends have been put before the people, colored and trimmed to suit their prejudices and to shape parties into opposition. Were all of these issues taught to the people as the legitimate deduction of the science of government, and entirely bereft of partisanship, they would all work together for the obtaining of more, greater and better conditions and privileges. To bring about this course for the people is the object of the science of society which is just beginning to be recognized. There are but three principles by which all questions should be tested: Freedom, Equality and Justice; and when legislation shall be brought to the test of these, and entirely abstracted from partisanship, there will not be very much further legislation to be performed. All questions now undecided, which still remain before the people, such as those of finance, commerce, revenue, internal improvements, and international policy, should have the touchstone of these principles applied, and they should be decided thereby. It should be asked of them, What course do you point out which will be consistent with freedom, which shall not interfere with equality, and which shall be just to everybody? We venture to assert that, tried by these tests, not a single line of policy which is now being pursued by the Government will stand. Surely its financial policy cannot; for what is there in it which is consistent with the constitutional question of freedom? Surely its revenue, its tariff system, cannot, for what is there in either which is not in direct antagonism with equality?—while we may look in vain for even the skeleton of justice wherever money can find its way.