The New Hampshire Gazette

PORTSMOUTH.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1834.

THE PORTSMOUTH JOURNAL.

This print has at length devoted about two columns of its last number to a recantation of some of its statements to which we had repeatedly called the attention of its publishers; the sum of which is:

1. That they do not know that the stoppage of the Great Falls woollen factory was owing to the "experiment" as they first stated;-that it was a mere "matter of opinion." Yet they admit that they had been told by a proprietor in the Salmon Falls factory just after the loss by fire, that "he hoped they would not rebuild for woollen," because "the stock was several years quite unproductive."

This precisely corresponds with our statement that the Great Falls woollen factory had "been unprofitable for years," and consequently that the great parade in the Portsmouth and Great Falls Journals about its being stopped by the "Experiment," was all moonshine.

2. In regard to the assertion, that "under the Collectorship of Gen. Upham, there was no inspector in Kittery, New-Castle, or Dover, they refer us to the communication of a correspondent, who originally made the statement to them, who says that when he made the statement, it was then believed by him to be literally true." Yet he makes other statements calculated to create an impression, that the expenses have increased at Kittery and New-Castle,-that a person did the duties at Kittery for one hundred dollars per year,-and that he was displaced and Mr. Lawrence appointed with a salary of $500.

The facts are, that Mr. Prescott at New-Castle under Mr. Upham, received about six or seven hundred dollars per annum, the greater part of the duty being assigned to him; and the other perhaps about 300. Whereas the duties are now much increased, and are divided equally between the Inspectors at New-Castle and Kittery, and each receives a salary of $500 per annum.

The statement that there were coasters between Dover and Boston ten years ago, and no Inspector at Dover, may be true; we had been otherwise informed, however, by the Deputy Collector, who was in office under Mr. Upham. At any rate there could have been not more than one or two, whereas there are now, as we are informed, seven or eight, about as many as there are between Portsmouth and Boston. The office of Inspector at Dover, whose salary is only $200, the writer seems to think "wholly unnecessary"—"a perfect sinecure," created in order to give a salary to the Editor of a furious partisan newspaper." If it be so, then the office of Inspector whose sole business it is to attend to about the same number of coasters in Portsmouth, and who was appointed under Mr. Upham with a salary of 300 dollars, and who was one of the most "furious partisans" against the election of Jackson,— must also be "a mere sinecure." This man is also a runner for the U. S. Branch Bank at an additional salary of perhaps three or four hundred dollars more: yet he has never been disturbed, he retains his "sinecure" as Inspector of the coasters. We say sinecure because it is believed his duties at the Bank preclude the possibility of his performing the duties of Inspector as they ought to be performed.

As to "Mr. Collector Decatur," we are no defender of him or his partisans. We had no hesitation in expressing our opinions of him or his acts, when living; but we have now only to say "tread lightly on his ashes." We will not say, that he did nothing right: much less will we pretend that he did nothing wrong. The mere act however, of appointing an Inspector at Dover, does not appear to have been among his errors. If it be a fact that the Inspectorship has been "a mere sinecure," we can only say it ought not to have been so, and hope it will not be so in future.

In regard to the allusion of the writer to the employment of a Revenue Cutter "at a great cost to the Government, with no obvious benefit," it may be well to observe, that a vessel of that description was put in commission at this port under Washington's administration;--that under the administration of the elder Adams, the commander, Captain Hopley Yeaton, together with Mr. Whipple, the Collector, and Col. Gardner and many others, were all swept from office to make room for his aristocratic "partisans;'' this was the beginning of proscription for opinion's sake. They were all reinstated, however, under Mr. Jefferson, and the Cutter was kept in commission until about the time Mr. Upham was appointed Collector, when it was dispensed with, for what reason we know not, unless to leave the coast clear for the benefit of smugglers. Since President Jackson came into office, not Mr. Decatur, but the then Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Ingham, commissioned another cutter at this station. It was exclusively his act, a Collector could not have done it: nor,— especially among those who maintain that the Treasury Department is independent of the Executive, can it with any propriety be laid to the charge of the President. The Secretary did it as we suppose, for some "obvious benefit;" if it was wrong, to him belongs the censure: and as that gentleman is now of your party, Messrs, editors, we leave it to you to apply the lash.

The story of Mr. Hill's reading at a meeting of the Typographical Society at Washington, a written speech, commencing with, "Being unexpectedly called upon by the last toast, &c." the editors get off' by saying; "we never said whether we believed it or not. Our piece ran 'as the story goes,' &c."

Yet they persisted, notwithstanding our contradiction, that they had "an eye and ear witness" of the facts. Where is now the "eye and ear witness"? It must be remembered that the question was not whether Mr. Hill read a speech or not, but whether it commenced with the remark stated, or any words of that import. In regard to the Newspaper privilege which has been bruited abroad as a corruption of the P. O. Department, the editors now tacitly admit there is nothing unfair.

The Journal assigns as a reason for not recanting before, our want of courtesy in the manner of contradicting their statements. Why should not things be called by their right names? When editors make such glaringly false statements, and after being pushed for a recantation, do it in such a way as still to convey an impression of their correctness, why mince the matter? They must be true or false, and if false, why call them by any other name than falsehoods? The statement in the Journal about the "eight hundred" at a federal caucus a few years ago was got over by saying some mischievous boy had altered the types from six to eight: but this did not mend the matter; the six was as much a falsehood as the EIGHT.