New Hampshire Statesman And State Journal

In former years the New-Hampshire Patriot was the organ of the Republicans of New-Hampshire, and the strenuous advocate of Republican principles. Maintaining with ability and zeal (but we know not with what honesty and sincerity) the cause of that party, it stood high in the estimation of the people of this State, and received a liberal and generous support. But it has now entirely abandoned the ground it then occupied, deserted its party, and enlisted with the nullifiers of the South, in a vindictive crusade against all that it once professed to hold sacred. Nay more, the very dogmas which it then denounced, in the strongest terms, as anti-republican, and destructive to the dearest interests of the country, are now embraced by it and pronounced the very essence of democracy.

In proof of this, we have but to refer to an editorial article in the number of that paper, for Nov. 21, in which an insidious attack is made upon the Tariff. The whole System, which gives protection and encouragement to American Industry, is then treated with a spirit better calculated, we should think, for the meridian of Manchester or Leeds, than for that of New-Hampshire. Among other things we find it there asserted, that "for ourselves (the editors of the Patriot) our sentiments on this subject are in accordance with the democrats of New-Hampshire, whilst we do not recognise the constitutional right of the general government to assess taxes expressly and solely for purposes of protection, we believe it has a right so to frame the Tariff, as, whilst it secures a competent revenue for the support of government, it may operate to protect our own manufactures and produce against foreign competition."

Now this is going as far as the most strenuous advocates for free trade could wish—the British Government itself could not ask for more—and if the democrats of New-Hampshire do in fact entertain these sentiments, William IV. has not more loyal subjects than they. For it seems, according to the Patriot, they believe that unless the taxes required for a "competent revenue" shall protect the American manufacturer from competition, his business should be destroyed—he has no right to ask for more! But of what avail is any protection to the manufacturer of this country, unless it shall effectually secure him from the competition of those abroad, who, from superior skill and other facilities, are enabled to undersell him ? And of what avail is our independence as a nation, unless we have the right so to protect ourselves ? We might as well become again the subjects of Britain—suffer her again to abate the workshops of our mechanics as 'common nuisances,' and prohibit them from the manufacture even of a hob nail.'

But the editor of the Patriot misrepresents the sentiments of the people of New-Hampshire—they entertain no such views as he attributes to them— they stand, as they always have stood, on American ground, and are in favor of those great principles which protect them in their laudable industry, from the ruinous effects of British competition. These principles the Patriot zealously advocated in its better days—these principles it should advocate now ; but if it chooses to be recreant and false, it must not expect to be followed in its apostacy by the republicans of New-Hampshire.

In order to make good our assertion, that the Patriot has abandoned its former principles, and to show what doctrines were once entertained by it, upon the subject of protection, we will quote its own language in 1823—but eight years ago.—"The nations of Europe, (says its editor, under date of May 5, in that year) Great Britain, France, Spain, Russia, &c. must be supposed to understand their own interests. To be sure they protect foreign commerce, but every one of them likewise PROTECTS ITS OWN DOMESTIC INDUSTRY, either by prohibiting entirely, or by laying high duties on all commodities which they can furnish by themselves. THE PRINCIPLE OF SELF PRESERVATION dictates to us the same policy."

Again—“The manufacturing policy must and will prevail in this country ; and to enable it speedily to prevail, the Government should protect manufacturing industry in all its useful departments."

Here are no scruples in regard to the constitutionality of protecting duties; on the contrary government SHOULD and MUST protect the manufacturer. It was the "principle of self preservation."

These are sentiments to which every republican will respond, for they are precisely those which are now maintained and defended, by that party, in this State, against the attacks of the Patriot and other Jackson papers.

But it is not in this view only that the apostacy of the Patriot is manifest. We will proceed another step, and point out its inconsistency.

In the article before alluded to, in that paper, of the 21st ult. an attempt is made to impress upon the farmers of New-Hampshire the belief that their interest and the interest of the manufacturer are distinct,—that they are hostile to each other ; and among other things they are told that they are now heavily taxed, "in order that a few monopolists [meaning the manufacturers] can realize twenty or twenty-five per cent. on their overgrown capital."

Unfortunately for this miserable attempt to excite jealousy between those who are mutually interested in each others' prosperity, we can again quote from the Patriot, language which sufficiently answers it. In speaking of the effects of the manufacturing upon the agricultural interest, in the same paper (May 5, 1823) it is said that "the interest of AGRICULTURE, which is the great interest of the country, requires, more than any other, the growth and protection of our manufacturers. Look at those parts of the country where manufacturers most prevail. Instead of depressing the farmer his wealth is increased BY HIS VICINAGE TO THE LARGE MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS. Villages spring up on barren and before useless spots; and for miles around each village the FARMER IS MADE MORE INDEPENDENT, inasmuch as he finds at his own door a cash market for his surplus produce, which before would scarcely pay him the expenses of carrying to the sea board, because the restrictive systems of foreign nations had shut it out from a natural market abroad."

Here again are sentiments to which we heartily respond; but we will leave the Patriot to reconcile these conflicting opinions as it best can. True, we may be told that in 1823 it was conducted by Isaac Hill, and that it now professes to be in the hands of others, who are in no wise responsible for his opinions. But this is not a sufficient plea ; its present conductors are bound to reconcile their views with those of their predecessors—or frankly confess, what we contend, that the Patriot has abandoned the ground it once occupied—and of consequence is no longer worthy of the confidence of the republicans of New-Hampshire.—Dover Enquirer.