Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Letter to Editor
March 23, 1759
The New Hampshire Gazette
Portsmouth, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
What is this article about?
A letter from 'A New Hampshire Man,' submitted by L.M. to the New Hampshire Gazette, defends New Hampshire's sterling money bills against a Massachusetts query, arguing they are equivalent to sterling, not subject to depreciation, and thus exempt from MA laws prohibiting depreciated provincial currency.
Clipping
OCR Quality
96%
Excellent
Full Text
To the Publisher of the New Hampshire Gazette.
By giving the following Letter (to your Massachusetts Man) a Place in your next GAZETTE, you will oblige
your Customer,
L. M.
Province of New Hampshire, March 13, 1759.
SIR,
YOUR Query concerning Our Sterling Money is of no great Importance to us, since we are very willing to take it as often as we have an Opportunity: knowing it to be as good, if not better, than any other extant; for 'tis not subject to Depreciation like former Emissions -- is on a small Interest -- and entitles the Possessor of £.20 to a Bill for so much Sterling on Demand -- And for my own Part had much rather it were New Hampshire Money in the Eye of your Law, as you call it, than otherwise. And were it not to take off the Prejudices of some less discerning Persons, who, under a mistaken Notion of Advantage to themselves, or for the Jingle of Dollars, leave this Government's Service (when Occasion offers) and enlist in yours, 'twould be needless to give you an Answer: Besides you will be under no greater Obligation to act in conformity to our Exposition of your Laws than we are to expound and explain them -- However, for the Reason suggested, Shall add -- That as the Design and Intention of a Law is what solely ought to be aimed at; so when that takes Effect a Law may be said to be well executed -- Now if your Act was made to prevent your Impoverishment by the Depreciation of our Money -- will not our Money 's not being subject to a Depreciation, be a sufficient Reason why such a Law is (or ought not) to be in Force? And how could your Legislators make an Act against the taking of Money not in Being or Agitation at the Time of making such an Act? -- Moreover, are these Bills Bills of Credit of the Province of New - Hampshire, when no Persons in New-Hampshire are Subjected to any Tax for their Redemption! Are they any Thing more or less than Notes for so much Sterling Money now in England, or so many Separate Bills of Exchange? And may not a Law which forbids the taking of this Money in your Province, as well prohibit taking a Bill of Exchange in your Province drawn here? -- Or that a negotiable Note endors'd by a Person in this Government, should not be received or recovered in yours?
Si quid novi rectius illis; candidus imperti;
Si non his utere mecum.
A New Hampshire Man.
By giving the following Letter (to your Massachusetts Man) a Place in your next GAZETTE, you will oblige
your Customer,
L. M.
Province of New Hampshire, March 13, 1759.
SIR,
YOUR Query concerning Our Sterling Money is of no great Importance to us, since we are very willing to take it as often as we have an Opportunity: knowing it to be as good, if not better, than any other extant; for 'tis not subject to Depreciation like former Emissions -- is on a small Interest -- and entitles the Possessor of £.20 to a Bill for so much Sterling on Demand -- And for my own Part had much rather it were New Hampshire Money in the Eye of your Law, as you call it, than otherwise. And were it not to take off the Prejudices of some less discerning Persons, who, under a mistaken Notion of Advantage to themselves, or for the Jingle of Dollars, leave this Government's Service (when Occasion offers) and enlist in yours, 'twould be needless to give you an Answer: Besides you will be under no greater Obligation to act in conformity to our Exposition of your Laws than we are to expound and explain them -- However, for the Reason suggested, Shall add -- That as the Design and Intention of a Law is what solely ought to be aimed at; so when that takes Effect a Law may be said to be well executed -- Now if your Act was made to prevent your Impoverishment by the Depreciation of our Money -- will not our Money 's not being subject to a Depreciation, be a sufficient Reason why such a Law is (or ought not) to be in Force? And how could your Legislators make an Act against the taking of Money not in Being or Agitation at the Time of making such an Act? -- Moreover, are these Bills Bills of Credit of the Province of New - Hampshire, when no Persons in New-Hampshire are Subjected to any Tax for their Redemption! Are they any Thing more or less than Notes for so much Sterling Money now in England, or so many Separate Bills of Exchange? And may not a Law which forbids the taking of this Money in your Province, as well prohibit taking a Bill of Exchange in your Province drawn here? -- Or that a negotiable Note endors'd by a Person in this Government, should not be received or recovered in yours?
Si quid novi rectius illis; candidus imperti;
Si non his utere mecum.
A New Hampshire Man.
What sub-type of article is it?
Persuasive
Informative
Political
What themes does it cover?
Economic Policy
Commerce Trade
What keywords are associated?
Sterling Money
New Hampshire Bills
Massachusetts Law
Currency Depreciation
Bills Of Exchange
Provincial Currency
What entities or persons were involved?
A New Hampshire Man
Your Massachusetts Man
Letter to Editor Details
Author
A New Hampshire Man
Recipient
Your Massachusetts Man
Main Argument
new hampshire's sterling money bills are equivalent to sterling in england, not subject to depreciation, and thus the massachusetts law prohibiting depreciated provincial currency does not apply to them, as they function like bills of exchange.
Notable Details
Quotes Horace: 'Si Quid Novi Rectius Illis; Candidus Imperti; Si Non His Utere Mecum.'
Argues Intent Of Ma Law Was To Prevent Impoverishment By Depreciated Money