AN B .
.\\\\&/ . s s
w R STHT s
' " £
AND REPUBLICAN UNION.
e e e
TUESDAY MORNING, NOV. 2, 1847,
AcrxTg POR THE Qazer?e & UxioN,~The following gentlemen
are duly authorized agents to receive Subscriptions, Advertise
ments and orders for Job Printing, and to receipt for and forward
the same to us: Jsasc L. f'ol.sou, W‘
GEoROE A. BENNkTT, Esq, Newmarket,
Nara’t Morriii, Esq. Epping,
Col., PeTER SANBORN, D«*rn:ls Parads,
Bexxmvg W, Sansory, Concord,
Eraram Tmaers, Northwood,
F, ASMarpeN, Windham.
e —
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN NOMINATION
FOR GOVERNOR,
JARED W: WILLIAMS.
The Journal and the Democratie State Commit=
tee.
Sejobs
The circular of the State Commiftee calling the
Democratic Convention does not altogether please the
_worthy and oppression-hating editor of the Journal,
and he consequently devotes a column and a half of a
late number of his paper to its denunciation, and to
prove that the defnocratic party are “awful” inconsis
tent. The part of the document in question to which
this denouncer of southern slavery and apologist and
defender of slavery at the North takes particular ex
ception, is that wherein it is claimed that the democrat
fc party “ stands up for the righ:s of man against the
ugnrpations of property, for equal legislation against
monopoly and oppression,” as though this were a mat
ter that adwitted of the slightest doubt or needed the
least argument to sustain it. Before gquestioning so
plain and manifest & truth, it would have been well for
the Journal editor to have instanced at.least one single
mcasure of reform in behalf of the working class, the
mass of community, being originated and carried out
by the federal-whig party from the commencement of
the government down to-the present. Can he point to
one such case? On- the contrary, has not the uniform
policy of that party been to build up and pamper the
vich at the expense of the poor and laboring classes ?
And bave they not as uniformly sought to carry out
this policy wherever and whenever they have had op
portunity, by legislative enactments and in every other
possible way 1 We appeal to every candid, intelligent
man if this is not so. Witnéss their high tariff, nation
sl bank and distribution schemes in proof of it—their
favariable practice of chartering nonopolies without
reserving any legislative control over them, thus en
dowing wealth with power to ride rough-shod over-the
peoplc with impunity—their proscriptive and- over
bearing course towards poor men to compel them into
the support of their measures, and the thousand and
one expedients to which they have from time to time
resorted to make the rich richer and the poor poorer—
to build up an aristocracy in this country worse in all
respects than any which has ever cursed and disgraced
the old world.
On the cther hand, what measure has there been of
sny importance, having in view the rights and interests
of the people—the people in contra distinction to the
privileged few—and the glory and well-being of the
country, but has originated with and been supported
to final success by the democratic party, and thistoo
not even with the passive assent of their federal oppo
nents, but quite invariably in spite of their most unre
lenting opposition. The very ten-hour law, which is
the chief burden of the Journal's article, and which it
insidwously condemns while it pretends to favor it, is a
striking case in point. Did that measure originate
with the federal party, or has it ever received the slight
est favor from the leaders and wire-pullers of that par
ty ? Itis true the N. Y. Tribune has recently all of a
sudden become somewhat enamored of it, (as that pa
per by turns adopts and endorses all measures and
schemes out of which it hopes to make the smallest
amount of capital for its party, whether abolitionism,
Fourierism, Mormonism, nativeism, or anything else,
even anti-entism,) but in pretending to favor this
measure, simply as party clap-trap, the Tribune meets
with the angry frowns and displeasure of the federal
papers-of. New Hampshire.
The ten-hour system, as all know, was first brought
forward and adopted on the public works of the nation
by a democratic administration—Mr. Van Buren’s.
'Thas sanctioned and put in force by so large an em
ployer as the government of the United States, it has
rapidly forced its way into private channels, until it
now prevails extensively, and has become the fixed and
unalterable sentiment. of the working classes; and
what but. the combined opposition everywhere of man
nfacturing corporations prevents it from universally ob
taining? An effort was made by the democratic legis
latare last June to procure a wider recognition of this
system, by enacting it into law in this State. 'This act
was opposed by & majority of the federal members, the
tools of monopoly, and the factory corporations have
shown their disposition to.acquiesce in it—their regard
for the rights of man over the usurpations of property,
for the interests and well-being of the working classes
—Dby compelling those in their employ, in order to avoid
the operations of -the lJaw, to sign special contracts to
work any number of hours they may see fit to require
them to! And this disgraceful course of tyrrany and
oppresion—this flagrant nsurpation of property over
the rights of man, the Journal exults at, while at the
same time it claims for its party unbounded friendship
for the laboring classes, and affects to call in question
the declaration of the Democratic State Committee,
that the democratic party, “stands up for the rights of
man against the usurpations of property,” the truth of
which is here so perfectly demonstrated.
It avails the Journal but little to say that democrats
are owners in thesc corporations, for this is the case to
an extent so very limited as to give the democratic
stockholders not the slightest influence in their man
azement. These establishments are almost wholly
owned and entirely managed and controlled by leaders
of the federal party—men who go into our legislative
bodies and round to federal conventions and hold up
their bands in affected holy horror at the institution of
negro slavery, while they are at the same time the au
thors and supporters of a system of oppression which
exacts from their employees the utmost amount of toil
which the human system is capable of enduring, and.
which from the sway exerted over the mind as well as
the body, is tending only to reduce the laboring popu
lation here at the north to a condition but little better
than that of the southern slave. &
These are briefly the facts with reference to the re
spective claims of the democratic and federal parties
to be the friends of the rights of the people; and with
these facts before the reader’s mind, and in view of the
tender mercies which he is almost sure to have expe
rienced at the hands of the federal party if he be a
poor man and his conscience compels him to be a dem
‘ocrat; we leave him for the preseat to judge how sound
-is the Journal’s position in taking ®xception to the
‘claim that the democratic party “stands up for the
rights of man against the usurpations of property,” and
-what hardihood that print evinces in denying that the
federal party has not invariably and uniformly pursaed
PorrLaNp~On the fourth trial for a representative
“on Monday, last weck, Dow had 714 votes, Barnes
_ The Democratic Staté Cohvention.
This bedy assembled at Concord last Thursday.—
The day was fine and the attendauce large and respec
table. One hundred and thirty-six towns were fully
represented by two hundred and twenty-five delegates.
Every county in the State sent delegates, and two—
Merrimack and Belknap—were represented by full
delegations from every town. The distant sections in
cluding seven towns in Coos, and seven in Carroll,
were well represented, Hillsborongh sent the largest
delegation from twenty-eight towns. Rockingham
sent full delegations from 23 of the 87 towns; Straf
fori from 8 of the 12; Sullivan 9 of the 15; Graf
ton 21 of the 86, &. The action of the Conven
tion was harmonious throughout, and every member
inclading an unnsual number of the oldest and
staunchest supporters of the cause, went away (as
they came) confident in the triumphant succcss of our
ticket at the next election.
Hon. Moses Norris, jr. presided, assisted by Messrs,
Samuel Cushman, James Farrington, Samuel Batter
field, William Morrison, Warren Lovell, Samuel Nay,
Nathan G. Babbitt, Virgil Cliase, Richard J. Blanch
ard, H. E. Sturtevant as vice-presidents ; W, P. Hill,
H. W. Reding and B. B. Whittemore were chosen sec
retaries. Mr. Norris; on taking the chair, addressed
the Convention in an efoquent and pertinent speech
which was received with applause.
The Convention re-nominated, Hon. JARep W. WiL
LIaMS a 8 the demoeratic candidate for governor, by ac
clamation. It also elected Richard Jenness, Esq., of
Portsmouth, as delegate at large to attend the Demo
cratic National Convention at Baltimore, and Harvey
Huntoon, Esq., of Unity, as Substitute. Mr. Jenness
was chosen on the first ballot, receiving 113 out of 178
votes—24 being cast for Hon. Moses Norris, Jr., and
40 for Hon, Mace Moulton. Mr. Moultorn was first
elected Substitute, but declined. It was recommended
that the remaining flve delegates and their substitutes
be chosen at the Counsellor District Conventions—a
resolution to choose two delegates at large and let the
county delegations select the other four being rejected,
52 to 76. A resolution was also passed recommending
to the Democracy of the Union that the National Con
vention be Held at Baltimore on the 4rm of Jury,
1848.
The late hour at which we return to our post, will
not permit us to publish the official proceedings entire.
For the present, our readers must be content with this
brief abstract, and the resolutions, waiting for the re
mainder until next week. The resolutions were pass
ed unanimously, and are as follows :
Resolved, That the present crisis is full of c¢ircum
stances, which should at once inspire the democra
cy of New Hampshire with confidence, and arouse
them to untiring and harmonious exertions, in be
half of the great cause they sustain ; that its truth
and justice give them a right to expect success in
the comin% contest, but to expect it only on condi
tion that they prepare for and enter into it with
the vigilance and energy which its great importance
demands.
Resolved, That while in the nature of things,
honest differences of opinion must.exist among t%e
large masses of voters who compose the democracy
of this State, upon minor questions, there are great
principles upon which they are agreed, and in ref
erence to which they can stand upon the same
platform, numerous enough and important enough
to demand and insure their united and harmonious
action, to induce them to stand shoulder to shoul
der in every important contest.
Resolved, That we regard a devotion to the rights
of man, in opposition to every attempt to prostrate
them for the selfish purposes of associated wealth, a
jealous attachment to equal legislation, to economy,
to the rights of speech and the press, to religious
toleration, to free suffrage, and above all things, to
the glorious country in which we live and that U
nion which binds us together, as the great elements
of the democratic faith.
Resolved, That the opposition, direct or indirect,
of the whig party, under all its various names, to
these principles, calls upon the democracy in thun
der tones to maintain its organization and ascen
dancy; that when it sees that party laboring to
bestow unbounded powers upon corporations, by
limiting those of the people—contending that hea
vy taxes shall be imposed upon the la%oring clas
ses, that capitalists may reap exorbitant profits—
_proposing to squander millions of the public mon
‘ey—joining in and defending the brutal persecu
&tion waged against the champion of free suffrage
in an adjoining State, and madly taking sides with
our enemies in every controversy and every war
in which we are engaged, patriotism demands of
us unceasing efforts to defeat its purposes and pros
trate Its power. v P
Resolved, That as democrats we are proud that
in every contest in which our country has been en
gaged, our efforts have been put forth in its sup
port, our votes given to sustain, and our voices
raised to honor, the brave men who have rushed to
its defence ; and that now, when a party is in our {
midst, cheering the murderers of our own people,
calling upon our enemies to “ welcome ” our troops
“ with bloody hands, and invite them to hospita
ble graves,” denouncing our government for pro
tecting one of our States from invasion; and basely
defaming the brave officers and men who have
achieved our victories—consistency, no less than
patriotism, calls upon us to opL)ose that party in
every aspiration for power, with as much energy
as that party displays in contending against the
rights and honor of the country.
Resolved, That by its course in reference to the
war, the whig party here has demonstrated its iden
tity with the federalism of 1812, proving by its en
tire action that a re-enactment of all the shameful
scenes of that time is prevented alone by the dis
tance of the foe, happily too far removed to be fur
nished with intelligence, to be supplied with tory
beef, or to be guided by blue light signals into our
harbors, by the federalism of 1847.
Reselved, That in every particular in which the
removal of the seat of war has not rendered identi
ty impossible, the identity is complete ; the clamor
raised against “ Jim Madison’s war ” then, is raised
against “Jim Polk's” war now; at both periods,
denunciations of the government, charges that the
President made the war, revilings and scoffs at our
defenders, sneers at our victories, false and exag
gerated statements of the expenses of maintaining
our military establishment, sympathy for the ene
my, and hatred and contempt for the friends of our
own government and those who have fallen in its
defence, have been the distinguishing traits of that
aristocratic party here, against which the democra
ey is destined ever to contend, and which is destin
ed ever to contend against its own country.
Resvlved, That resistance to the conducting of
a war with energy and success, when it is carried
on by the laws and power of the Union, is a mea
sure which tends to weaken it and encourage the
common enemy, and shows the. authors of such re
sistance to be unpatriotic and unworthy of public
confidence. We do therefore, earnestly exhort ev
ery good citizen to sustain his country and his
country’s cause in the struggle now going on with
Mexico—and earnestly recommend to the general
government, a vigorous prosecution of the war, till
the treacherous fog: shall humbly sue for peace.
Resolved, That we feel grateful to those, who in
such a war have hazarded their lives in defence of
‘their country’s rights—and that this acknowledge
‘ment coming from delegates of toiling farmers and
mechanics, whose sons and brethren constitute the
bone and muscle of our brave armies, is due to the
faithful soldier in the ranks, as well as those who
guide his ardor and energies to victory.
Resolved, That the detraction visited by our op
g;ments, upon our own gallant Pierce, as pure, no
e-hearted and high-minded a citizen as ever lived
within our State, and as brave and patriotic an of
ficer as ever went beyond its limits to peril health
and life for the country—while it demonstrates the
malice which rankles within them, towards every
supporter of the war, fu!h";l:?lm. mnd by
honorable nten, in everv cornerof the land. s
Resolved, That we approve the present adminis
tration of hubef::. State gxd Kifiofifiéovomme’ma |
—offering as a free peopl t whenever itisde-
M":&* Waflmm the Heads of
the Admiisrason of kb, for thei vigince, de
‘votion to duty, adherence to the constituticn, and
unremitting industry in the discharge of their high
ly responsigle trusts.
Resolved, That among the doctrines of the Dem
ocratic party, the most important is- an abiding ad
herence to the compromises of the Constitution, as
the anchor of safety to the Union itself—while at
the same time none are more opposed than ourselves
to the continuance or wider extension of slavery,
and that we will oppose so great an evil to the
progress of civilization and humanity, whenever a
proper occasion shall arrive, and by every measure
congistent with the Constitution and its compromis
es, and that we deem the imputations of our oppo
nents on that subject too false to be worthy of re
gard, too frivolous to be deserving of answer, too
inconsistent, coming as they do from men who op
pose the concession of an hour’s respite from labor
to our own white laborers of the north, to rise to a
point where they may be reached by any other sen
timent than contempt. For we declare it our sol
emn conviction, as the Democratic party have here
tofore done, that neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude should hereafter exist in any territory
which may be acquired by, or annexed to, the Uni
ted States; and that we approve of th: votes of
our delegation in Congress in favor of the Wilmot
Proviso. : #
Whereas a military force of some sort is essential
to the support of every government; and whereas,
the only natural, sure and proper force for a tyran
ny is a standin% army of hired mercenaries, while
that of a republican government is the militia—the
citizen soldier, Therefore, Resolved, That we are
in favor of sustaimng a well regulated militia, and
of improving the system so that its burdens shall
bear as lighay and uniformly upon the Feople as
possible ; and the conduct of the federal party in
abolishing it in Massachusetts, and the recent at
tempt by the same party in our own State during
their brief ascendency shows their love for a mon
archy, and their hatred for our institutions.
Resolved, That we most cordially approve of the
nomination of His Excellency Jared Vg Williams,
as the candidate for our mnext governor, and we
will exert all honorable means to secure his elec
tion, which we can and will effect.
The next State C.nvention was appointed to be hold
en at Concord on the third Thursday of October, 1848.
The nomination of Electors of President and Vice
President was referred to a Legislative Convention to
be held at Concord the second Thursday in June next,
to which those towns not electing democratic representa
tives are to send delegates.
The following is a list of the State Committee for
the ensuing year :—-George W. Kittredge, Charles San
born, B. W, Jenness, John H. White of Dover, Zenas
Clement, Jeremiah Elkins, Henry B. Rust, Joseph
Wentworth, Nathl. B. Baker, Aaron Whittemore, W.
L. Lane, Israel Hunt, Jr.,, Frederick Vose, Leonard
Biscoe, Virgil Chase, David Allen, N. B. Felton, J. E.
Sargeant, James M. Rix, Nathanie: Kinsman.
The delegates from the several counties also assem
bled and elected county committees, a list of which
will appear in our next paper.
03 Read the able review, from the Washington
Union, of the “third pretext” of Daniel Webster's
late Springfield speech. It is an unanswersble argu
ment to the point contested by the Mexican sympathi
sers, that the Rio Grande was always considered the
true boundary of Texas--even by Mexico herself—and
that the Mexican army invaded our soil. Every friend
of his country should put himself in possession of the
facts in this case, that he may be ready to meet those
who give aid and comfort to the enemy, with uncontro
vertable facts to prove their treachery.
0= Our friend of the Dover Gazette proposes to
commence the next (22d) volume of his paper with
uew type. The Gazette is an able champion of demo
cratic principles, an excellent newspgper, and we are
glad to hear of its prosperity. The or?;' fanlt we have
to find with it, is that the proprietor has put down the
price for a year’s subscription to sl. The paper is worth
more than this, and we do not see how brother Gibbs
keeps it alive at so low a price—much less makes it
prosper. He is favored, however, with a good patron
age in the way of job printing, we believe—a source of
profit to the printer, with which we have not been over
burdened since our connexion with the Gazette &
Union. A yearly patronage of SISOO eor 2000 per.an
num in this line, (instead of say $450,) might enable
us, also, to afford our paper for sl, although there
would still not be much money made we are thinking
0= Dudley S. Palmer accuses Dr. Jewett, late agent
of the New Hampshre Temperance society, of embez
zling its funds! The Dr. shows the charge to be a ma
licous falsehocd, and in a long reply to Palmer, perti
nently enquires of him—* Where, thou notorious slan
derer, is the money you drew from the pockets of hun
dreds of confiding men for your ‘ Plain Dealer 2'—
Twenty-five dollars were sent you from the single town
of Portsmouth, and but one number of the paper was
sent towards the year’s subdcription.” Palmer is one
of the Executive Board of the society, and Dr. Jewett’s
great crime appears to be that he would not prostitute
his office as agent to doing his bidding, and making
the Temperance cause a machine for political election
eering, preferring rather to resign. In our opinion,
however, Dr. J. can reap no laurels from a controversy
with a man “ whom everybody avoids,” as a prominent
whig lawyer at Concord said recently of Palmer.
TaEY SQuirM !—Speaking of the overthrow of Gen.
Colby, and the substitution of N. S. Berry as the fed
eral candidate for governor, the Manchester American,
federal, says:
** We know there are so me Whigs, who are dissatis
fied with this nomination—not because they are un
friendly to the nominee, but because they cannot bear
the thought of even an apparent abandonment of Whig
policy or Whig candidates, or because they fear the effect
of the nomination will be to throw the whole power into the
hands of the Radical party. We confess that such men
do not come to this conclusion, without some reason.
We have doubted the expediency of such a course as
has been pursued—we could not believe it politic, until
the vote was declrred.”
Yet the American promises that * there will be no
resistance made to his [Mr. Berry’s] election save from
the radical party.” It also adds its belief “ that no
man, who is not at heart a Locofoco, will encourage the
election of Mr. Williams in consequence of the action of
the Whig convention. ”
(1> Hon. John P. Robinson, of Lowell, (says the
Boston Post,) a gentleman, a scholar, and a whig, and
a delegate to the Springficld Convention, has written a
letter to the editor of the Worcester Palladium, avow
ing that ke will vote for Caleb Cushing. This is noble
in him. Would to heaven there were enough such
whigs in Massachusetts to bieak the shackles of party
and disenthral the old commonwealth! The demo
crats meet such men more than half way. We applaud
patriotism in them here as we do courage and conduct in
the whigs of the army.
“ ALL THE LEARNING. "—Jeremiah 8. Young, Esq.,
is reported in the N. H. Patriot to have said at the late
Whig State Convention— ~
“ A man who owns 500 slaves can outvote this Conven
tion, and if he owns 1000 HE CAN CAST 600 vOTEs.”
It was with such wholesale misrepresentations as
this, we presume, that Mr. Young (according to the
Journal) ¢ riveted the attention of the audience while
expatiating upon the bad effects of slavery in both its
moral and political bearing.” Mr. Young is entitled
to be called the * learned blacksmith” of the great
whig party, for his skill in manufacturing rivets of this
Borf.
03 The whigs of Berkshire, Massachusetts, passed
the following in their senatorial convention. Itisa
palpable hit at Mr. Webster: :
“Resolved, That as whigs of Berkshire and of Mas
-sachusetts, we will neither directly or indirectly aid in
the elevation of any man to the Chief M istrnc{ of
the Union, 3}:«; has n-t given some other eu"‘gence than
‘profession, that he uagooed to the further extension
of slave territory and slave power.” :
PoriricaL GEMS WORTH PRESERVINGs—Here is
an extract from the speech of Ichabod Goodwin, Esq.
as delivered at the late Whig State Convention, which
we copy from the N. H. Patriot :
* The whigs of New Hampshire have taken their po
sition upon the slavery question, and they mean to
stick to it. I think we should give ne countenance to
any %erson for the Presidency who is not in favor of
the Wilmot Proviso. Ido not say that we may not
be obliged as a matter of expediency to vote for some
other man. The choice maz be between another James
K. Polk—whom the whigs hate and despise—and some
other man, (a southern slaveholder! ) We cannot al
ways have the man of our choice. We have BEFORE
been obliged to vote for others as a matter of expediency,
and we’ve had to do so again to-day. GOD GRANT THAT
WE MAY NEVER AGAIN BE DRIVEN T 0 SUCH CIR
CUMSTANCES,
And here we re-produce Mr.” Goodwin’s reso’ntion,
passed at the anti-abolition meeting held in Jefferson
Hall in 1835:
. “Resolved, That we disclaim all right to interfere.
in the institution of slavery in the Southern states ei
ther directly or indirectly; and that we disapprove and
deprecate all proccedings of individuals or associa
tions, calculated to agitate so irritating a subject—be
lieving that inflammatory discussions of it have a ten
dency to produce more harm than good, jeopardizing
the lives of both the white and black population, and
endangering the safety of the Union.”’ .
Capt. Goodwin’s commercial business with the South
must have fallen oft since 1835.
TaeE New YorRK DEMOCRACY.—A mass convention
of those democrats in New York who refuse to recog
nize the action of the late democratic State Convention
held at Syracuse, (in which they took part but did not
succeed in nominating their candidates and carrying
their ends,) assembled at Herkimer, Oct. 26. Not
more than 300 are said to have been present from coun
ties other than Herkimer. A letter in the N. Y. Herald
says :
Herkimer, N. Y., Oct. 26.-—The democratic mass con
‘vention met to-day at 2 o’clock. President, C. C. Cam
‘breleng. A resolution was offered that the convention
will proceed to nominate a new ticket for state officers.
It was violently opposed by Wilmot, of Pennsylvania,
Van Buren, of New York, and others, and defeated.
Wilmot’s speech was a vindication of his proviso and
a denunciation of its oppcsers. His language was in
cendiary and his delivery passionate. A resolution
was adopted, calling a state convention at Herkimer
on the 22d of Feb., for the appointment of thirty-six
delegates to the Baltimore convention in 1848. Ad
journed at 8 o’clock in the evening.”
Hon. A. C. Flagg, the late Comptroller in New York,
whose name has been connected with the bolting sec
tion of the democratic party (otherwise called * barn
burners,”) is said to have been decidedly opposed to
the assembling of the Herkimer convention.
AN EaArLY ORrGANIZATION.—NoW is the time for
the Democrats to commence organizing in every town
and school district of the State. The State Conven
tion has well begun the work. Let the democracy in
the various towns complete it. With the present ex
tensive disaffection known to exist iu the Whig ranks,
on account of the opposition of the leadcrs of that par
ty to the prosecution of the war with Mexico, and the
overthrow of Gen. Colby to make room for the guber
natorial candidate of the ‘third party,’ the allies cannot
throw 4000 more votes for Berry than the whigs gave
last March for Colby ; that is to say they cannot possi
bly give Berry 25,000. But with the proper effort and
organization, the Democrats can give Gov. Williams
2or 3000 more than he received last March. We can
give him say 82.000, and beat the allied army by an
old fashioned majority of from 7,000 to 10,000. With
anything like the effort which we put forth last March,
Mr William’s elec.ion is a moral certainty. But the
great trial of the oppgsition will be to carry a majonty
in the next legislature and thereby elect James Wilson
U. 8. Senator, leaving a Congressional vacancy which
shall be filled by John Preston, late third party candi
date, in the 8d district. In Ihis too; they are destined
to a severe defeat, if the democracy begin to organize
early and do their whole duty.
0= Gen. Joseph Low, who was a whig candidate
for elector in 1844, appeared at the Democratic State
Convention last Thursday, as one of thc\delegaws from
Concord. We were glad to see him there, coming, as
he did last spring, into the democratic ranks, not while
in the ascendency, but while in a minority. He fought
under his country’s flag during the last war with Great
Britain ; and:now, as then, he sustains its defenders in
the war with Mexico, which has invaded one of the
sovreign states of this Union, and murdered citizens of
the Uaited States.
0= The following, says the Philadelphia Ameri
can, was the patriotic language of Henry Clay in the
brief but eloquent speech made during his recent visit
to Philadelphia :
There is,” gaid he, “ gentlemen, one thing before
we part, which I wish you to remember. Tuis GrO
RIOUS AND BEAUTIFUL LAND IS OUR COMMON COUN
TRY—IN PEACE OR IN WAR—IN WEAL OR IN WOE—
UNDER BAD ADMINISTRATION OR GOOD GOVERNMENT.
REMEMBER TO STAND BY IT.”
What a stinging rebuke to the Corwin whigs. How
the admonition to “ stand by the country,” must grate
on their nerves.
SieNlrlcANT—~The Washingtou National Intelli
gencer, which professes to be decidedly hostile to the
principles of the Wilmot Proviso, thus lauds the reso-
Intions passed by the New Hampshire Whigs in their
recent State Convention :
“We have never hapfiened to meet with any expres
sion of opinion by a public assembly more distinctly
exhibiting at once the intelligence, the spirit, aud the
port of Freemen, than the following resolutions, unan
imously adopted at the Whig Convention lately held
in the State of New Hampshire. Well done, Whigs of
the Granite State !”
03 We have it upon the authority of the Manches
ter American, that “ Mr. Berry does not declare him
self a whig.” Still those men in New Hampshire, who
profess to believe with Daniel Webster, that “in the
dark and tempestuous storm ” &c. there is no salva
tion for the country * but the great Whig party,” must
vote for Berry, the candidate of the Abolitionists !
0 Hon. J. P. Robinson, of Lowell, who has come
out for Gen. Cushing for Governor of Massachusetts
was the whig candidate for Congress in the 3d district,
in 1842,
0™ “ Texas, neither conquered nor purchased, walk
ed into our Union by sovereign compact and agree
ment.” So says Gov. A. V. Brown, whig governor of
Tennessee.
The New Hampshire whig convention passed a
resolution recommending Danil Webster to the na
tional convention as a cardidate for the presidency.
This brings him in direct collision with John P.
Hale, whom the whigs of New Hampshire elected
to the U. S. senate, and whom the ligerty conven
tion in Bnfl'alo nominated for President by a vote
df 108 to 44 for Gerrit Smith and 12 scattering.—
The struggles of these giant minds and favorite
sons of New Hampshire in the senate will be terri
ble, and their wrestling before the people fearfull
sublime. They will play at shuttrecock witfi
;l)\e thunderbolts of the V\%lmot proviso.—Bostor.
ost. |
RewArp OoF TrEAsON.—The Federal State
Convention of New Hampshire assembled last Wed
nesday at Concord, and nominated Nathaniel S.
Berry for Governor. Mr. Berry was formerly a
Democrat—then an Abolitionist—then an Indepen
dent Democrat—and now he_ is—Heaven pity
him |—a Federalist. *“Every man bas his price, ”
it is said. We doubt the general application, al
though it is true sometimes. -We trust the people
of New Hampshire will see that this Berry is pluck
‘ed from the tree of its ambition.—Poriand Ar
qus.
’ “ The leading whigs in and out of the city [of Bos
ton] care very little about the Wilmot proviso, the
Mexican war, the extension of slavery, or any thing
else. except high xricea, fat dividends, and the chances
of office in the millennial day of a whig presidency. "—
Edmund Quincy.
- From the Washington Union. 3
Mr, Webster’s Mexican Speecli—His third
¢“Pretext’’ —““Execative War.”
From the commencement of the existing war with
Mexico, until the present time, the leaders and presses
of the federal party have labored with a zeal and a
perseverance worthy of a better cause, to impress npon
the American people the belief that the President was
the author of the war, that he commenced it, by his
own act, for the base ard unwerthy motive of securing ‘
his re-election ; that, having been commenced by the
President, by his own wanton and unauthorized act,
the war is unconstitutional; that Congress enacted ai
“lie,” (to use their own * decent ” phrase,) when it vo
ted that ** war existed by the act of Mexico;” that 1
Mexico is the wronged and injured party ; and some
of them go so far as to say that we should ma<e rep
aration to that injured nation for the wrongs we have
committed upon ker. This has been the constant
clamor of the federal press since the war began; it 1
was the burden of the speeches of the advocates of |
Mexico in Congress. somz of them being the very men
~who veted this * lie” which they now so vehemently |
repudiate ; and it was the burden of a good share ofl
Mr. Webster’s speech at Springfield. |
To apply one of the expressions of his own speech
-to himself—mutatis mutandis—changing what should
‘be changed—that eminent advocate of Mexico—the
’ most eminent, certainly, of all that belong to Mexico in
this country—so eminent, that, if Mexico were not a
Joreign power, it would strike us rather oddly that Mex
ico does not belong to Zim, rather than ke to Mexico,—
wc mean, of course, Mr. Webster—has, in his “ pro
nunciamento,” pronounced at Springfield in behalf of
that government, declared that the war was “ uncon
stitutional in its origin "—that it was “a war of pre
texts "—that it was an “ Executive war ”—that “ the
Executive (that is, the President) plunged the govern
ment into the war, and undertook to justify it on the
three *“ pretexts ” which this Mexican apologist specifi
cally assigns and sets gforth in the beforementioned
* pronunciamento.” Two of these “ pretexts "—name
ly, the claims of our citizens upon Mexivo, and her
refusal to receive a minister—we have already proved
to be misrepresentations and calumnies, deliberately ut
tered, inasmuch as Mr. Webster pretended to refer to
“ facts and circumstances ” in proof of his allegations.
The ‘¢ pretext ” remaining to be considered, is, the as
sertion of the President, in his war message of May
11th, 1846, that Mexico had invaded the territory of
' the United States, and “‘shed American blood upon
| American soil,” thus causing war to exist by her own
|act. To this averment Mr. Webster, in behalf of Mex
ico, puts in the plea of not guilty, ” tendering the issue
with a flat contradiction of the assertion of the Presi
dent in the following words: * Now, in my jndgment,
this [the invasion of our territory, &c.] is not the case. *
Paredes or Santa Anna could not Lave becn more di
rect and pointed. Mr. Webster prcceeds to say that
l the march of the troops to the eastern bank of the Rio
Grande was the occasion of the spilling of American
blood, and that territory was claimed by Mexico. Mr.
Webster asks, ** Was that American soil 77 and adds,
* That was soil claimed by the United States, but
which Congress had nmever recognised. It was claim
ed by Mexico as firmly as the city of Mexico itself,
and was, at that time, in the actual possession of Mexi
co.” And he draws the conclusion, that the invasion
was on the part of the United States; that the Presi
dent caused it, by marching the troops without author
lity to the Rio Grande; thas he, therefore, originated
| the war, thus making it an unconstitutional © Execu
l tive war; ” and that Mexico stands before the world,
{ in regard to this matter, justitied and with hands clean.
l This is the argument of Mexico’s great special pleader
and advocate in this country.
The justification or culpability of the President, and
the truth or falsity of Mr. Webster’s charge, depend
upon the single question, whether or not the territory of
Texas extended to the Rio Grande? In discussing this
subject, we waive, for the present, the question wheth
er or not the war grew out of the annexation of Tex
as. The President was not responsible for that. It
was the act of Congress; and if annexation caunsed the
war, Congress was the author of It, and not the Presi
dent.
The true question, then, is, did the territory of Texas
extend to the Rio Grande? Because, if it did, having
become, by annexation, one of the sovereizn States of
the Union. the President was bound by his constitu
tional obligations to defend it from invasion, and of
course had the right to occupy any part of it with the
troops of the United States, whatever might be the
consequences result'ng from such oceupation.
In the first place, we will consider the cffect of the
act of annexation Before that event took place, Tex
as had passed a law defining her boundary ; and accor
ding to that law, which was a declaration of her claim
to the whole world, her territory and jurisdiction ex
tended to the Rio Grande. Claiming the Rio Grande
for her bonndary with Mexico, she treated with other
nations, entering into relations of amity and commerce
with them, and finally agreeing to a compact of annex
ation with the United States. The Coungress of the
United States, of course, in passing the act of annexa
tion, took Texas as she claimed to be, with her domin
ion extending to the Rio Grande. This government
was, thercfore, in good faith to Texas, bound to pre
sume that her limits, thus defined, were her true limits,
until the contrary should be made to appear, and to de
rend and maintain her dominion and authority within
those limits; and, as the chief executive officer of the
Union, this duty fell upon the President. In this view
of the question, therefore, is the President justified. If
any person or body is in fault, it is Congress itself,
which failed, before passing the act of annexation, to
ascertain precisely, what were the rightful limits of
Texas.
But we do not rest the jnstification of the President
upon this ground. We contend, and will endeavor to.
show, that the territory of Teras did rightfully and ac
tually extend to the Rio Grande ; and that, after annexa
tion, that portion of it between the Nueces and the Rio
Grande, being a part of one of the sovereign States of
this Union, the President had the right not only to
send the troops of the United Srates there, but it was
his constitutional duty to defend it from invasion by the
troops of a foreign power.
To sustain this proposition, we first cite the acts of
Mexico herself, or of those of her agents who were
clothed with her authority, and acted in her behalf.
We first begin with Santa Anna. After the defeat
of this Mexican hero at the ever-memorable battle of
San Jacinto, Santa Anna and his generals, then pris
oners in the hands of the Texans, on the 14th day of
May, 1836, entered into a treaty with David G. Bur
net, the President of Texas, in which he acknowledged
the independence of that revolted province, and agreed
that her southwestern boundary should be the Rio
Grande, jfrom the mouth to tits source, and thence north to
latitude 42 deqrees.
The following are the principal stipulations of the
treaty :
“ Articles of agreement and solemn compact made
and adopted by David G. Burnet, President of the re
public of Texas, and the undersigned, members of the
cabinet thereof, on the one part; and Don Antonio
Lopez de Santa Anna, President of the republic of
Mexico, and Don Vicente Filisola, general of division,
Don Jose Urrea, Don Joaquin Ramiresy Sesma, and
Don Antonio Gaona, generals of brigades of the armies
of Mexico. 3 ;
“4th. That the President, Santa Anna, in his offi
cial capacity as chief of the Mexican nation, and the
generals Don Vicente Filisola, Don Jose Urrea, Don
Joagnin Ramires y Sesma, and Don Antonio Gaona,
as chie s of armies, do solemnly acknowledge, sanction.
and ratify the full, entire, and perfect independence of
the republic of Texas, with such boundaries as are
hereafter set forth and agreed upon for the same.”
Article sth stipulates for the boundary above men
tioned ; and other articles stipulate for the return of
Santa Anna to Mexico, and the release of the officers
and the release of the officers and soldiers of the Mex
ican army captured at San Jacinto, amounting to 4.000
men, who were all permited to retuin to Mexico |
Now, against this treaty, it cannot be objected that
Santa Anna had no authority to make it; for the rea
son, that he was at that time not only the President,
but the dictator of Mexico.
Nor can it be ohjected against the validity of the
treaty, that Santa Anna was at that time under duress,
and, not being his free and voluntary act, it was there
fore n»t binding on Mexico : for the reason, that he and
the government of Mexico availed themselves of all the ten
efits of this treaty, and therefore became bound, whatey
er might have been the circumstances under which it
was made, upon every sound principle of ethics and
of law, to fulfil their part of its stipulations. Santa
Anna had been released and returncd home. The
Mexican army had also been released and returned
home. Mexico had, by the stipulations of this treaty,
and their faithful observance by Texas, recovered her
President and her army. Could she, then, turn round
and say that she would not abide by the stipulations of
a treaty, all the benefits of which she had enjoyed,
while Texas had enjoyed none? Who but a Mexican.
or an advocate of h%exico in this country, would con
tend for such unsound and immoral doctrine 2 Every
right-minded man will say that Mexico, by availing
herself of the henefits of the treaty thereby rutified it.
We might rest our argument here; but we choose to
go farther, and cite other facts in support’of our prop
osition. We will call another Mexican witness to the
stand, and see what he has to say. We cite an gxtr
from the urder o::h G'e;;. Woll, in eommflfid‘fim'fi
ican army ou the frontiers of Texas, under g; |
June 20, 1844. After announcing ;m’s“p; t ":{3l
the armistice between Mexich_anflg Texas, anb declar I
ing what shall be the punishment of persons holding
communication with the peaple of Texas, he e on
in another paragraph, and fixes the line beyond which
is regarded as territory of the enemy—-tm is, Texas.-
It is in these words : :
“3. Every individual who may be found at a distance
of one ]engne from the left bank of the Rio Bravo, will
be regarded as a fuvorer and accomplice of the usurpers
of that part of the national territery, and as a traitor
of his country ; and, after a summary military trial, shall
receive the above punishment.’’
Thus the President and dictator of Mexico stipulat
ed in 1836 that Texas should be free and independent,
and that her territory should extend to the Rio Grande ;
and eight years after, a Mexican general, in a military
order, recognises the same boundary, and thus tessifies
to the general sense of the Mexican government and
nation, that Texas did extend to the Rio Grande. If
not, why declare all persons enemies who resided on
the Texas side of that river ?
Again, the fact is notorious, that, through the mach
nations of the governments of England and France,
with a view to defeat annexation, Mexico again ac
knowledged the independence of Texas, on condition
that she would not annex herself to any other nation,
withount any qualification of the claim of the latter of
sovereiznty and dominion to the Rio Grande.
And here, again, we might rest our argument upon
the admissions of Mezxico alone ; but we choose to fortify
it impregnably by other testimony. We cite our own
illustrious statesmen.
Mr. Jefferson always claimed Texas as a part of*
Louisiana, which he had puarchased from France. and
that the boundary of the latter extended to the Rio-
Grande. Mr. Madison, when Secretary of State, in a
letter dated March 31, 1804, expressing his own views
and those of Mr. Jefferson, says that Louisiana ‘“‘ex
tended westwardly to the Rio Bravo, [Rie Grande,}
otherwise called the Rio del Norte.” In another letter
dated January 31. 1804, Mr. Madison declares that the
French minister, Mr. Lausat, who delivered the posses
sion of Louisiana to the United States, announced the:
“Del Norte as the true boundary.” .
In a letter dated November 8, 1803, Mr. Monroe, them
our minister to France, encloses documents whicle
“prove incontestibly” that the boumndary of Louisiana is<
“the Rio Bravo [[‘l{ io6° Grande] of the west” Mr. Pinck
ney expressed a similar opinion, when Mr. Monroe was-
Secretary of State; in letters dated January 19; 1816;
and June 10, 1816, he says none could question “our
title to Texas,” and asserts “that our title to the Del Norte
was as clear as to the island of New Orleans.”
John Quincy Adamg in his letter to Don Onis, the*
Spanish Minister, dated March 12, 1818, says: *7The
claim of France did always extend westward to the Rio-
Bravo!” “Slhe claimed the territory which you call
Texas as being within the limits, and forming a part
of Louisiana.” And again, Mr. Adams says, in a let--
‘ter dated October 31, 1818, that our title to Texas is
“established beyond the power of further controversy.”
M:. Benton. in a letter published by him in the Globe
of May 10, 1844, savs: * Before the establishment of
this boundary. [the Sahine,] all the country to the west
of ths lower Mississippi, quite to the Rio del Norte, was
ours.
Mr. Clay, in his Raleigh letter of April 17, 1844,
says: The United States acquired a title to Texas,
extending. as [ believe, to the Fio del Norte, by the treaty
of Louisiana.” In a speech delivered in 1819, Mr.
Clay made substantially the same declaration.
We also cite the additional facts. that election dis
tricts were created by the legislature of Texas between
the Nueces and the Rio Grande. the territerypwhich is
claimed for Mexico by her adherents in this country ;
and those districts were represented in that body ; also,
that the Congress of the United States, after annexa
tion had been consummated, included Corpus Christi,
which is beyond the Nueces within the collection dis
trict of Galveston—the bill for the pupose having been
reported by John Davis, of Massachusetts, from the
Committee on Commerce of the Senate. Congress al
so passed a law establishing a mai route to Corpus
Christi, within the limits of the disputed territory.—
(Sce acts of the 2d session 28th Cong.)
We have thus proved that Texas claimed the Rio
Grande as her boundary; that Mexico, by her Presi
dent, (Santa Anna.) and by Gen. Woll, and subse
quently a third time, at the instigation of England aud
France, acknowledged the Rio Grande to be the true
boundary of Texas ; that before it was ceded to Spain,
as well as snbsequently, the Rio Bravo, or Del Norte,
(the Rio Grande being the same) was claimed as the
true boundary of Texas by Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madi
son, Mr. Monroe, Mr. Pinckney, Mr. Adams, Mr. Ben
ton, and Mr. Clay; and that, after annexation, Con
gress established a custom-house and a post-route be
tween the Nueces and Rio Grande, in territory claim
ed by thre adherents of Mexico ,to belong to her—thus
rccognising the claim of Texas to that territory, Mr.
Welister's assertion to the contrary, notwithstanding.
In view of this array of facts, can auy one deny that
the territory between the Nueces and the Rio Grande
was a part of Texas, and that, after annexation, it be
came a part of the Union? And had mot the Presi
dent the right to march the troops of the United States
to any part or place on this side of the Rio Grande ?
And, if invaded by a forcign power, was he not bound
by his constitutional obligations to defend that portion
of the territory of Texas, and to repel the invaders
from it? These questions must be answered in the affir
mative.
-Now, was there not a sufficient reason for the march
of the troops to the Rio Grande ? Was there not dan
ger of invasion by the army of Mexico? Did she not
threaten war on account of the annexation of Texas ?
And did she not actually concentrate her troops on the
borders of Texas, and finally pass over the Rio Grande,
and slay our citizens on this side of that river,
The affirmative is true of all these questions. Gen
e al Almounte declared that his government regarded
annexation as equivalent to a declaration of war by the
United States against Mexico; and for that eause de
manded his passports and returned home. Paredes
made war with the United States for the recovery of
Texas the ground of his * pronunciamento” against Her
rera. And Paredes’s Secretary of Foreign Affairs, M.
Castillo y Lanzas, in a communication to Mr. Slidell,
declares it to be a casus belli. He thus speaks of the
annexation of Texas:
“ A fact such as this—or, to speak with greater ex
actness, so notable an act of usurpation—created an
imperious necessity that Mexico, for her own honor,
should repel it with proper firmness and dignity. The
supreme government had before declared that it would
look upon such an act as a casusbelli ; and, as a con
sequence of this declaration, negotiation was by its
very nature at an end, and war was the only recourse of
the Mezican government.”
And, finally. a Mexican army appeared upon the
borders of Texas, invaded the soil of that State, attack
ed our troops on this side of the Rio Grande, wound
ing and killing them ; thus carrying into exccution the
threats of Mexico, and thus commencing the war, as
the President truly asserted in his war message, by
* her own act.”
~ Thus is the President triumphantly -vindicated by
the testimony of irrefragable facts, and the prodigious
Sulschood of the federal press and federal I@aders in the
interest of Mexicoy that the President commenced the
war, utterly disproved.
Mr Webster’s remaining “ pretext” also falls to thie
ground ; and his assertions that the war was an “Exe
cutive war,” and an ‘‘anconstitutional war,” because
the President “ plunged the government into it,” with
out the consent of Congress are proved to be, like his
other * pretexts ” and * after-thoughts,” misrepresenta
tions and calamnies—disgraceful to any one but u Mex
ican or a recreant American, who recklessly braves the
shame and infamy which justly attach to tg".‘ moral
traitor,” wko gives “aid and comfort ” to the ememy, so
far as he may, withont incurring the dread.?enalt
which follgws the commission ot ¢he * overt%..‘flg
intend to hold these Mexican adherents and apologists,
big and little, up to the scorn and reprobation of the
American people. They have a foretaste of she sen
tence that awaits them, fn the doom of the “moral
traitors ” of the last war. One generation has passed
away since the great moral crime of the latter was eom
mitted, and yet its blighting curse clings to the political
fortunes of all their descendants. Let the &:xican
syrapathizers take warning.
~ TeRRIRLE RAILROAD AccipENT.—On Wed
‘nesday afternoon an engine with two cars, loaded
with rails for the track, undertook to pass for the
first time, over the new bridge over Miller’s 1 river,
between South Reyalton amfe Athol, on the Ver.
mont and Maseachusetts Railroad. Owing to im
perfect iron bolts, the bridge gdfe way, and the
train was precipitated into the stream. Mr. Wood
bury, the engineer, Messrs. Thompson, ntoon
and Benjamin King, of Acton, and Mr. Wiley. of
Baldwinsville, were killed, and it is said also #neth
er man, name not reported. , Mp. Alfred A. Whit
‘temore, of Baldwinsville; ticket-maister, MrWhit
ney, of Charlestown, and Mr. A, M. Reynolfs, em
ployed on the road, are badliy injured ; Mr.Pateh,
of Littleton, fireman, was less hurt, and géveral
others were slightéy wounded. - The brige mas
built by Boody & Stone, and will be f“:
season for the proposed opening of the froad to
Athol.—Post. B:i8
_,Oafie"f‘nh,aa Mr, Sawyer, a young gentijgian.
was Tiding at & very fast rate to sce a femalf®ec
gisiyiecth ;‘:MWWM; cho SEpw- -
u inat the egrapwm,-fl%b >
i’fi”@.fiufi"f:gm dw:-' e wigtged
vered for the purpose of muking erifih
repuirson thedine. - Lame A