The Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1837-1867, 1841-08-24
The Greed OF LOco-FOcOIsHm.
In relation to q Pr0teGtioe Tariff.


ernment by double. dealing and fraud upon the
subject of Protection. In the contest of 1928, Gen,
Jackson refused to answer any inquiries with re-
gard to this subject, but referred the friends OF
Tariff to letter he had written to DIR. Coleman of
North Carolina, expressly asserting and defending
the doctrine of Protection. In the North he was
urged as a Tariff man the South as for "Free
Trade" The Vermont Patrlot-a leading organ
Of the party, edited by brother of Isaac Hill
headed its editorial tcket-"FOr Gen. Jmcksom and
a Protectiue Tariff The New York Legislature
of 1897 e-srongly Jackson-passed resolutions
in favor OF Protection, by vote Of 81 to 3. Martin
Van Buren, and nearly all the Northern Jackson
members Of Congress voted tor the Tariff Of 1885,
the most ultra-P Protective measure ever passedand
farther than any party believes it necessary TO go
hereafter. All this time Messrs Richie, Calhoun
and Cambreleng kept the South in the faith that
this was mere sham-that it was necessary to HUI
NOR the North till after Election, and then the
leaders would come out against Protection. They
were right! The North hood winked and
caught, and Now York, Pennsylvania and Ohio
aided TO elevate an Administration upon the ruins
Of their own producing interests. For few years
the Jackson party kept up the hide and seek game;
but w hen they did GU. it decidedly
foes to every thing like favor toAmercan Interests.
Witness the following Resolution unanimously u,
dop,ed at the great Tory Charter breaking Mass
Meeting in the Park:
"Resolyed That we pro test against Pr otcctiUs
Tariff ID because it is unauthorized by the consti
tuition; (2) because it taxes tho great mass of the
community for the benefit of few wealthy manu-
facurers, (3) because il depresses individual enter
prise and promotes the spirit of monopoly; (4) be-
cause 1t is deietenous 10 the interests of the COM
merce; ~ because il reards Improvement; (6)!be-
cause it generates an expansion and consequent de
probation of the currency; (7) because 1t produces
an extravagant expenditure inconsistent with Re-
publican Government; (S) because il leads to Ma
iional debt; (9) because free people need no oth-
er protection than to be lei alcne N0) because it
is narrow m inded policy, which might have been
congena TO the dark ages, bat in no way is 1t in
accordance with the liberal principles of the pres
ent age.
We have rarely seen so many vital mistakes of
fact and much defiance of common sense crowd
ed into one paragrsph.-Let US examine il:
as The Tory Resolution asserts that Protec-
tive Tariff is Unauthorized by the Constitution"
DO the concoctors happen to know that the
ny first Tariff law enacted under the Federal Con
s,ution in 1859, Just after its formation, and while
the universal discussion of its principles and pro-
visions in the Federal and State Conventions
still fresh in the public mind-enacted, too, by
discussions commenced with this preamble:
"Whereas, it is necessary for the support of Gov
eminent, for the discharge of The debts ofS,he U.
States, and for the cucOur0 ent aud protection of
nadnufa ctureS, TINT duties be laid on goods, and
wares, and merchandise, imported, therefore,"
&c.
Need any thing be said this point?
g Baseless asseron contradcted by every fac
in the history Of our country.-The Tariff of 2S
was not Uoted for by the Representatives of the
"wealthy manufacturers" 1t was carried by votes
representing the farmers of Vermont, New York,
Pennsy vania, and Ohio, and its instant effect was
to create ready ket and increased price for
their wool, grain, provisions, labor, sc. The
manu facturers who dread increase Of domestic
competition and a rise Of the price Of wool and 9th
er materials, not eager for higher duties. Eve
ry other producing interest feels the benefit of Pro-
lection quite much as theirs.
3. "Depresses individual enterprse!' What IN
erpse has been depressed by either of our increas
ed Tariffs? Can the Park economists point TO a
single fact in support of their bare assertion? Does
not every intelligent man know that an impulse 81
broader field has uniformly been given TO individ
ual enterprise upon the passage Of each Tariff pro-
;ection?-We appeal to the statistics of the coun-
try.
as, ,7,8. These several assertions completely
merce and rearts Improvement, then it manifestly
does not lead TO expansion of the currency; for
currency expansions, always coincident with
an increased activity in commerce and improve.
ment When the currency is expanded, then cit
les founded, edifices built, canals dug, ships
employed and richly freighted, &C., &c. So with
z and 8. IfProtecuon leads TO extravaganza expen
diture, it must be because it overfows the Treasu-
ry, in which case it cannot siead TO a National
debt" but the contrary Even the Park states.
men cannotbe ignorant that the heavy Nationa
debt incurred during last war was mainly
paid off under the Protective Tariffs of 1894 and
'2S. What, then, becomes of their assertions?
! A"free people need no other protection than &c
be lei alone" Well, gentlemen, suppose other ma
tons will not tet us alone-what then? To pu
the case in your eye-Suppose Algiers or Moroc
CO insist on capturing every American vessel the
cruisers can overhau the merchants send up 5
prayer to Congress for protection. "Nonsense !''ir
terposes Messrs. Varian, Vanderpool and Harr,