Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1841-09-06
TAX ON TEA AND COFFEE-AGAIN.

The Infamous Globe pretends that the Wings in
Congress were not obliged to include tea and cof-
Gee in the revenue bill, because, forsooth, an a.
mendment was subsequently entertained to ex
empt salt alone. II this proves any thing, it is or
Iy that the wings might have repeated their at
tempt to exempt tea and coffee. What if they
had done this? The moment the Wings moved
to exempt tea and coffee alone, some olocofoco
would move TO tack on to the same amendment,
some other article which needs protection, and
they would carry it by voting for it to man,
and getting the aid Of the anti-tarif Wings
knowing that when thus carried, some OF the
Wings, who are for protection, would 60 against
the whole amendment, rather than include in the
free list an article of domestic produce which
needs protection. This the game when The
Wings actually proposed to exempt tea and coffee;
and the same game would have been pursued
every successive attempt. The fact is, the loco
members were bent upon taxing coffee and tea,
! for the single purpose of rendering the revenue
| bill odious. 1t was the sheer trick of an unprin-
cipled faction, and nothing but trick. Why did
| Clifford, northern an,-move to tack on sugar,
salt and molaSses Gall articles which can be pro-
teclion against British sugar, salt and moasses,)
With tea and coffee, il it not to get the represent
tatves of the sugar and moasses interest in Lou
isiana, and Of the salt interest in New York 10
vote against the ,chole amendment Why did
not the Iocofocos unite with the Wings, when the
4 latter proposed TO exempt tea and coffee simply,
and thus makesure of getting tea aud coffee free
at any rate? They could then try molasses,
gar and salt in a separate amendment. Had they
done this the vote TO exempt tea and coffee would
have been unanimous. But no they intended 10
force the Wings to tax tea and coffee, and for this
purpose, they tackled OH the other articles. The
ocos meant 10 keep tea and coffee in the bill they
meant to do it, solely 10 give the infamous Globe
and its echoes n chance to abuse the Wings. Their
motive is clear as the sunlight. Had they really
, meant to make tea and coffee free, they would at
once have voted for that amendment alone, with
the Wings and having secured that, they could
then have tried the other articles in separate a.
1 mendments. Never did Il actious minority do a
more infamous trick than this defeat Wing n
mendment to exempt tea and coffee, by putting
i on riders, and then turn round and charge The
Wings with the responsibility of their own mis-
erubly mean and contemplate act This is loco
i toco nieanness; my, wckedDcss. The locoioco
e actors in that scene trfed with their oalhs. We
have only TO add that the Globe,-by showing that
r distinct amendments could be presented after The
}, first amendment was rejected prores too much
" Why did not the locos propose distinct amend
ment, making tea and coffee free, if they wished
h to have them free? This would have put the is
J. sue fairly; hut this is what The locos did not do
l. They would not do ii, for the simple reason thai
e the Wings would vote for it, and thus deprive
o the locos of The chance Of complaining about q
d TAX on tea and coffee.