Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1842-06-20
DOUBLE DEALING EXPOSED.
Who could sacrifice The Wool- Gropers ?

Who could sacrifice The WOOL Gro,UerS
The Vermont locofoco Stale Convention resol-
we'd that the Wigs ure for protecting inanufac
lures by sacrificing the woo-grower. Now be it
known, that tue boot is on the other leg. The
locofoco minority of the committee on Manufac-
lures, Caldwell of S. c. and Brown of Tennes-
see, locofocos, and Habershnm of Geo, an anti
tariff Whig,) have made report which is nov
before us. They are opposed to protective tar.
itf--a revenue tariff only will suit them; never
theless they forced to admit that manufactures
should not be entirely abandoned, and so they
propose to benefit manufactures BY reducing The di-
ty on the rat0 materiai! They propose to strike
out the very best part of Mr.. Saltonsal's duty on
tcool (he cents specfc,) leaving only % per Ct.
al valorem aud then have the hardihood to say,
that the reduced duty will give protection e.
nough to the raW material, We quote from the
report:
"The duty on ,coo', by the proposed (Sallon
slall'sl bill, is % per cent. ad vaorem, and cents
per pound. Strike off The 4 cents, and you add to
the profits of the wool factory in Duchess
County above referred TO-, $1,000 or per cent.
on the capital, aud still leave 20 per cent. nd va
loren, az protection TO the wool grower"
They further reduce the duty on pig iron and
leather, avowedly for the benefit OF blacksmith,
and shoe makers,-of course at the expense of
iron mongers and lanners,-a then add:
"Reduce The duty on ALL OTHER RAW MA
TERIALS used in MANUFACTURES 10 rerenue duty,
and you relieve all other branches Of MANUFACTURED
Still again they say;
"If then, the manufactures Of wool, iron, and
leather, are really in the distressed condition in
which they are represented 10 be, we may, with
out destroying the factories, give them essential
relief By reducing The duty on the material, by
subiecting it to a moderate duty only, instead OF
a duty OF exclusion, as in the three cases | have
named"
Such is the locofoco mode of protecting manu-
features, except cottOns: here they transfer the
burden to the iaJorerS in The factories. We shall
quote more fully ere long in the mean time read
this:
But it will he said if this is really tho state
the raw material Of the cotton manufacturer, lher
the relief 10 he afforded to him must I've by othe
means than by reducing the duty on the raw una
terial. The other mode which presents itself is
BY A REDUCTION IN THE PRICE OF LA
| Dor. The necessity tor this we leave entirely Il
the decision OF the manufacturers themselves, ant
those whom they employ. They know best wlla
rate Of wages they eau afford 10 pay out of thei
profits and we, the consumers, only ask, that
| they pay wages three times as high as paid il
England or on the continent Tor The same services
they will pay it out Of their own pockets, and no
abstract il from us by way of high protection
Here, then, we present our readers with direct
conclusive, and incontroveribe proof, that it il
the organs Of the locofocos in Congress, if any
body, who are for sacrificing the farmers, wool
growers and laborers.
Oh, how very, rery honest-or how ignorant
were the ocofoco resolution makers. Let then
consult their leaders in Congress before they un
dertake to manufacture charges of this kind a
gainst the Wings.