Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1842-06-13

gainst protection. Still again. they conceal the
fact that protection to manufactures is substantial
ly protection TO agriculture, il affords agrcul-
ture market. Finally, to cop the climax of de-
cepon, naked extract is quoted from certain
resolutions of q Massachusetts convention, de-
claring that "duty on the raw material is q tax
on The manufacturer" From this they force the
inference that this convention was opposed TO pro
tecting the raw material. Such WIS not the fact,
as to that convention and such is not the just
aud true inference from tho resolution quoted. 1t
being true that duty on the raw material is Tux
on the manufacturer, the only inference is tina,
the manufacturer ought to receive a degree of
protection sufficient to enable him 10 meet this
tax. If he does not he necessarily ceases manu-
taclurng and the market for the raw material is
Mt an end.
Such is the fimsy and deceptive character Of
the premises on which the resolutions makers found
their false accusation. We dismiss this branch
without comment, and pass to the second thing
designed, which is, TO represent The locolocos as
the peculiar friends OF Protection Here, too, is
a lack of the very kind of proof which is most
necessary. DO they go to the Journals of pnst
Cougresses--to tho yeas and nays-to the reports
and speeches and do they show any measure of
protection which locof ocoS in Congress have pre-
sened? Oh, no. all this sort Of evidence is en-.
tirely the other way; yea, at this moment, when
they unlustly complain of Mr.. Saltonslnll's bill,
we throw this in their tcelh-ther party IN Con.
gresS oppose The bill because il gires TOO much pro-
lection Thrown thus, 10y lack of materials from
abroad, upon their own meagre resources, they
resolve in favor of protection to wool, and endorse
one Of the resolutions of our last legislature. 1t
is the one which, their presses claim, limits tar
1T to revenue, leaving protection merely inciden-
tai. As TO wool, they ure for once right We
thank them for that single expression of favor !;
and would double our thanks, did they not put
the whole ground of protection oil so precarious
foundation as to defeat the hopes not only Of
the wool-growing, but every other interest Bear
ing in mind that the ocos are endeavoring to prove
themselves the particular and only orthodox
friends Of protection we ask-why did they pass
by all The resolutions Of the legislature, save the
only one which is capable Of misconsruclion ?
Why could they not agree to that, which declares
protection to Industry as necessary us protection
est prolectonists would have naturally sought to
place themselves on the highest and broadesl
ground; bu, they had reason. They are not
themselves, ard they know their leaders are not
proteclioniss they unwilling to Take the bold
manly, and true Wing ground, .tor Protection al
any rate ; and hence they endeavor to bring the
Wigs dopn to their standard by skulking behind
4
legislature.
We have minated that there is no honesty in
these locofoco professions. Read and Judge 20
ut their last state convention, the following res
olulion was unanimously Adopted
"Resolred That the true principle Of the Federal
Government is to c0nfne It's action 10 The objects
SPECIFICALLY enumerated IN the Constitution,
LEAVING INDUSTRY TO TAKE CARE OF
ITSELF"
That was their unanimous and explicit decla
ton of what They called TRUE PRINCIPLE
last year. 1t covers the whole anti-Tarif ground,
reaching even 10 the constitutional objection OF
the most ultra opponents Of Protection. Calhoun
goes no far,lIer--ihe bindost devotees of slave
ocracy 20 no farther-than thus to say that the
government has no constitutional power grant
u
must project itself! And with this perfect deca-
ration of enmlly to all protection by the govern
ment, they nominated Smile and Barber and Bal.
dwin to carry out their principles, SO far as con.
Germs Vermont Behold now, The convention Of
1912, attempting unbushingly to palm itself of
as the exclusive friends of protection, and ye
nominating the same ticket,-wilhout either re
,l,o:.
ting even that their candidates have changed ille
views. When were the locofoco leaders play i'm!
the hypocrite and deceving the people? Wer'
they for protection last year, when they resolve,
against protection or are they enemies Of pro
lection ,OW, when they resolve in favor OF protec
ton' Again we say-judge ye. But we hav'
not even now slated this matter strong enough
sustained that ultra anli-tarff resolution last year
and it is the same Barber who now, without re
penlance Of this damnng political sn is present
ed to the people as candidate for Lieutenant Gov
ernor Can plainercase of deception aud doub
lie dealing be imagined We submit the qucs
ton 10 our readers
PUBLIC LANDS.
we nave airehuy ueVoleu cohsiueEhoie siace
these resolutions, but from the connection of I'll
land question with that Of protection, we mu'
now give the following:
Resoiped. Tha, we regard the Laad Disirlbl
ton Bill passed by the extra session OF Congre'
| in lS4l, as not only wrong in principle but unJu
in its operation, creating il does, deficiency
the Revenue of the General Government, whc
r will have 10 be supplied from the pockets Of I'll
g people.
n This is consistent, so far as the pihc lands al
y concerned they are now as much in favor of 70!
8 bling Vermont and the old thirteen, AS ever the
J., were. But mark The reason for opposition to ii
= land bill il 10 that the land fund may go into ii
Q treasury. Every dollar of it, which goes Their
II goes 10 reduce The protection Of american Iadustr
s This is one of the very reasons why Benton an
o Calhoun oppose the land bill. These new.bor
A ,ban ulav a baen gnrnp nj dasfrn