The Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1837-1867, 1842-08-30
From the Boston Al las.
WAsHISeroN, Wednesday, Aug l7th ,lS42.
A HIIMBIJG Exploded.

-l.s "A II
la my letter on Monday, commented upon n
paragraph which appeared nlhe Globe ofSaturday
evening, designed for the Now England marke, and
declaring tina. the Democracy ofthe North ere in
favor of Protective Tariff. In proof OF this asscr
ton, the veraoious Mr. Blair referred to the votes
of a portion of the Loco Foco members Of the
House in favor ofChares ]. lnger soils motion for
leave to introduce Bill, the object Of which was
to revive branch of the Compromise Act. i ex
planned to You in that letter tho reason OF the
Wings for voting against the proposition OF lnger
soil, tho utter inadequ acy Of the Bill he proposed
TO Introduce, and the bare faced hypocrisy of the
small portion of the Loco Foco members who sus
tanned tho deceptive movement of the Philadelphia
Tory. l said also, if The question had been on the
passage of the Bill inadequate it for the pur
poses ofprotection, instead of being motion for
leave to introduce il, that not fourth Of the al
Locos, who sustained the hypocritical movement
OF Ingerso, would have voted in favor of its adop
ton. ] stated further, and now repeat the decar>
alton, that it had been ascertaned iu Caucus, by
actual counting of noses that no, more than ten
or twelve Of all the Loco Foco members in both
Houses Of Congress would vote in favor Of any
Bill which had for it's object the protection OF the
honest industry and labor of the People. Now for
the proof. AS soon as the paragraph appeared in
the Globe OF Saturday, Mr. Edmund Burke, lead
ing Loco Foco out with the following man
ifesto, which is sufficiently expic it, and complete
ly exposes the deceptive operation of Ingersoll and
the bare faced hypocrisy ofBlair.
To the editor o. the Globe.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
August Is, 1912.
In communication published in the Globe oil
Saturday, referring to the vote on the motion oil
Mr. Z. Iugersoli, OF Pennsylvania, to suspend
| reviving the tariff of 1888, the writer remarks
t'and that bill was sustained by the Democracy oil
the North" &c. If the writer intends to be under
stood that all the Democratic members from the
North who voted in favor of Mr. Ingersoll's motion
were n favor of his bill and would have voted 70,
its passage, can him that far as one who
voted for the suspension of the rules is concerned
he is greatly mistakened.
I was one OF the Democratic members of tho North
who voted for the suspension OF the rules in order
! to enable Mr. Ingcrsol to introduce his bill; but
was very far from approving the bill itself, in prn
! cipie or detail was Influenced by two motive.
| in giving my vote: LIST. Courtesy to the mover,
4 prominent and intelligent member of our party
| aud, secondly, desire to give the country an ea
nest that tho Democratic party IN the House were
ready and willing TO make an effort TO sustain the
credit and honor of the Government. AndI am
surprised to see that vote, being merely on mo
ton suspend the rules, (Which is never regarded
as a test mo;ion,) cited as proof that the "Demo
cratic party Of the North sustained the bill, and
would have voted for it's passage" For one, I dc
not sustain it, nor approve of it, Ifthat bill is &c
I be regarded as the "Pennsy lvania platform" dc
not stand upon IT. regard 1t in many respects
quite as Objectionable the Lowell platform. In
many particulars, the tariff of 1888 s as highly
protective and questionable the one just We
toed by the President. Bnt since that voto-given
as act of courtesy, by me at ieast-is cited as
proof that att the Northern Democracy are ia iavor
| of Cpit d,o ~
say through your columns, TIL All WILL VOTE
! FOR NO BILL HAVING PROTECTION FOR