Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1842-08-26
,,,iu Bill rpicr

of the INSCRIPTIONS Globe. TRS-2hl refer
red to in the above paragraph as Attempted i
to be introduced by Ingersoll and which is |
heraldcd before the people of New England
with so much pomp and circumstance was
merely proposition to revive branch of
the compromise act The introduction of
tho Bill was opposed by the Wings first be-
cause they did not like the Bill, as it was, in
their opinion, altogether inadequate to re-
Ieve the embarrassmcnts Of the Country and
protect the industry of the people. In the
second place, if it had been unobjcctionable
in thi, respect, there was manifest impro'
pricty in attempting to introduce any Bill
before an effort had been made to repass the
one which had justbeon vetoed by JohnIylcr.
But says the voracious Globe land | pre-
sumo the paragraph has been copied into all
the Loco papers in the State) this bill was
"mtroduced into the House, sustained by
the Democrats from the North, and rotcd
dozen by the whole Wing party of the House,"
Now here are no less than THREE deliber-
ate falseh Gods in this one paragraph. The
Bill was not sustained by the Democrats, and
it was not voted do,cn by the Wings. The
motion made by Ingcrsoll was simply to sus-
pend the rules TO alioo him to introduce the
Bill, and only forty one, out Of the hundred
Locos in the House, sustained even that mo-
ton. If the question had been on the pas
sage of the B i'll, not more than ten or t~elce
of them forty one, would have voted in its
favor. This is noe an admitted and MOTOR
ious fact. And to prove that those Locos
who voted in favor of suspending the rules,
would have opposed the passage Of the Bill,
| will introduce the following witncSs whose
testimony on this point isquite explicit and
satisfactory. 1t is letter from Mr. Ed
mind Burke one of the leading Loco Foco
members of tho House from New Hampshire,
and is as follows:
TO THE EDITOR OF THE GLOBE.
House OF REPRESENTATIVES,,
August ID, 1912.
:, In communication published in the Globe
Of Saturday, referring to the vote on the motion
T. of Mr.. c. ]. lnyer5oll of Pennsylvania to sus-
pend the rules Of the House for the introduce
4 ton of bill reviving the tariff of 1888, the
i writer remarks, "and that bill was sustained by
r the Democracy of the North" &c. If the wr-
ter intends to be understood that all the Demo-
. cratic members from the North, who voted in
favor of Mr.. Ingersoll's motion, were in favor
). fhs bill, and would have voted for its passage.
). | can assure him that so far as one who voted
. for the suspension Of the rules is concerned, he
6 is greatly mistaken. was one of the Demo
: cratic members of the North who voted for the
=, suspension of the rules, in order 70 enable Mr.
r. Ingcrsoll to introduce his bill but was very
Il far from approving the bill ITSELF in principle or
" .dctaii. was influenced by two motives in Civ
10 ing my vote; LIST. Courtesy to the mover, a
~ prominent and intelligent member CT our party:
~ and, secondly, desire to give the country an
jr earnest that the Democratic party in the House
;. were ready and willing to make an effort to sus-
ID tain the credit and honor of the Government.
ri And | am surprised to see that vote, being
! merely on a motion TO suspend the rules, (Which
of is mover regarded as test motion,) cited as a
r. proof that the "Democratc party OF the North
IS susrjaed the bill, and would have voted for its
passage. For one, do not sustain it, nor APP
n prove Of it," If that bill il to be regarded as
-, the .I'enn-ylyana PLATFORM do not stand upon
p it. regard It in many respects quite az obJec-
\ tonable as the Lowell platform. In many par
u, tculars, the tariff of l.;3 is as highly protec-
~ tive and as objectionable as the one lust vetoed
:, by the President. But since that vote-.iven
;, as an act of courtesy, by me at lcast-s cited as
=, a pro3t that all the Northern Democracy are il
40 favor OF protective tariff have felt it due Il
~, myself to say, through your columns, that vii
"a vote for no bill having protection for its object
Of do not, OF course object to protection as an IN
Is cileE or consequence o. tariff for revenue.
h shall vote only tor tariff tor revenue, sutiiclen
an to provide for the wants of the Government, OF
ga an economical scale Of expenditure, with prope
ar determinations for that object alone, and for th
W. exemption tea and coffee from any and all du
-. ty.
20 Respectfully, &c.
. EDMUND BURKE.
,al Here then is bold avowal from one c
m the leading Locofocos from New Englan
m that he will vote against ANY Bill hayin
hc PROTECTION for its object. Blu. there
ley evidence of still more conclusive characte
on this subject.
On Thursday last, Mr.. Fillmore, chairma
of the Committee of Ways and Means, il
uoduce the following resolution to test ii
disposition of Members in regard to passr
another Tariff Bill, and demand tho ayes al
noes upon its adoption. The resolution
in the following words:
,rc- "ReSoised, That it is expedient to pass anot
in or revenue bill, the same as that which recen
Uses " passed both Houses Of Congress, and h
nd been returned by the President with his obie
ties, tons to this House, and on reconsideration To-
re- for want of a constitutional majority entitled .
era act to provide revenue from imports, and
by change and modify existing laws imposing d
be- ties on imports, and for other purposes W
the exception of the 9th section Of said b
re- which repeats the proviso to the land distrb
sew ton act, and so modified as to make tea i
crds ported in American vessels from beyond Il
Cape Of Good Hope and coffee free from dut
a aud that the Committee Of Ways and Means
MI, ho,,a hare :, al