Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1842-09-05

For cent wool three and half mills! per
cent on all wool costing cents aud under cast il.
REMEMBER, That the cost OF the wool, and not
its fneness, must govern The duty. So you will
see, Col. Benton understands it, by his remarks
published in the Patriot two weeks since
Now the entire fnlsehood Of this is proved not
only by the language of the bill but even by Ben
ton himself! Benton himself showed that the av-
erage cost Of the wool, imported free under cts,
was actually orer Seren cents and tho bill provides
that not single pound, even of coarse wool, can
be admitted al less than cents pound and 30
per cent, If costing over seven. Yet here does
the Patriot talk Of - to 3 l-2 mills the OIL.
ly duty which is imposed ION ALL WOOL
,phich woud be likely 10 be imported under The uetO-
ed Tariff" To prop up this INDUSTRIOUS fraud
upon lis readers another lie is told of n still more
aggravated character. 1t is lie, too, clothed in
the semblance Of obiciol authority. The assertion
is that no loool costing cents is imported -
! Read
"The Waterman and Culedonian are accusing
| us of deception on the Tariff, alleging that we
hive desgnedly concealed the fact thai duty of
I 80 per cent aud cents per ID. is imposed on all
wool imported costing cents aud over. Now,
zoe hare attempted 10 conceal no such fact but, on
| the contrary, have repeatedly stated it, and con-
tended thnt it was'a matter of no sort of impor-
| lance TO the inrlners of Vermont, FOR THE
! PLAIN REASON THAT NO SUCH WOOL
is lMPORTED! reference to few facts
drawn from the reports Of The Secretary Of The
| Treasury, cannot iail to convince every cnndd
mau incts whirh show concIusvely that the i'm
porlqlion of wool subject to the 80 per cent. duty
has been running down for twelve years, aud that
there is no report or information ofany kind show
ing that a single dollars north Of such tcoOI icas
| imported IN le4l."
Here follows table showing that from ovei
five millions OF lbs in 1881 the quantity Of i'm
ported wool costing over cents has been grndu
ally reduced TO 57474a in 1910. Then snys tho
Patrot--
"From 1910 to 1e4l there is no report of an,
,coot impo, ted costing orer cenis AND HENCE
THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS
NONE"
Mark that language: its import, its intention, il
to convey the impression that there is the usua
report for 1871 but that it says nothing about WOO
and this is purposely lugged in to Substantial
the lie of the Patriot that no icoOi costing ouer
cents is imported Now mark how plain tall
will expose The dishonest tricks of locotoco lead
ers. - aud -, locofoco candidates al THU
election, hunted up the public documents Tor tn,
all showing That large quantities OF this wool hat
been annually imported, and that there had beer
an actual increase of The inporulions of 1910 owe
the preceding year. But the annual report of le4l
had mol Jfen rectired. What ought they to hav
done, then? Should they not have told the pub
lie that they had found no report al all, aud the!
could not therefore tell the amount imported ?
But instead Of that they directly convey the i'm
preston that there no such toooi imported st
the Patriot roundly aasers,- and thus the as
serton goes TO the wool growers, apparently sus
taired by the ofiicia documents, that no fine 1000
,cas imported in lS4l. This is done, be it remem
bered, without having any report for the year 1871
- when they we're utterly ignorant whether Their
were any importalions or not--but STILL when al
the preceding reports show that there always ha'
been such importnions down 10 lS40 Perhnp
these consrrators thought they would escape un
detected-at least until after election but they ar
mistaken. We have the FACTS from the book
of the Treasury Department, and here we Civ
Them Be il remembered that these conspirnlor
tell the people that ioool costing orer cents
imported. Now mark how prove the lie upo
them, from the official returns in the Treasury De
paItment: