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

On the 25th various amendments to the bill were
agreed to- but none materially affecting II, unless
it he requiring the usual commission to be nd-
ted to the other charges IN npprnsing the vnlue
Oh which the duties nre % be imposed. This IA
mendmrnt also seems TO provide for home udtud-
ton but we cannot understand II, us IL is stated IN
the papers. Similar amendments to ihuse before
offered by Allen, Benton aud others, were offered
mud rejected Lm none ioool. The locos did not
even try their old hobby, coarse wool.
FRIDAY, Aug. 20
The Revenue hill was thrn tnktn mp, aud mo-
tions TO amend so To subj, cl iinSeed TO per ci
duty and suphare OF baryirs TO lltdf cent per
pound were passed a motion by Mr.. Merrick To
reduce duties on produce of such States as shall
exact nj any time only % per cent on grain, flour,
sailed provisions and tobacco, NJ that time, TO %
per cent, also was losl-6 Ayes 10 90 Noes
Mr. RIves (Vrgina) opposed the bllt and mo-
we'd TO amend so rs to collect duties, until further
legislation, the same ms were collected Jan. lS40,
under the act of 1888, lnd to substitute for speci-
fic duties the average duties OF le4O. Iust-l3
Ayes to 81 Nays. MIR. Sewer (uco, Arkansas,
moved to strike out all inter the enacling clause,
and insert a bill making the duties 25 per cont. dd
rdiorem. Lost 81 TO %. An amendment offer
ell by Mr.. Clayton To suspend the 10 per cent al
lowed to the new sales under the new dlsribu-
ton was lost. MIR. Woodbury. (loco, N. H. offer
Ell an amendment TO reduce 10 IS per cent. all the
duties that shall, on The LIST of january le43 erceed
so per cent. Rejected ID to 25
The bill WINS then reported to the Senate, and
the amendments were concurred in, except those
relating to cotton buggng and iarred cordage..
SATURDAY, Aug. u.
The morning hour having expired, the Senate
proceeded 10 the consideration OF the Revenue hill.
MIR. Buchanan loco, Penn. urged lie mpor
lance of the bit, and expe ssed his intention 10
vote tor it, as an alternative.
Mr.. Merrck (Whig, Md.) would vote agnnst the
bill, because the Public Lands were to he taken
trntp Gtnfp I mn 80
cient revenue, and because il Was an Cxlravagant
bill of Protection, designed 10 operate aud would
opernc, injurlOusly and unluslly on the ngrlcutu-
raj interests of the country His objection is that
exemptions not made III favor of nations which
receive our whent and tohacco
Mr.. Smith of CT. (loco) condemned The bill AS
TOO HIGHLY PROTECrlVElNI IFS CHAR
ACrER.
Mr.. Simmons (Whip, r. ~ supported it, and
replied to the gentleman who had preceded him.
Mr.. Huntington Wing, Ci.) answered his col
league, Mr. Smilh) aud said that the sentiments
expressed by him were in direct conflict with the
views OF the People of Connecticut and he WINS
anxious that the bill should Immediately become n
law.
Mr.. Choate (Whig Mass.) grieved that in pass
ing good bill for Revenue lie was defeating n
| good law for Distribution, for he had wished TO
| live under the shade aud partake of The fruit OF
both trees. He iel. that in planting ona he MAS
| plucking up the other 10y the roots I; and in con-
cusion he urged the passage Of the bill ms the best
which they could oblan at the eleventh hour, or
| at the going down of the sun
MIR. Merrck made some further remarks in re-
| ply to Mr. Chone.
Mr.. Wright (Ioco, N. " declared his intention 10
rOte for the JiH aud was sill speaking when this
letter closed the question being on ordering the
bill to third reuding,)
We learn from the New York Express, that
MrssrS. Buchanan and " right both Take the bill
as bitter pill. Woodbury. replied to Wright, aud
objected that he bill was PROTECTIVE.