Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1842-08-15

Here then, wo find all the locos buttwo voting
against raising the duty on wooden blankets; and
it was equivalent to voting against protection to
wOol. Every blanke, imported is just equal to nm
importation of the foreign wool Of which that
blanket was made.
The next question WINS OH raising the duty on
VOoIcn and 'Oorsied yarn, from IS to 80 per cent.
AYES-l05 Wings $ ocos (FIoyd, Fornonce
Parmen,er, Plumer and Rcad-Ony one loco
from New England J and 2 Tyler men.
NOES-e9 locos, Is (Southern) Wings, and 2
Tyler men.
Here again, is another vote against wool: what
protection is that to ,oool, which permits yarn to
come in under n low duty?
The next question was OH raising the duty on
wooden aud worsied ms, stockings, drawers,
shirts, SC.
AYES 100 Wings, 6 locos, lonly one loco from
New England again y . Tyler men
NOES-9l locos, ID Southern Wings and
Tyler men.
Thus do we 0aly contradict the ialsehoods of
the locofoco presses in Vermont, by the testimony
of their own political friends and by the record
ed votes of their party in Congress Judge ye of
the honesty ond truth of their assertions, in tho
| light Of this conclusive testimony and judge the
locofoco party ia Congress by their acts.
With these facts before them,-showing that
the mass OF the looofoco party in the House, with
almost perfect unnniinity, voted reduce duties
wool and weolcus below The Sums fixed in the
bill-thereader may possibly he surprizcd to hear
That in the Senate, motion was made 10y Mr..
Benton, on course WOOL similar to that of Mr..
Sade's in the House (confning The minimum du-
~ 10 coarse wool of cents aud under,l aud vo
ted for by the locofoco Senators generally. And
| really does the locofoco party in the Senate dis
sent from the locoloco party in the House? No,
at all They did this for party capital, and to en-
! barrass or defeat the bill, if possible. The ma
iori,y of the Senate had determined TO pass the
bill as it was, both to save loss Of time and The
risk of sending it back to the House sadded with
alterations, which determination Ind been al
ready eyinced by rejecting every proposed amend
ment to the bill, WHEELER coming from friend or
foe. Knowing, then, that this or any other motion
would be rejected, Benton brought in his amend
meut for tho very purpose of having it rejected
that thus the locofoco presses might raise hue
men-voted against The bill, and would have done
! i; had their amendments al been adopted. Wood
bury played the same dishonest trick in 1928, as
he confessed to the Senate the other day. The
same trick, too, did those few locofocos play in
| the House, who voted with the Wings in favor OF
increasing duties. After these amendments had
been adopted, every one Of them, suve Parmen-
| ter, voted against the bill The dishonesty OF
this trick is rendered still more apparent from the
fact, that the most ultra enemies of protection vo-
ted with Bentonr-such as Bagby, Calhoun, Sc.
vier, and Woodbury,-afierh having in their spec
ches, in this very debate, denounced and secuted
! this bill as--ioo Protective! Mon who openly
deny the doctrine of protection, and who vote n
gainst this bill on the ground that it imposes too
| high duties; nye, men who win applaud Vetoes
and vote to sustain them, in order TO crush the in
dus,ry OF the country under their own revenue
laws which are the only ones now in force can
not impose upon the country by such trickery. 1
is too bare-faced