The Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1837-1867, 1843-08-29
Charles Hudson to the Farmers,
THE EFFORTS TO DEPREss TIE PRICE OF

THE EFFORTS TO DEPRESS TIE PRICE OF
WOOL EXPOSED.
In the Boston Traveller Of March last, in the Ag
ricultural Department Of tho Paper, (Which depart
rnent is under the charge Of one Merriam, locofoco
though the general character Of the paper is not por-
ical) there appeared article upon the Tar
i'll, particularly in reference wool which is GO
ing tho rounds Of the ocooco papers Of this State, and
10 in fact revival Of the last years u mills story
II is most deceptive in its character, and calculated
and designed to render odious Tariff, and to
do great injury to the wool interests of Vermont.
This article is copied into the lac, STAR and the at
ten,on Of the people called it, ind can it be be-
loved, in order prove that the Tariff has not
checked the importation of wool. the returns of i'm
portations previous the time of the Tariff went
into eect. ARE quoted Tits is specimen of the state
ments of the article. In the Boston Atlas Of July 80
the Hon. Charles Hundson. member of Congress-
who aided in the passage OF the Tariff, and who
fought manrully the Free Traders, and defended the
doctrine OF Protection, has answered and fully expos
cd the receptions Of the ofoco enemy of Protection
Below copy much Of Mr. Hudson's exposure
relates immediately to the point at issue;
The statemet made in the article before me, vir-
tuay says that there is shadow Of truth in the
statement that the I'D valorem and specific duty on
wool amounts to A per cent. Now maintain that
my position is fully sustained by the facts in the
BY the Boston Price Current in March last the time
ut which the article written it will be seen that
the average price ofimported wool, which these
duties would operate, about 20 cents per pound
and the duties upon would exceed rather than fall
short of A per cent The nd valorem duty would
be 80 per cent and the specific duty Of 8 cents per
pound would amount to II per cent -making ng-
gregate duty of As per cent. And this estimate is
made upon the price in this country II we should
take the price at the port whence il imported the
cents per pound would be increased, when carried
out ndvaorem; so TO make the whole duty 80 me
46 or AZ per cent. The very number Of the Travel
Ter and Advocate which contains the charge Of mis-
representation, fully susaius tho in my
tclc. BY the price current in the Traveller and Advo
cate of July 18th, will be TINT the imported
wool on which the duties in question would operate,
was selling ut tho average price o. 23 cents per
pound If we deduct from this price the OF i'm
poration and other necessary charges say nothing
Of the duty, we shall bring the invoice price down to
a, leus, 81 cents per pound, at which price the ag-
gregate duty weud be A per cent. Now what be
comes Of tn charge that there is not a shadow of
truth in my statement that wool enjoyed protec-
on Of at least Al per cent? 1t turns out like most of
MIR NJ. 3 statements-w wanting in justice and TRUTH
But the Advocate tells U.S. that the duty of 80 per
cent. and the cents specific per pound, is all hum
bug; for, says he, sit does not apply 10 one th,eth
par, Of the wool imported Here have one tam
gibe position, that twenty-nine shirdeths of all the
wool imported, costs or less than cents per pound
in the foreign market IfAIr NJ can sustain this po-
sition, be will do something towards making out his
case But let us examine his proof lie relies upon
official document, which he quotes with an air of
triumph lie tells usthat by the last return of the
Secretary of the treasury, appears that of rising If
teen millions of pounds of wool imported al was Free
except about half million Of pounds. Here we have
his position and his proof Now it so happens that
the document to which he refers, does not and can
not, apply to the subject before II BEARS on its
face, relutation Of the Mr. M makes oft. It's
title is Commerce and Navigation, u S.-Is4I -
and every person acquainted with the subject knows
that the commercial year ends with September. So
that his proof amounts simply to this,that the tariff
Of 1882, modified and nearly destroyed by the com
promise act of 1913, did not, in the year ending in
September, 1884, protect the wool growing interest
And this is gravely brought forward TO show that the