Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, IA [i.e. Ind.]) 1839-1854, 1843-05-27

1924 as well as that Of ISIS, contained the We
ry same provisions, and that they were merei
copied into the Tariff of 1872. Let us place th
y matter in a position from which the writer canno
escape. We copy from the Tariff 1894:
s'On wheat IS per bushe, 10 per buzfe
wheat -four 50 potatoes III cents per bush
ell"
A motion was made TO strike these items from
:he bill, and upon tho yeas and nays it was decid
ed in the negative, ANDREW JACKSON. JNO
II. EATON. RICHARD NJ. JOHNSON, anC
MARTIN VAN buren, voting agains, striking
out. (See Sena lie Journal. lS42) Was "tlis til
moezery Of protection to TIE .farnaer'" Again
the writer says:
s'1Iark the deception; it is provided in another part
the bin that all cloth which worth more
than twenty square yard shall be valued twen
~ there great deal OF that article that costs
only from SIX eight make il the factory. and
this what is generally used especially by the labouring
part of the people, and by this rsnt aD is is valued
as high a. the superior arce that IS at twony cents a
I yard"
r This statement Is made by the writer If these
min imums on Imported goods were frs. introduc.
ed by the Tariff Of 1912. Why did he not in-
form the people tha, they were Introduced by Mr.
Calhoun in 1916, 10 proven, fraud on the reve-
nue2 Why did he not inform his readers iha, 10
every Tariff since the Same principle had been
maintainedf Why not give the following exlrac,
from the Tariff of 1924?
"That all unbeached and twist, yam,
thread, the original of which shall be less than
pound shall bs deemed and taken have
ingly"
The same principle adopted as 10 wooen
and cotton goods, and yet, strange to tell, this
nigh Protective Tariff, containing all these odi-
oas PROVISIONS, in the eyes OF the writer Of the
pamphlet, was passed by the votes Of ANDREW
JACKSON, John IL Eaton. THOMAS H. BEN |
TON, RICHARD NJ. JOHNSON, and MARTIN
VAN buren,. The Same principle is enacted
IN The high Tariff of 1898, tho bill Of "abomina.
tions,' spoken Of by me writer Of the panphlei i
all this he unfortunately forgets, as well as he
does tho very unimpor,ant fac, that the Tariff Of
1898, The highest Tariff chat ever was enacted in
this country, containing the same odious princ
pie, passed by the votes Of MARTIN VAN
BUREN,, RICHARD NJ JOHNSON, JOHN II
EAroS, THOS. ii. BENTON, SILAS WRIGHT,
it,. JAMES BUCHANAN and WILLIAM HEN.
BRICKS. So much for these important discoy-
cries in tho Tariff Of 1912. Bot the writer has
made another equally candid charge agains. the
action Of the Senate pending the progress of the
bill. He says:
son the ID day of August 1872 Mr. Tappan one Of the
he Senat from Ohio. moved amend the bill by provid
ng that, whenever -four, sailed provisions
aoud be received free Of duty any nation of Europe
the President should make proclamation of the fact
people of the United States, and that three months a
erwards the articles made in that nation should admit
Ell into the United States only twenty on
he value Every Wing Senator voted against The amend
nen,, including tho Senators from Indiana, Smith and
White; overy Democratic Senator voted for it,"
Hero again the memory Of the writer, or rath
r his industry, failed him before he 60, through
With tho story. We will finish it for hi. edica-
!
Senate in committee of the whole; the amend
neni re-ohered in the Senate, when MIR. f.
ans OF Maine read the treaty of 1875 between c
be United States and Great Britain, showing that 8
the most inconsiderabe nation of Europe D
hould let articles enumerated in the amend. n
'ent Of Mr.. Tappan, into their ports duty free,
hat very act, by the operation of the treaty. "
would let the whole of tho British imports into 2
his country at the 20 per cent. advalorem. 50
Don as the point was made Mr.. Wright requested C
IL. Tappan TO withdraw his amendment. and he o
id so with the appreciation Of the whole Senate 2
o much for that discovery, which however, was P
ing since published in the State Sentinel, and 4
xposed in the Indiana Journal. p
The Salt Duty. e
The writer Of the pamphlet has selected the
uiy levied on Salt by the Tariff OF 1912, as es~
ecially Objectionable. He is welcome to all the >
apital he can make out of the salt ques,ion-I OF
ut hear him. He says: II
"Sali, that primo Of life. which the OF
hahiIant of the city only his table, the
essern farmer extensively his pork. and
ei and bacon. aud salt his stock This a.
N-oppTessed log and s admitted free,
rded ike the breathe, absolute necessary
II in this land Of liberty, where have many stump pi
DECISIONS for the the ans salt taxed: IF
e, taxed BY this boosted Tariff this poor maas best
eni.'' In
Would not the reader be led to believe from is
o above that the Tariff Of 1912 was the frs, III
4 that levied duty on imported sal,s Such es
rtainly was the impression the writer intended or
make. How then stands the case! Under the or
aEiff of 1Si6, duty Of 20 cents per bushel ii,
as collected on imported salt; by the Tariff of 70,
"a the same duty was continued, and this act du
'ssed by the votes of ANDREW JACKSON. n