Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1843-08-25
MR.. DILLINGHAM; AGAINST A PRoTEC-
TIVE TARIFF

The Waterman finds fault with Mr.. Dng
hams views of Tariff, as avowed at Danvillr-
by comparison, that print cannot fail TO dscov
er how exactly they hurmonlze with the express
sion of our legislature in lS4l.-Pdiriot.
In order to apologize Tor the votes OF the locos,
the Patriot at once greeted the resolutions OF l64l
with a construction that they were not in favor of
a Protective Tariff and it has so long adhered to
this bad construction that it probably is not a.
wnre that the above extract is entirely fDlse. We
quote from the resolutions of lS4l, House Jour-
nal, page ll0)
"Resolved, That it is the duty Of our govern
ment, at all times, to PROTECT AND EN-
COURAGE THE DO VI ESTE INDUSTRY OF
OUR CITIZENS, by making aud enforcing such
IA Tariff OF duties as will secure our home mar
kets from the desperate and disastrous foodings
OF foe gn competition"
Resolved, That our Senators in Congress be
instructed, aud our representatives requested, TO
use all honorable means in their power, TO pro-
cure the passage of laws which, while they shall
guard against the numerous frauds and evaslons
now practised upon US by foreigners and foreign
agents, and while they shall raise a revenue su1i =
cent only for The necessary expenses of govern
ment, aud shall have due regard to the partlcu-
lar interests of every section of our country, may
give, BY PROTECTIVE DUTIES, such pref
erence to domestic over foreign products III our
own markets. aud may so DlSCKlM MATE be-
tween those articles which we can aud those which
we cannot produce At home, as to give just, sure
aud SdLutdry encouragement 10 The industry Of eve
.4nericdn cizen"
There, the Wing doctrine Of Protection is re-
cognzed in its whole length and breadth--Pro-
lection to be regnlded us specific object for the
care of The government, and To be secured by
Protective duties and by discriminating between
articles which need and those which do not need
protection. But what is the Dillingham; doctrine !?
Behold all that he said upon this subject in his
Danville speech:
d" A revenue sufficient to meet the wants of the
Government is Indispensable; and this should he
raised hy Il tariff upon imports, impartial in its
operations, bearing far AS practicable equally
upon every interest, and strictly cofned 10 The pur-
poses Of reuenue, thereby giving stability aud per-
manency TO its operations, and af1urding inciden-
tai protection to all our citizens, whether produ.
GERS or manufacturers, against foreign COMPETE
tion."
Here Mr.. Dillingham; does not recognize the
duty of laying either protective discriminating
duties in any form, but distinctly limits the Tariff
to revenue duties alone. BY admitting barely the
incidental [more correctly accidentall protection
which mere revenue Tariff might give lie prac-
tically repudiates the contrary doctrine Of arran-
gng duties for the specific purpose of Protection
In short, he is committed to nothing but a hor-
zonlal Tariff, such as John C. Calhoun aud the
within gu n-shot of the resolutions of ls4I. So
much tor the veracity OF the Patriot and the anti
Protective doctrines of Dillingham;.