Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1843-10-06
From The Buffalo Patriot and .Journof

|
The Courier complains that the Wings ara NJ
tempting TO raise false issue upon the Tariff
question, for, says that paper:
Ihey would have il supposed that the Demo.
cfatlc rarty Is IN favor of opening the ports TO
perfectly free trade, and of abolisbnp nil duties
This is untrue both of the party. and of every
section of ii. Even MIR. Calhoun, who carries Ike
Tree trade doctrine as far as any one repudia,es
me idea OF resort to direct taxation, and cIaims
OF government only that It's customs shall be adj.
lusled IN good faith for revenue purposes
The democratic party claims that duties 80 laid
VIII afford an abundant protection to the Ameri-
can Manufacturer, and that IL is unjust to The
great body of consumers in the country, as well
MS unwise as u matter OF policy, to lay prohibitory
duties upon foreign trade.
| This issue the wings will not take up with us"
| We are willing 10 meet and stake up" this is
sue at any time. tariff such as tho Courier rec
| omnends would he the most oplr essiye that couId
possibly he devised, aud would afford no protec.
lion 10 any of the great interests of The country.
Being "ailusted in good faith for revenue purpos.
es" only, OF course the heaviest duties would be
laid on articles OF daily consumption, such as
we're OF prime necessity, that could not be produ-
ced in this country, AS tea and coffee for instance
while The Injuries OF the rich, the aggregate of
which is lrflng IN comparison and which can be
dispensed with, would be admitted almost duty
Tree. The same would be true of almost every
article that entered into competition with the
growth or manufactures Of the country. The du-
ties on such would necessarily he almost nominal,
or their imnoriaton would be checked, and thus
the revenue would suffer. The great burden off
revenue tariff would rest almost exclusively upon
the poor or those of moderate fortunes for such
constitute nine lenhs Of the people of tine United
States.
The Wing policy is exactly the reverse of this
IL admits al low rate without any duty at all,
articles OF daily consumption, which contribute
largely 10 The comfort Of oil, and which cannot be
raised or manufactured in this country, while il
imposes as heavy duty can be horne, without
utterly checking importation, on articles OF mere
luxury used only by the rich, and also imposes a
moderate discriminating duty on articles that en-
ter INTO competition with the products OF our own
country Which policy is the iaires justesl, best
Which most eqnallzes the burdens OF govern
menl! Which is best calculated to promote the
honor and prosperity OF The country? On whom
does the Wing tariff bear with severity? Does il
restrict The comforts and enjoymenls of the peo-
ple' Does 1t lessen the price of their labor p
Does ii depreciate The value of the farmers pro-
at The same time tho foreign market remains as
open as before !? Who ard what, in shorl, does
il nure in the slightest degree Ii is this policy
that Mr.. Van Buren,, in his letter published ia the
Richmond Enquirer, says he is opposed TO, both
IN details and principle, and which the whole
Democratic party"-falsely so called deter
mined TO put down, and substitute therefor tariff
merely for revenue, the effect Of which must be
to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, with.
out any corresponding benefit