The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1844-08-30

I'm.
tall.-Chieago JOGriGk
Not permitting ourselves to doubt for mo-
men' the sincerity Of the Journal in making the
above declaration, we expect, with the utmost
confidence, that the journal will at once correct
a very gross mistake into which it has fallen in
/ The following extract:
! James K. Polk has said that WOOL suorLn M
\ ADMITTED Dury FnEE, aud this article is daily
/ attracting the attention OF our farmers and is Of
| Importance to them as much as any other article
Of export from our state. Many thou.
sands Of sheep have been brought to Illinois this
summer, aud the breed is being very mnch i'm
proved. On the 2lat, the Cleveland brought 90
fine merino rams to Chicago, for Plainfeld, in
! viii county. let the farmers of VIII county
study their interests and throw of the free trade
| yoke.
What we conceive to be a gross mistake in the
above extract is this: the Journal means to con.
ycy the idea Cf it means any thins) that Mr..
Polk aud the democratic party are opposed to the
interests Of the wool growers, and that it is to the
wings alone that this class Of producers can look
| for protection; whereas, the facts show the truth
to be just the reverse; that Is, that james X.
| Polk aud the democrats have freely granted the
wool growers all the protection they asked, while
the wings have refused them that protection.
And this we shall prove by quoting the same pa
ragraph from speech of Mr. Polk from which
the wing papers make garblcd extracts to show
that he opposes the interests of the wool growers.
Ia the session Of congress of 1882 SO Mr.. Polk
was chairman Of the committee on ways and
means, which reported bill modifying the tariff
of tho preceding session. In a speech upon that
occasion, he said as follows:
The wool growers consider the duty upon fu-
reign wool As important to their prosperity. This
opinion, apprchend, is founded in error. Very
little wool OF the mddlng quality, such ns we
produce, Is impvrod.--lhc kinds chiefly impOr-
ted are either the coarse south American WOOL
costing cents aud under the pound, neither OF
which DO we produce, OF if we do, to a very imi-
ted extent.
My own opinion is that wool should be duty
free; but as wool growers think otherwise, we
have retained a duty Of fHceH par cent. upon the
imported article Cong DeJ,, vol. ., IA.
From this it will be seen that Mr. Polk did
NOT oppose protecting the wool grower as the
wings falsely assert, but that, as there was then
no foreign competition, he merely thought a du-
ty OF wool useless, could at all events afford
no protection. Yet, he says, "dS tuooi gro,ccrS
MHk Oihcrip'sc, we have retained a duty Of plr-
rEES per cent" Thus showing his entire viii
liugncss TO give the wool growers any protection
they imagined they needed.
But how stands the account with the wings on
this subject Has the all embracing mantle OF
their protection taken into It's huge folds the wool
growers of the county, Have they at least, to
come anywhere near their professions, extended
the protection granted by Col. Po Tx to the wool
growers Let any one who is not convinced Of
the utter hypocrisy Of the wings in their attempts
to prejudice the wool growers against Col. Polk,
turn to the whg tariff act of lSi2--an act pass
ed by congress nearly two-lhlrds wing and
hailed as perfect by the wings all over the coun-
Try. He will there find that these great protect
ors OF wool growers, so far from Increasing the
duty on WOOL actually REDUCED IT TO
FIVE PER CENT! But this is not all--.this
is not ALL The readers attention is respectfully
asked to the following very plain facts, from the
CoopcIStown, On. W frecman's Journal.
On the third Of August, 1912, Mr.. Preston of
South Carolina, (whig) moved to strike out the
duty OF five per cent. Here was plain propo-
slIlon for the benefit of the wooI.grower, Who
voted for, aud who against it Lc, the Journal of
the Senate answer Nesscrs Preston, King,
Woodbury., and CulhbcIt, Gall democrats except
Mr. Preston,) supported the motion, and Mr.
Evens (whg) opposed lt.-Tbe vote was taken
and stood as follows:
lEAs--Mcssrs. Allen, Benton, Fulton, King.
Mcl'oberis, Phelps, Preston, SEWER Smith, of CT.
Sturgeon, Toppan, Wilcox, Williams, Wooibu.
ry, wright, oung--l7.
NArs-Mossrs, Archer, Barrow, Bates, Bayard,
Choatc, Clayton, Conrad, Crafts, Crittcnden,
Dayton, Evcns, Graham, Huntington, Kerr,
Mangum, Mcrrick, Miller, Morchcad, Porter,
simmons, Smith of la, Spraguc, Tamadge, White
and Woodbrjge--27
Woo-growcrs bear this in mind ali the pro
icsslon federalism can make, cannot weigh agaiusi
hiS record. Here were t,Ccniy seuen iUhigs voting
down proposition TO ada ID per cent. to the duty
on wool costing cents and under, and fGeeu
democrats voting Tor 1t, and against it. Only
two wings preston and Phclps) voted for it.
On the Same day the tirll hill being under con-
sldclat'on, Mr.. Benton (democra) moved to
strike out 'scvon' and insert five in the fol-
lowing item;
"On coarse wool manufactured, the value
whereof, at the last port or place whence cxpor,.
cd to the United States, shall bc seven cents or
under per pound, there shall bu levied duty OF
| i've per cent. advalorcm."
Mr., Benton, supported this amendment at
length, the elect OF which would practically be-
the imposing OF duty of 30 per cent and three
cents u pound, on all wool costing orer ; cents
instead ct cents, as 1t now stands. 1t was a
proposition highly important to the wool.growcr
aud was roied dO,cn By tie ,chigs--,he party
which now Processes such a tender regard for that
interest as follows:
NtAs-Mcsscrs. Allen, Benton, Buchanan
King, Linn, McRobcIts, Preston, Smith of q.
Sturgeon, Tappan, Wilcox, Williams, Wood5u.
~, Wright aud Noung-ij.
NAYS Messers. Bag5y Barrow, Bates, Bayarl
Calhoun, Chootc, Clayton, Conrad, Crafts, Day.
ton, Evans, Graham, Huntington, Kerr, Ming.
um, Mcrnck, Miller, Morehcud, Phelps, Porter
Simmons, Spoguo, Tallmadgc, Waiter, White