Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1844-08-23

Total share of VT. for II years. sl,54i $50 81
Average Of Wis share per year, 1l0 1913 25
Vermont ,Could have received, under Mr. Clay's
bill, ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY THOU
SAND DOLLARS A YEAR; but of this she
has been robbed by locofocoism, J. K. Polk being
an alder and abettor in the robbery. But we do
not claim that this is the sum which Vermont prob
ably will receive under Mr. Clays administration,
because the above includes the extraordinary sales
occasioncd by the Specializing mania of 1895 and
1896. As fair approximation TO the SUN which
Vermont probably iciH receive we will take the
average from the commencement of tho present
land system:
Net proceeds from 1921 to 1s4l
both inclusive SlO6,2G3,4h 81
Share Of Vermont 2043527 IS
Average proceeds per year, 5C60,l64 o.
Share of Vermont per year, 973l0 ga
The official reports prove, therefore, that under
the rule of distribution adopted by Mr.. Clays BILL
the average share of Vermont from 1891 to 1871
would have been nearly 100000 year. Her
share, however, would have been actually much
more, because for part of the period here embrace
ed the population of Vermont was greater in pro
portion to the other states than it was in $780,
which was the basis of distribution. Remember
ing that adequate protection, by stimulating every
branch Of business, directly leads to the occupa
ton and Improvement of the public lands we may
with fairness and reasonable certainty assume that
the Wing policy, of PROTECTION AND DIS
TRIBUTlON, will not only encourage and pro-
tect the people Of Vermont, but give annually TO
her treasury the sum OF 100000 which is legally
and rghtfuy hers.
Be it remembered then, that Polk and the loco
foco party will rob the treasury Of the people of
Vermont of this sum, if the power is committed to
their hands. Polk AVOWS this as his policy-the
locofocos even here avow it.
Objections answered.
Why should Vermonters permit this robbery? One
ocoioco replies, that the money will be uneluay
divided after we get it for instance, if applied to
pay the expenses of the government the rich man
will be benefited more than the poor man, because
the rich pay more than the poor in all taxes upon
the grand list. This is no objection 10 receiving
the money from The government but simply to the
disposition oft, after it has been received: we re-
ply to it, that the people of Vermont may use the
money as they please when they get X. We viii
trust the people to take of their interests
for it seems to us that is strange democracy WHICH
tells the people that they shall not have their own
lest they use it foolishly!
Another ocofoco objects that if the land money
is distributed, the Government must raise much
more by duties-that these duties are III fact taxes
upon the consumers,-and that for every dollar the
people receive they pay dollar and the additional
expense ofcollectng and disbursing it Or 10 state
IL. L II.
we get costs us SLIGO" This objection has an air
of FEASIBILITY about it, and yet it is every way
delusye. The case is this precisely: the govern.
ment has certain amount of revenue to raise, and
a Tariff, either high or low, and the land system,
would be maintained, whether the policy of distri-
button is or is not adopted. There would be no
material difference in the cost of collecting the
under either policy, for it would require at
least as much force collect the required revenue,
be the sum what it will) under tariff Of low dr-
ties as high onefor in either case the sum is 10
be collected at the same places, by the same off
GERS, and under the same regulations except as to
the amount of duty. The difference to Vermont
this point is simply this :-icithod distribution,
she pays her proportion of the cost of collecting
the revenue ana gets nothing while Nth distrbu-
ton, she pays no more and gets her 100000 per
annum AS to the other point, to wit, that The in
creased duties, to raise the sum TO take the place
of the land fund, is Tar upon The consumers, and
therefore foolish tax upon ourselves to raise
money to put into our own pockets. When applied
to protected articles TO the line of fair competition,
this is false free trade doctrine and if the locofo-
cos believe it, they are consummate hypocrtes tor
pratng about protection This doctrine is utterly
exploded by facts within the remembrance ofevery
man who remembers the prices before the protec-
tive policy and the prices since For instance,
British cotton sold in this village before cotton
was protected at 40 cents a yard--now, better
American cloth can be had for 5 cents a yard !;
broadcloths and woolen goods sell now at least
so per cent. cheaper than the same British goods
before the era of protection, and yet this protcc
ton has built up the great home market for wool,
and has always secured living prices TO the farmer
when The protectire policy was suffered to exist /;
iron, and manufactures Of iron and steel, have also
vastly decreased in price to the consumer, while
by building up the home market, American labor
has been kept in active operation at good wages !;
so is it true in the whole range of domestic manu-
factures that better articles have been supplied
cheaper to the consumers, while at the same time
those very consumers have found in these manu-
acturers good market for the raw material and for
the bread.stufs which they produce. And this is
what these locofocos call iares upon The consumers
Yes-when by protection the farmer actually bugs
his manufactures cheaper than he could buy them
without it, and sells his produce absolutely higher
han he coud wi
call TAX upon the consumers
the returns for quarters only complete when the An
nua Report made the Commissioner the for
tho will exeesd mons Glowing ineease Of