The Woodstock age. [volume] (Woodstock, Vt.) 1844-1845, 1844-10-10

IsaYs "llenry Clay with all the affection of pa
rent for the protective policy" m,crposed to pre-
Won't The "Passage of the bill reported by the COM
miI,ee Of ways and means in the House" Now
mark how single fac, will dissolved in air all Mr.
Claytons fiction.
On the 25lh of February, 1898, the above men,
toned bill o. the committee of ways and means of
the House came up for consideration, and mo-
ton was made to strike it out, and insert in its
place Mr. Cay's Compromise bill. For this mo-
lion Mr. Polk and 95 others voted, while those who
voted against it were Mr. Adams. Mr. DAVIS, of
Mass Mr. Everett, Of VI, Mr. M'Kennan, OF Pa,
Mr. Migan. of Del, and fifty other ultra friends
orprotcction. Thus did Mr. Polk vote for Mr.
Clay's Compromise bill in preference TO that Of
the House Committee of ways and means, while
the ultra friends of protection voted for the latter
in preference 10 to the former. Let ills be The an
swer to all the charges made by Mr. Clayton a.
against the bill of the committee of ways and
means, and Mr. P's course in 1898.
But Mr. Clayton says, in speaking of the debates
on the House bill of 1898, that "there was not a
more dcnuncintory enemy of the protective policy
than James K Polk" | have already said that
there Is not one word recorded in all the legla-
tive history of Mr. Polk against the protective poll
cy, nor in favor or free trade, and again repeat
that in all the debates Of 1888 he did not only de-
nounce the protective Policy,bG stood forth boldly
and strongly as its avowcd advocate. In speaking
in this debate he thus explains the bill, and de-
fines his course
"The Committee have brought forward the bill
as measure of compromise, likely to unite in its
support sufficient number of those representing
the conflicting interests Of different portions Of the
Union, TO carry through the House.
SIN preparing the bill which they had offered,
the Committee had two object, in views. First to
reduce the taxes to the standard of revenue which
the Government, required, thereby relieving the
people Of so much of the public burdens rs were
no longer needed for the public service but in do
ing this they kept an eye secondly to the probable
effects of the measure upon The existing manuGc-
turing establishments which hid grown up under
the existing policy. No member Of the Commit
tee who had yield his assent to this bill, Il may
safely affirm, desired 10 prostrste the manufac-
ture., nor lviN such ia their judgement be the
effect Of he bill. The Chairman Of the committee
had confined himself TO brief bu: satisfactory ea-
position Of its provisions asa measure Of finance.
The duty has been devolved upon me to show lis
effects upon the manufacturing interests of the
country, This shall not do by defamation bnt
by the testimony Of tho manufacturers themselves
and venture 10 affirm that the bill so far from
prosirating their e'tablishmsnh, gfords sufficient
based on real and no, borrowed capital, and con-
Quoted with economy and skill, not only to stand
under this BILL but to realize greater rates Of prof
it upon the capital and labor employed, than is
done from any other regular business in the coun-
| try"
| Speaking of the reduction ofdules in the bill on
r various articles named and used by manufacturers,
he says:
t "'The amount thus saved in the shape of duties
below the rates of the &C, Of 1929 without, including
: the reduction upon wool IL equal TO six per cent.
upon the whole capitol invested in the wooden fac
tories; and including the reduction on wool equal
to eleven per cent"
$ In defending discriminating duties, he says
d "Objec,ons have been started TO this bill be-
. cause of the different rates Of duty which im-
y posed on different kinds Of manufactures. 1t i,
said that it affords more protection to iron than 10
e some other manufactures, and that i, is therefore
G unjust The some objection might be made to a.
ny revenue or tnrilaw that has ever passed, in all
d Of which discriminating daties have been impos-
o ed"
There i, a single fact in the legislative history OF
1858, that in Mr. Clayon's view, OF least ough! TO
have made him pause before ne mathematical
} Mr. Polk as an unmiusatsd enemy Of the protect
" i've policy and that was hi, vote to retain in the
: COMPROMISE bill the home raiyotion. When ,hi.
y was inserted in the bill-nnd it was not in when
u Mr. Clay reported i,-Mr Clayton said would be
seen BY 1T, ait was not the intention 10 surrcndei
the principle Of protection again, if this clause
1t was not inserted. che would be compelled to vote
U against the bl;" and in his recen, Wilmington
- speech he says:
>, "The principle of the Home Valuation was a
sine qua poa at the time of the passage Of the aci
10 be assessed on this principle, was essentially to
- all intcn,s and purposes vote for Protection"
" Mr. Polk voted directly against striking out thi,
highly protective clau,e-,his sine qua nOa-whct
i according to Mr. Clayton, own test decided who
T. were and who were not friends Of the protective
'e policy, and therefore does he como up even Il
Mr. Clay,on's own Standard his own ",est"-o
friend to a protective policy.
-, need only say father that on the passage Of the
~ Compromise bill the vote Of Mr. Polk il found a:
W. in the act of 1912, on the same side az those Of
Henry Clay and John NJ. Clayton.
- So If James X. Polk was an advocate Of FRET
-. TRADE, wha, were Henry Clay and John NJ
Ir CIayton'
lie Here might leave Mr. Clayton and his charge
sh against Mr. Polk, bu, choose to follow hin
10 through them ALL He saws he "intends TO do fnl
d. Justice to Mr. Polk" so do in'end TO do full ns
he tice to Mr. Clayton. Though in doing justice 4
oh him shall neither misrcpresent nor falsfy III
&c. record, ms he has done to Mr. Polk "That III