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

| h'O '"u'''ll Is l't Uuc thcoIN, HHu llc oHc lHey
mostly all aim to have carried out in practice. -
/ Though all thus agree in the abstract, all do not
agree in The details have never yet found any
two men of any party or place who could agree
exactly on the details of tariff either for revenue
or protection, though both may have the same
general object in Wow. This is a subject about
which the people Of the United States have al
ways differed, and may differ, without reference
to their political opinions or parties, and which
will be settled by each man and each district, as
will hest promote their indiyual aud local inter-
css; and this will be found to be the key to most
meas opnions and most members votes in Con-
grcss on tariffs This question: do not intend to
diScusS-it never has been nor can be discussed
or decided as political party question, nor shall
| trouble yon now with any such Improbable de-
| bate.
| If the tariff, or protective policy, as Mr. Clayton
calls it, was indeed identified with any political
party, lnsrcad orlhe democratic party being It's en-
e miles, it would not he difficult 10 prove that they
were lis especial friends and supporters, | might
shew that every tariff hill that has ever been en-
acted into law since the government was formed,
has been 50 enacted by the democratic party. 1t
was democratic Congress that passed the tariff
act of 1916. 1t was democratic Congress that
passed the tariff nc, orlS2i. 1t was democrat
c Congress that passed the tariff act Of 1928. 1t
was democratic Congress That passed the tariff act
Of 1882. II was democratic Congress that pass
ed The tariff ac-lhe compromise ac-ol 1888 1t
was by democratic rOicS that the lrilI act Of 1912
was passed by wing Congressional without
them it could not nave passed twas democratic
House of Representatives that refused in 1914 to
disturb the present tariff act, Not this alone
Though wings have voted for all these acts, yet it
is nevertheless true, that wings have opposed and
voted against them all. These simple facts from
the records are enough to stamp with rilsehood
the charge that the democratic party are the enc
mics of The true protective policy of the country
or the wings ita exclusive friends
Blu, my object is not to discuss the tariff question
nor to vindicaIe The democratic party-it needs NJ
yindication-but to meet and disproye the unlOun
led assertions Mr. Clayton against the course
and opinions Of James X. Polk on this subject,
might content myself by replying to these charge
against James X. Polk, by the simple assertion
that Mr. Poll; never at any time in Congress, eX
pressed himself or showed himself opposed to pro
tcc,inr American labor or American INTERESTS o
opposed 10 Il proper protective policy. On tn
contrary, all that he has ever said and all tn
votes he has ever given, has been in support o
tina, policy and might give yon in proof of this
the fact that. upon every taii' nc, that was onac
4 led by Congress- while James X, Polk and Joh
NJ. Clayton were there together, their names AT
% always both recorded in their favor. You WI
hardly credit the assertion, after having read til
1 above extracts from Mr Clycns speech. th,
lanes X. Polk and John N, Clayton, the one
c the House and the other in The Senate, are bot
70 found voting iicm the same tariff acts-that @
1890 tina, Of 1882, and that Of 1853 on the las
c two, IN company with Henry Clay; and how NJ
$ CLAYTON as man Of veracily, could have mad
s such general and sweeping charges again'
n Mr. Polk with this record before him, exceeds m
Il comprehension,
Here, might leave tho charges made osan'
Il Mr. Polk to the evidence of their (asily, hut in
II tend here, upon Viz Cl0ylon's own soil, in tn
!, presence OF his own Fl cnds to meet him on ever
j. particular charge he has made, and pledge myse
to show from the record ,ha, the Hon. John n
G CLAYTON has either ignoranrly OF Intentionally pr
n forth tissue Of the greatest misrepresentation
and rll,fcalons of facts that ever came from a
e honorable man,
Is You will excuse me, citizens OF Delaware, It
.! dean you longer on thiI subject than is ngreeabl
10 YOU or to me. The cause Of un,h as well as I'll
= glorious cause 10 which we are all engaged-,l
10 cause Of democracy. reqnlers that fall justice
b. done to Mr Polk, when attacked by such men
al Mr. Clayton.
10 The specili: evidence Of the free trade or ant
! protective doctrines Of Nlr Polk, as charged by y
D. CLAYTON. shall take up in the order oil time
ne which these facts are said 10 have transpired.-
oil Although Mr. Polk had been in Congress son
o. wears previously, and Ind given several votes
b. the tariff MIR Clayton finds nothing agans, him
! iii 1882 In tina, year he charges him with hav
"' voted.
w "Firsl. To reduce the duty on cotton goo
costing not exceeding IS cents pet square yard
IL IL per cent ad vaorem'"
Second. "To abolish Ike duty of 30 DoIIo
per ion on rolled iron."
Third. "To reduce the duty on salt to GET
u :. -,
~ per So lbs"
Fourth. "iui voted against the duties on boz
!; and bootees, cabinet wares, hats and caps, wh
, brides, saddles, carriages, and parts OF carrhg
blank books ,earihern and stone wares, and mar
D., features of marble, ard also against the duty
10 WOOL
tll In relation 10 the first specification, no 81
iph motion was made or voted on The motion "
ei. TO reduce the duty on cotton goods costing !
ca than fifteen cents per square yard. a KIND
the goods that needed protection ut all beng mi
his cheaper in this country than any other
No, The Second charge il; that he voted TO d5oi
y,s the duty Of 80 dollars ton on rolled iron. L
-, ia Mother more nor less than an unirgh. Ey
mil boly would understand the charge MS implying
h,, to,,I abolition of the duty that article; pari