The Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1837-1867, 1844-07-15
From the N. Y. Tribune.
JAMES X. FOLK ON THE TARIFF

JAMES II. GOlsh wv HE lAKlIf.
Mr. John X Kanc a Philadelphia Locofoco, upon
the nomination of Mr. Polk and the publication oc his
an,-Protective sentiments in the Wing papers, ad-
dressed letter to Mr. =. requesting a reslacment
of his opinions respecting the Tariff Mr. Rune's
letter is mol published-we left infer what its
tenor must have been. We have not shadow OF
doubt that il said in substance "ATr Polk, these anti
Protective doctrines won't do for Pennsylvauia-you
must give something better, done over"
Mr. Polk accordingly undertakes to give them
something that riH answer Here ii is:
COLUMBIA, Tenn June 10, 1914.
DEAR SIR 81 have received recently several
letters in reference my opinions the subject Of
the tariff and among others yours Of the 10th utrno
My opinions this subject have heen often given TO
the public, They nre to be found in my public
acts, and in the public discussions in which I have
participated.
am in favor Of tariff for revenue, such n one as
will yield Il sufficient amount to the Treasury to de-
fray the expenses of Government economically nd
minstered. In adjusting the details of n revenue tar
III, have heretofore sanctioned such moderate dis
criminnting duties, would produce the amount Of
revenue needed and the same time afford rsasona-
BILE incidental protection 10 our home industry. am
opposed to tariff for protection merely ahd not for
revenue.
Acting upon these general principles, it is well
known that give my support to the policy Of Gen
against the tariff act of 1925 voted for the act Of
1882, which contained notifications of some of the
Objectionable provisions Of tho act of 1928. As
member Of the Committee of Ways and Mems of
the House ofRepresentatives, gave my assent 10
bill reported by that Committee in December, 1882
making further notifications of the act Of 1928 and
making also determinations in the imposition of the
duties which it proposed That bill did not pass but
superseded by the bill commonly called The Com
promise Bill, FOR which voted.
t,,1r tI,
EXTEND as for it may be practicable to do so, by
its revenue laws and all other within its pow
err fair and just protection to all the great interests of
the whole Union, embracing agriculture IMAM ufacturcs,
and the mechanic arts, commerce and navigation. |
heartily approve the resolutions upon this subject
passed by the Democratic National Convention lately
assembled at Baltimore.
am with great respect,
Dear sir, your obt SER vt,
JAMES X. POLK.
JOHN X. KANE, Esq. Philadelphia
Here is tho latest varnsh of Mr. Folks opinions;
will it wer? What does it amount TO? How
does it qualify what he has all along been saying?-
He declared in Congress that l2a per ct. duty on
Cotton Goods and % on Wooden ample Protec-
ton, and that in his judgment Wool should be ad-
mted duty free Does this letter take back a word
Of all this? He declared last summer that protec-
tive Tariff and Distribution constituted she differ
encc'' between himself and the Wings? Does he
now repudiate that sentiment? He argued over and
over last summer and printed in his Speech at Jack
son, that the present Tariff ought to be abolished
and uniform twenty per cent duty imposed in stead
| The Newark Morning Post, edited by as bitter
an opponent of Protection Calhoun or McDufiie
cackles loudly over this letter of Polk, publishing il
two days in succession. The first day it shouts
'lee is something to confront the ISLANDERS and false
hoods of the Wing Press" What ISLANDERS and
iasehoods sir? Is it Islander that MIR Polk avowcd
it as his opinion that Wool should be admitted duty
free? Is ii SANDER that he last summer repeatedly