The Woodstock age. [volume] (Woodstock, Vt.) 1844-1845, 1844-08-08

ly and Mc'Elrath's life and speeches Of
Clay, page l55 vol. |, in these words:
AGRICULTURE wants but lit
tie or NO Protection against
the regulations of foreign
powers.
Besides this the following may be found
in Mr. Clay's letter to Mcssrs Cameron
s. FALL Publishers of the Tenn, AgFlcul-
turalist, dated Ashland, Aug 1913, re-
published in the N. Y, Tribune, Aug. 26,
1871.
"Owing to the peculiar position of the
United States, Agriculture requires out
title protect;on, anil THAT confined to
tew branches of it."
find, on the 18th ofApril, lsi2-a lit
tie over TWO YEARS ago, only,-n his re-
ply to letter from the whig members OF
the New York Legislature, he said
agriculture requires but little proiec-
ton, because its position secures 1t a
gainst much foreign competition; orRATH-
Err PROTECTION TO COMMERCE
and MANUFACTURES is the BEST
FORM of aliording PROTECTION to agrl-
culture"
Gov. Polk says:
In nv Judgment it is the duty Of the government
10 extend us far as il may BE- practicable to do so
by lis revenue laws and all other means within IT'S
power, fair and just protection TO "A l. l. Inc
treat interests of the whole union, embracing AG-
RlCULTURE. manufactures, the mechanic arts,
commerce, and navigation. Jas n Poih'
Let us 90 on, however, to the subject
Immediately under consideration-the Ia
riff Act of l828-Webster's exposition OF
its object and Clay's position as the OPP
poser of that Act.
In Mr. Websters speech in reply to
Gen. Hayne of S. c. delivered in the
Senate, Jan. IS 1880, the following pas
sage occurs:
With great majority Of The Representatives o.
Massachusetts. voted against the Tariff of 1924
Wy reasons we've then given, and ! will not now
repeat them. But, notwithstanding our dissent
the great States Of New York, Pennsy lvana, Ohio
and kentucky went for the bill, in almost unbro
ken column, and !, passed, Congress and III,
, President sanctioned it,, and it became the law o
II the land " hat, then. were we TO do' Our onl,
option was either to fall in with this settled course
of public policy, and accommodate ourselves to /
rs well as we could or To embrace the Snuti
Carolina doctrine, aud talk ofnufying the salut,
By State Interference,
This last alternative did not suit our principles
and, of course, we adopted the former. In 1887
the suhiec; came again before Congress, on
| PROPOSITION FAVORABLE TO WOOL AM
, wooLLENs. We looked upon the system o
= protection as being fixed and settled. The law o
1924 remained. 1t had gone into full operation
> and in rega.d 10 some objects intended by it
= perhaps mos, Of them, had produced all its expect
ed effects No man proposed to repeal 1t, no MAJ
attempted to renew the general contest on II
| principle BUT, OWING TO SUBSEQUENT AM
y UNFoREsEEN OCCURRENCES THE BENEFIT
- INTENDED BY 1T TO WOOL AND woOLLtN
FABRICS, HAD NOT BEEN REALIZED. Events
Z not known here when the law passed, had lake
place, which DEFEATED ITS OBJECT IN THAI
Particular RESPECT. A measure was nc
q
y deficiency, to remedy this particular defect.
|, was limited too wool and woocns.
! Events called loudly, as thought, for furhe
regulation to secure the degree of protection in
tended by that act.
We call particular attention TO thi
c passage. The reader will observe tina
e Mr. Webster declares that lowing to sub
u scuuent and unforeseen occurrences, TIT
e BENEFIT intended by the Act of 1894, t.
st WOOL and woollcn fabrics had NOT BEE
REALIZEpn-and that "cvcnts not know
in congress when the law passed, had ia
ken place, which dcfcatcd the oUcct of TIN
:. Act of 1924, in that particuiar"-that is
in the "bcneM mtcnded to WOOL and north
\. crn fabrics" Then, says Mr. Webster
\, ga measure (the Act of 1929 was accord
Y ingly brought forward to mh this prcc's
5. deGnmry" namely the non-realizato
O to wool and wooden fabrics of the benoii
to intended by the Act of 1924 "to rcmed
50 this pariicuior dJect, Qc. failure o
:. the Act of 81 to prOtrct "wool" sc. a
ID its trainers intcndcd.) "It" Uhe Act c
1929 "was sCJ~LlMITED TO WOO!
AND WOOLLENS." And again, say
Mr. Webster, "events called loudly, as
thought, for further regulation, to secur
the DEGREE OF PROTECTION INTENDED b
that ,4cf' Uhc Act of %
The object then, of the Act of 1872
> was, as Daniel Webster says, simply,
secure to mooi and woOlicns the degree {
u protection intended by the Act Of "a an
which that Act had failed to afford. Tn
ry Act of "a had proved deficient in thi
c. particular aud the Act of '28 proposed
lie supply the deficiency In other word
nc the Act of "a had failed to protect wot
ly and woollcns to the extent that Act intent
or ed and the Act of 30 was proposed
ne remedy the defect and give further pre-
at lection to these articles. The 'lather