Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1844-03-22

The Senator had alluded to the interests OF the
Stnte of New Hampshire, in connection WIN lil's
subject; but his own political friends IN that state
were converts tothis policy, but complained otihe
Tariff because it did not afford sufficient protec'
lion. When tho Senator came 10 his State, he
found that worl was not sufficiently protected
pro,ection was very wise and polite there, hut not
In tho more genial climate of the South lie pro
tested against this blowing hot aud cold, ard ac,
comodung views on the subject to any sectional
views. He was somewhat surprised that the sen
aor should state that the duty OH DOL was Only hvc
per cent
MIR. WOODBURY. meant, lo said, only tho
coarse WOOL But he had mover advocated u duly
on any kind Of wool except the revenue standard
Mr.. PHELPS said the revenue standard was
such standard, in his opinion, MS would project
all the interests OF the country. II was moi rue
that the interests of the wool -growerS were pro
tected for the benefit of the manufacturers Inc
protection Of wool wGs precisely tluhl 10 'hRt ON
The woollen fnbrics. Tho value o. me raw mate
rial was always considered equal to hall OF 'he
fabric The grower of the wool receives forty
per cent. duty and the manufacturer had double
lhat The protection In either case was precisely
equal and this was perfectly undersOodby those
engaged in wool growing in the State OF Yer
mont The Legislature ut Vermont had sent
resolution here protesting against tie repeal OF the
act of 1912 and thereby Admitted that its duties
were equal. The men who passed that resoIu.
ton were interested in the SUBJECT and understood
it, and they approved Of the present SYSTEM
Wool from Spain, Germany the l4evunt, the
whole world, would come in competition, and
ruinous competition, with domestic WOO, II THIS
system of protection was abandoned. Ihe III
terests Of the constituents of the Senator from
New Hampshire, and OF his own State, (Vennout)
would be utterly destroyed by such n COURSE
" hat would they do for a living if they were
Obliged 10 abandon wool growing? They could
not mike bread stuifS They would have but
I,G, fttn fur AFOgt
as many had done already, and lose themselves in
the vast spnce of that region to abandon coun-
try which hid contributed so much to the esub.
ljshtneni of this veinment, and which abound
ed SD much in talcn, and enterprise, and leave il
desert. We should then realize the picture pre-
scented by The Senator from South CarUIiua, who
said that when the system of Protection WIS de-
sroyed, q traveller visiting New England would
ask whit demon Of destruction had visited aud
blasted its prosperity.
The Senator could not suppose that this picture
would render.us converts 10 his theory. lie could
not suppose that we would lend our AID to the ac-
complement of such an end. -
Ii the Government was 10 be destroyed unless
this system were abandoned, let it be destroyed.
Let it come, ifit must come in that way. He
would repeat that he had fears of this result.
it was one OF the phanoms conured up by the
opponents Of this policy. 1t had been suppo ed
by some of the gentlemen from the SutIh that
the Union would be endangered by the abolition
excitement. But there was nc ground for that
apprehension. SHOULD that question ever bemode
TO press upon the integrity OF the Union, not one
in five hundred o(sliose WHO ht1 comtenanced il
would lii. a'hand in hosiyso the Interests oil
the Union:' He.lld not drink there waS0ny eX =
ciie1ncn on this subject except what wns got up
in opposition to the protective policy and lie had
TOO lnush faith in the patriotism OF the people 81
the South and OF the honorable Senator himself
= To suppose TIM, a wish TO dissolve the Union would
ever be seriously entertained by them.
But sir to return TO the argument. The Senu
tor from New Hampshire had referred TO the ar.
,ic'e OF sugar IT, show the unequal tendency o
this system. lie told us That tax was imposed
10 an enormous amount on ihat article. A lnA
ON any other article would be liable to the salnt
objection, and the result Of the free trade doclrin,
must be n resort 10 direct taxes What were the
benefits of free trade promised 10 us !? releas,
fthe producer from The tax his consumption
mud production. Having replied to this, he allud
ed to the charge that Ibis legislation WINS for The
rich, and not for the poor. We did not legisalt
for either. The mass of The peopie were neither
rich nor poor They had means for enjoying TIT
comforts and necessares of life, but were suffice
10 pecunary vexalions. These were the peopl
for whom we legislated, and, while we hardened
them with taxation, we ought TO provide then
- with ihe means of employment and Of paying du
ties. Although tax might be imposed for pro
lection, il enabled The consumer 10 pay it. Tn
= eign cloth, but received it back in The enhancc
price of his wool.
This protective policy was the same which tn
:" people Of New England adopted for themselves il
all thec affairs, and he surprised that the stat
: of New Hamrsh whose people had preserved
so mucir of the primitive habits of New England
should be heard here in opposition 10 this system
They had gone onstlle plan of'keeping their ex
pendilures within their income, and OF making Il
they could for ;heir own supply. They woul
not he found TO abandon their manufacture of ma
pie sugar Tor the sake of free trade.
This policy was commenced with the origin
the government. The country had prospere
under il. 1t was the adopted policy OF the worI,
md it would he The adopted policy OF this cour
try. That distinguished individual who was tn
father of the System, or at least one of its MOI
uble advocates, would yet witness its adoplio
and prosperity. new doctrine hal arisen in lll
last few years, by which ii was discovered III;
New England knew nothing of the principles
Ioliiical economy. Though their enterprise an
energy had excited the admiration Of the world
: though they had peopled wderaesses, aud hui
up States, aud extended their navigation an
commerce to the farlhest oceans yet it was di
covered thar they knew nothing OF the ecmen
of national prosperity.
We were told that this was The discovery, M
o. practical men, but Of some theorists, SON
great writer's. We were told that we must subnl
our trade 10 British regulation that was lrc
tTnue. we Hluel uhoVt lHeOIits, not ilhu
for nor used by Great Britain, bur recommends
10 us. Free trude was ont Of the question. W
must regulate il for ourselves, or suffer Others
regulate it for u.s. In an evil hour we were s.
duced into tile compromee act. Before that r.
duc,on had become complete, il had well nil
ruined the country, flooded it with foreign impo
tations, and Frustrated every species Of Industry
We talk Of arrangement of The currency, but
you would enable The business man to meet Il
engagements you must improve The protecu'
interess Of tlie country. You must do this,
you cannot have sound paper currency. III
vexed question Of National Bank he had ,
ways therefore considered OF secondary impo
lance. We had gone far beyond lie product,
OF cotton 10 our importation. We anticipated 4
crops of cotton by importation, and the COM
ouence was a sudden fall of the price o; cote
fiirsFs did this evil tall! Upon the cotton pla
ers themselves. The United States Bank fail
Il oil