The Woodstock age. [volume] (Woodstock, Vt.) 1844-1845, 1844-09-26

LIONS WIN permit. "1hen sir, you are IN lave
OF n tariff for revenue, and Of so much duty
shall be necessary to support the govcrnmcnt:"-
ITO be sure-as much so as yourself" An
here was the explanation. Though he called him
self fee trade and anti-tarf man, ne was in IA
vor OF tariff for revenue; and opposed only to
tariff laid for the mere purpose of protection alone
This was The explanation given by all these gentle
men OF their position as free trade men. If the
were candid, if they told me the truth, they ar
not free trade men, though they call themselves
So For free trade necessarily implies an enlir
absence of duties, and have not yet met The frs,
man in public life in this Union, who will ADM
in conversation that he is in favor Of such prin
clple.
Mr. w. went on TO advert to another msappi
cation of terms, He said to these gentlemen tina
he was IN FAVOR Of II protective tariff and the
reply was, ''you are in favor of heresy, AZ
oppression, an inequality in the administration %
the government. But what was protective tariff
IN the proper sense of that term' 1t was tariff
IN his Judgment, imposed for the great purpose Of
supplying the government with revenue, and SO
arrange AS TO protect, as far as they may be pro.
tected, all the great interests of the counirv-lhe
main and principal object Of which should be rev.
ehue for the public treasury. Even his sout hcrn
friend would tell him that he found no fault with
'hat--bui what he understood by protective tar
III would be tariff Of duties imposed not to false
revenue for the treasury, but purely and simply to
protect certain lavoriie and particular interests TO
the prejudice of others, Neither was Mr. w. in
FAVOR OF such a tariff, Here then was an cxpIa-
nation of what Mr. W. mean, bv protective tariff,
and OF what his southern friends meant by free
trade. Where then was the difference between
us:
Mr. W. stated what his rule would be in arran-
s'ns revenue tariff He would By no mauns lay
HE same rate ofdnty on every article of mpor,a-
non The thing was impracticube IN itself; be-
'anSe one article would not bear ten per cent.
until YOU prohibited it, and DESTROYED revenue.-
Another would bear fifty per cent, and vet the
rade hold up from the nature of the article. II
vas absurd IN n revenue sense, to say "put u
inform duly ON both" Bcca $50 do that, and Won
either fail to get the revenue you want, or YOU
Prohibit the importation altogether. Mr. W. would
hen discriminate according TO the nature Of the
'r''cle' That would be one ground of dscrimina
lon' Another ground Every community con-
nmed OF foreign imported articles a portion or
which aIc really necessarics of life, or have he.
CONF so among all classes. Another portion were
uxuries, They were purchased and
consumed TO crafty the ,usle, the pride of dress,
he pride OF living, the style of our houses, eoui.
'ascs. &c. Would he tax these two classes A.
Ike to raise rcyenve' Would he tax the nccessa.
les OF life which every man woman and child
must consume, and the Injuries Of the rich equal
y No, lie would tax the nccessaries as lightly
Is he could, aud secure the necessary revenue;
md he would tax the Injuries as heavily a. they
'ould be without destroying revenue by cutting up
he trade. This was another ground for discrni-
lalon But there was another, and third
round There were certain interests in this coun-
ry, which came in competition with similar inter-
sis in foreign Counirics--nnd Mr. W. would dis
rninae in reference to them. When an impor-
e would raise the tax on the foreign article, as
ar as revenue required, to favor the domestic But
lie would not 60 so iar as 10 defeat tho object of
he whOe--the obtaining Of revenue for the treas.
Try.
To see how far we might go-takc first the az
icutural interest Of this section of the country
Where were the articles yon could benefit by
nrill' What were our principal staple articlcs'
'read-sluiis were one. Could you benefit the
lrncrs and the growers Of bread-s,uils by putting
duty on foreign breads,uils? No. WHY not,
Because we do no! import bread .stuTs, but export
hem. We looked for marLe, no, merely TO our
wn country but TO the whole world, and we send
ur flour to all quarters Of the globe. What then
made the price our four and where was i, made,
n the great markets Of our couniry-ln New
FORK, Boston aud Philadelphia principally. What
overned the price there? Was il the call Of our
wn people on those towns, for four No; but
be entire demand for -four in New York, govern.
d the price ihere-as well the demand for eApor-
ition as for consumption. What good then did
ur duty on foreign -four and wheat do, when for
IGN flour and wheat did not come there, None
whatever. The duty neither brought money into
he treasury nor the pockets Of the farmer This
vas no fault of the law, but resulted lIom the I'M
possibility of protecting an article so as to raise
he price, while we regularly exported it. So
with our beef. We did not import beef for con-
umplon. We raised more than our own people
lie would buy. and we looked TO other countries
or market for our surplus. Then the duty I'M
Ter the present tariff 100 per cent the presen,
rice Of beef did our farmers no good. 1t could
,ot. Follow on with your cheese The present
arif imposed duty Of nine cents pound on
hecsc. Where was the farmer Of this OF any 9th
,r county Of the state, who could say that this has
rad even a lle effect on his cheese this YEAR,
-Laughier.1 Aye, said MIR w, fear it will
prove TO be true that the farmer will be glad TO
ret even half the duty for the whole price Of bis
cheese. So the duty on those articles was Of no
uiility-not because the fault was 10
congress or the law, hut because we exported
hesc articles and they therefore could not be pro-