Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1844-08-30


tons below, but our limits will not admit it, and
we therefore condense the reply to the smallest
space rather than prolong the discussion. We
resume Mr. Dlllingham's speech, where we left
off:
Yc with all these defects the present House of Rcpreson-
toves, with sixty Democratic majority refused TO repeal it,
because they could net get a better oRe'
A good reason certainly, i true. We shall sec
about that.
" And whyi Because tho entire Wing in
with the old NulliBing votes the South, combined their
During the last session. in committee of the WHOLE the
had the modification Hhig of the
House. combining with ultra Southern votes, defeat this
position"
Here, then, the alledged reason why House
with GO locofoco majority could not get better
Tariff than that of 1912 is, that the Uhigs and
.NMiifers prevented them and the only specifica-
ton is, that they voted the locos down on the
amendment (of Mr.. Seymour of N. " on cheaps
wool Now We call attention to the ACTUAL VOTE
on that amendment, as follows:
question on the amendment taken, and by 49
nays II, was ejecedNdtiOnal htegener, May 8, lSi4
So it actually turns out that this amendment
the only one specified by Mr.. Dillingham;" to
modify the excuses and remedy the defects" of
the Tariff of 1872 actually received barely the
paltry number of 40 votes, in House of 223 men,
bcrs and GO ocofoco majority Is it not little
strange that in House with Siriy locofoco ma or.
ty, barely AZ could vote for the amendment--C the
iocojoco party really 0as, Mr.. ID. leaves his hear
to infer, IN fauor Of higher duty this tcoOl2
Ah-the truth is, that party could adopt that a
mendment but WOULD NOT. Let us turn to Mr..
DIS version, who charges that the locoocos were
voted down by the WhigS and .Nuliifers. Behold:
these Wings and Null.fers numbered barely II,
and Mr.. d. himself tells us that this embraced
" almost the entire Wing vote ofthe House." Now
the House numbers 223-the Al ayes and II nays
make but l2l SO there were actually ONE HUN
DRIED AND TWO MEMBERS missing-iocofoco mem
bes, too, mainly for Mr. d. has put nearly all the
Wings among the II nays. Well, then-add these
1902 locos to the A. and that amendment would
have been carried by 63 majority; and thus the
only obstacle which Mr. Dillingham; Names to the
importing of the Tariff would have been remov-
ed. We repeat 1.-THE locos could adopt the
amendment, in spite Of the Wings and Nullifers,
and WOULD NOT. Mr.. D. knows this-he dare not
deny it. The recreant locofocos were responsible
for the rejection of that amendment as we have
demonstrated, with Mr. DIS helps and thus his at
tempt to foist the responsibility upon the Wing
minority utterly fails. We do not think the' at
tempt was an honest one; we cannot reconcile
Mr. DIS argument upon this vote, the true charac-
ter of which he utterly conceals, with the princ-
pies of fairness recttude. AS to the whigs we
have Mr.. DIS word for their votes the yeas and
nays we hayc never seen, and indeed they were
not taken, we believe, the vote being simply by
count on division of the House.
But the rejection of this amendment according
to MIR. DIS showing, left McKay's bill bad-it was
not better than the Wing Tariff; and this he says
is the reason why the House with 60 locofoco ma
jority would not repeal it. Against this apology
for the locoiocos, we place the ACTUAL vorE-et
that strip this apology of the deception in which it
is yelled:
.4yeS and Noes May 8, 1914, on laying .ucKays
Tariff Bill on The Table.
.4yes Wings II .Noes-Locos 90
LOcos % Wing