The Woodstock age. [volume] (Woodstock, Vt.) 1844-1845, 1844-10-10

NUMBER $50.

Inc THIRD charge IS, that MIR Polk voted TO re-
duce the duty on salt from 10 to cents per So
lbs. 1t is singular that Mr. Clayton had not made
the discovery that Mr. Polk voted in 1880 to re-
dnce the duty on salt, no, only cenls but l0cls,
bushel-and yet such was the fact For this
same Mr. Clayton, who charges it as an evidence
of anli-procclion principles in Mr. Polk to vote in
1882 to reduce the duty from 10 to cents per
bushel, actually voted himself to reduce it from 20
to 10 cents bushel in 1880, Mr. Clayton should
have taken the beam OF the 10 cents salt reduction
out of his own eyes, before he attempted to find
the mote of cents reduction in that of Mr. Polk.
The fourth charge, like the second, is flsii-
cation of the record; OF at least bare-racod at
tempt to deceive,
Mr. Clayton charges Mr. Polk with voting a.
gaiaa The duties on boots, boo'ees, &c. &c,-thus
intending 10 convey the idea that no voted to Let
all the articles there particularly enumerated come
into the country free of any and all duties; and yet
what was the fact Mr. Polk only voted agains,
increasing the duty on those articles from 25 per
cent, to thirty, and on wool anG woolens he voted
not oggiast the duties, but against increasing them
from rs TO 40 and so per cent.
leave it to you, Mr. Claylon's low-cilizens,
to form your own opinion of the man who could
first make general charge against Mr. Polk of
free trade doctrines that he never held or express
ed and then TO prove them would resort TO such
miserable misrepresentation and hlsiGcaions Of
the truths of history.
Mr. Clayton ought to be more cautious, too, how
he draws his how at Mr. Polk, ~ he NAV put an a.
row in the heart of some Of his own friends; Cor
on every vote given by Mr. Polk, numbers of wings
voted with him. IL Mr. P's votes are so censurn-
bic, what were lheirs?-or is the common saying
not applicable 10 them-"whats sauce for the
goose is sauce for the gander;"
But am not done with Mr. Clayton or Mr. PolI
in relation to this Tariff Bill of 1882. find il
Gales and Scaton's debates Of Congress, p COS
that Mr. Clayton, speaking of this same Tariff Bill
of 1892, on the debate on the Compromise Bill o
! 1888, thus discusses:
voted, said Mr. c.. against the Bill of 1882
for the very reason that Southern gentlemen de-
clarcd that it was no concession, and | may vol,
against tins for the same reasons. thought il bat
policy to pass the bill Of 1882, thought i, bad
bargain then, and think so now" And yet. nile
this positive assertion of Mr. Clayton that he voted
agains, the bill of 1892, would you believe it, tina
the name of John NJ. Clayton is found upon thu
record as is that Of James X, Polk, both in fiyo
of the biIl--a bill which Mr. Clay also voted for
and claimed to be the author Of, and one year af
forwards thus speaks Of;
"The third mode (of anording protection wa
attempted last session in resolution which he hat
the honor To submit last year, and which, in fact
ultimately formed the basis of the act which iina
passed both Houses. (Act of 1922 This wa
TO raise as much revenue as was wanting for tn
use Of the government, and no more, but TO rails
it from the projected articles, lie regretted mos
deeply that the greater part Of the country woul
not suffer this principle to prevail. 1t ought t
prevail, and the day, in his opinion, would com
when it would be adopted as the permanent polio
of the county.
need not say tina, in the bill thus voted for b
lanes X. Polk, the duty on cottons was % pc
cent on salt 10 cents per bushel-boots and boot
ccs S 80 per pair cabinet ware hats, caps, &c
80 per controlled iron $50 per ton, and on voc
and woolens the highest rates Of duty.
10 Judge of Mr. Folks votes on the bill Of lsS
correctly, it should no, be forgotten that the inter
and object of the bill was 10 reduce the duties
the revenue standard, 10 prevent surplus in tn
treasury and 10 allay the storm rising in the Soutl
that actually broke out the following year, an
actually caused Mr. Clay and Mr. Clayton and oil
, ers. to pass the Compromise Bill, lower duti'
, than in many cases was contemplated by the bi
. of 1892,
. We next come TO Mr. Clayton's charges again
: ;, Mr. Polk in ls33-and this it will be remembe
ed was the year when the famous Conpromis
i Act pa ssed, and when every American felt an
I ious for the peace and safety Of the country
n when Mr. Clay and Mr Clayton and many 9th
proresscd friends of protection to the death, vote
c against the convictions Of their judgment for sal
n of concession, and gave that fatal stab 20 proteC
i ton tina, reduced all duties 10 one indlscrmina
3 level of 90 per cent. 1t is u?on this par'icuI
period that Mr. Clayton has seized more plrtlc
l. larry than any other 10 prove the hostility of
q Polk TO the principles of protection. Yet. like Il
charges agains him in 1882, do they all vani
70 before the light of ruth. Mr. Polk, in one Of I'll
most patriotic and able speeches upon the recor
"a Of Congress, thus speaks Of the situation of |,
counry-and be it remembered that this spec
was delivered Some Time before Mr. Clay introdu
-. ed or thought of his Compromise act, for whlc
he has been so much laudcd-"lt is no longer,
my udgmcnt,' says Mr. Polk, ga question
cent. per cent, but question Of patriotism o
of couniru Let US, then, act like staesInc
and by adopting this measure of justice, endea'
I" TO heal the discomfort so prevalent in 50 ma
'' States, and thus preserve and perpeiraic Il
- glorious Union without force, civil war, or
VI clIusion Of blood. five Use without passing t
o' or some similar measure no. materially vary
from it, this Congress will owe responsibility
:" the country. and perhaps to poserlty, in who
We have no ambition to participate"
!! A, this crisis in the affairs Of the ry was
that the Committee Of WAYS and Means of
u Itopse introduced the Bill Of 1888, that Mr. CT