Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1844-08-16

promise, operd,ed badly. But it was to show the
difference bcttceen Messrs. Clay and POLK, that we
have quoted the above from the Union, and added
this explanation. That difference is simply this
The Difference.
Mr.. CLAY is for a PROTECTIVE TARIFF,
substantially such as the country prospered under
and was protected by from 1889 down to the Com
promise--a Tariff which will give both revenue
and protection. Mr. POLK is for u REVENUE
| TARIFF, such as the Tariff became on the Both
of June 1912, and such as did NOT give protec-
ton and did not tend to the prosperity Of the
try-a Tariff which sacrifices protection to revenue.
This is the difference" proclaimed by Folks or
gan; and this too, is the difference mutually pro-
claimed by Mcssrs. Clay and Polk themselves, when
the one avowed himself for the Tariff of 1912 and
the other against it
1t is argued, however, by the Locoiocos of the
Dillingham; stamp that Mr.. Clay abandoned Pro-
lection in the Compromise and that he on that &C.
casion embraced the same views now held by Mr.
Polk. We bring JAMES K. POLK himself to the
stand. Let him confront Mr.. Dillingham;, and let
the people Of This district Judge between them:
POik'S Testimony.
The results of Gen. Jacsons administration belong
the history of the country, and be but briefly sketced
uded in address like this In repeated he
commended notifications and reductions of the Tariff
re TO the final abandonment Of that odous and unjust systems So
ofpuhic opinion that he friends qfthe Tariff M CIqf
HG%E FRoM DESTRUG3To%5y e1 o 91 oa.c tx
was the defence of Mr. Clay with Bis arG friends the North,
o% 6F fife WHOLE viz r and o Continual iG and dgSoc
sg9G the .PSy 9o
The People Of Tennessee, 1889.
And again:
the S TA iH's qsP III; NRY 9Y and T
that also he supported by all Tennessee. Nor, portion
Sy d f7s i s YET 5ay aSs
the ardiood to say that those who still maintain stcudy and
their ancient principles "-Salae address,
1t seems, then, that JAMES K. POLK regarded
; Mr.. Clay as in FAVOR of PROTECTION, and
as its PRESERVER in 1888, and as still for Pro-
lection in 1889. The difference between Polk and
Clay is wide; and wide too, it is between the lam
guage of Polk and Dillingham;. The first differ
ence is not to be reeouciled; the last Mr. D. may
reconcile if he chooses. 1t may be, however, that
: Mr. Polk and his organ will stand poor chance
against the fair exterior, and the candor and hon
esty for which Mr. Dillingham; has some reputation
To sustain them, therefore, and to show that even
Mr. d. is not incapable of great Mistakes we bring
on another witness. Gov. Jones of Tennessee has
stumped the State over twice with Gov. Pok-he
has heard him and met his arguments time and
, agan-and, indeed, he has met them so lceH, that
on both occasions he beat Polk by handsome ma.
iorities This letter, addressed to gentleman in
!, Pennsylvania, read at numerous meeting in
Chester County.
E Testimony Of Cor. Jones.
Ell NASHVILLE, july o5 1874
Charles --Degr gu
two publications OF Col Folks during
perceive that Colonel dead nganst Protection,
p" an 0Gcs9a se aD9G S 9" e
strangely to who have been accustomed to hear Col Polk
hear stated that he Tariff or in favor of Protection
have met him than hundred and fifty fields and
heard him make speech in with him, that
the main ground on which he and his friends relied defeat
=, az would say, dOyour duty will do Tennessee
J. JAMES c. JONES"
/ Mr.. Jones declares, then, that Mr. Polk took the
st stump against Protection, and also against Distr
TT button This is important testimony, to sustain
J. Mr.. Polk against Dillingham-we give it for tina
ID purpose.
ID Testimony Of The Richmond Enquirer.
n We now introduce the leading organ of thu
y Southern Locofocos, as follows:
Fl. m the Richmond CVa.l Enquirer, July 80.
The last letter from H. Clay the Tariff is dated tho got
81 june addressed TO Mr. Cope Of Pburg which he declares
ri 81 have where maintained that adjusting Tariff 70
" revenue determinations ought to he made for protection tia
er he Tariff # Is II hes operated beRcfcg and that
terry opposed repeal These opinions announced
public meetings in Alabama Goorgiu, Charleston in Sout
Carona, North Carolina and in Virginia." The Coon presse
81 put him issue with Mr. Polk this ground, who d,
clacs the of Tennessee May, s4;
that opposed to the Tariff Act OF the last Congress. -"
admit the iSsH and will battle this ground for Polk again
Clay.
Important Differences summed up.
We sum up these important differences between
Messrs. Clay and Polk
]. Clay is for Protection, certain and adequate
50 Polk is against it.
9. Clay is for Distribution, as one essential fea
y ture in the Protective systemPok is against it.
G 3. Clay approves the Tariff of 1912 in the main
IN and would amend it where necessary-Polk is op
. posed to this Tariff and in favor Of repeating it.
10 They "as 0ide osunder as the poles" says tn
lis Nashville Union and it is supported by Mr.. Poll
ol Gov. JONES' and the Richmond Enquirer. There
c. no difference betoeen them, says Mr.. Dillingham;.
Y Judge We between them.
nd +Ye Cen Jackson pessed be in favor Of udcior
., Tari and in favor OF Protection. lie treacherous,
Pc