Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1844-07-19
FOR CONGRESS,
SOLOMON FOOT, Isl District
JACOB COLLAMER, "a District
GEORGE p. MARSH, Sd District
GEO. Ii. CHANDLER, 9Th District
FOR CONGRESS,
THE CoMPRoMIsE-CLAY AND POLK.

THE COMPROMISED AND POLK.
"Polk is as much for Protection as Clay" say
Mr.. Dillingham; and the Northern locofoco ed-
tors; and they argue thus:
"Clay is for adhering TO the Compromise, we
prove it by his letters Polk, too, voted for the
Compromise and declares that he is for going back
! to the Tariff the Compromise left it in 1872
There isn't it as plain as that two and two make
four, that both of them agree perfectly:" Yes
shouts Mr.. Dillingham;, ii is proued-and he stakes
his reputation on it. Amen! cry the locos-at rs
proved -lIurra for Dillingham;! Hurrah for Polk
and Dallas
Such is the argument as we understand it, placed
in its strongest light 1t is swallowed by the par
ty, as gospel ITSELF and relying upon it tr,e hon
est men Of the party will vote for Polk in perfect
faith that by thus doing they are maintaining the
cause of protection. But all this is neither argu-
ment nor proof it is tricky, shallow pettifoggery,
and entirely auoids the true question really blinds
the eyes of the people 1t is our purpose to show
this, in a manner which will admit of no sort of
dispute or caviling.
Granting, for the sake of argument, that Messrs.
Clay and Polk are for maintaining the Compromise
act-then comes another question, which the loco
foco elcctioneerers do not and dare not meet fair
ly, if they must meet it at all and it is the real
question, which determines the whole matter. That
question is this: do Messrs. Clay and Polk AGREE
as to phat The Compromise is? We answer-NO
they are as wide apart ON this subject as heaven is
from earth. To the proof:
MR.. POLK'S OPINION OF THE COMPRO-
MISE ACT.
"I1e took other views, briefly presented, of the
subject, and proceeded to the discussion of the
protective tariff act passed by the last Congress
i 1912. He showed that it was highly protec-
! tive tariff and not one for revenue. He showed
that, by the compromise tariff act Of 1888, The tao
no imported article was to erceed 20 per rent upon
its palue after The 30h Of June, 1912. No higher
tax than 20 per cent. was imposed on any article
after the Both of June 1912 until the Both of Au-
gust 1912, on which latter day the present Tariff
law was passed by the Wing Congress. The Whig
Congress laid riolcnt hands on the Compromise aci
Of 1888 and broke up"-Polks speech al Jackson
.4p1t 3, 1843.
We here see that Mr.. Folks opinion of the Com.
promise is that no duty exceeding 90 per cent ,cas
to be laid after The 30h Of June 1842--or indeed
ever to be laid; and when the Wing Congress o.
1912 exceeded this 90 per cent. rate, he expressly
accused them of violating the compromise.
These views were also expressed by him in IS4G
in answer to citizens of Memphis, and he went Sc
far as to declare that he is opposed to the Tariff O
1912 because too Frotectiue-that 20 per cent. will
afford sufficient prOtectiom-is all that ought to be de
sired, and all that ice are entitled 10! To the
proof:
AZ AM OPPOSED TO THE TARIFF ACT
OF THE LATE CONGRESS, considering it t.
be in many respects of this character-and, indeed
so highly protective upon some articles as to pro
hibit their importation into the country altogether
/ am in taror of REPE.aLLN'G TINT .4ct, and re
storing the Compromise Tariff .4ct Of March I'd
1888, believing as do, that it would produce NOR
revenue than the present law, and hathe in
cidental protection afforded by The TWENTY PEI
CENT. duty, especially when this would be paid i
, cash, and on the home valuation, will afford SUI
: FICIENT PROTECTION 10 the Manufacturers
and ALL THAT THEY OUGHT TO DESIRE
! OR TO WHICH THEY ARE ENTITLED"
In this connexion it is necessary to add, that MI
Polk does not consider the distribution of the pre-
ceeds of the public lands as part of the Comprc
. mise but he, with his party, is against distribution
n We quote from his speech at Jackson:
".THE nIFFEREYcE BETWEEN THE COURSE o
# BI0w@l ACTS AND MYSELF IS WHILST THEY ARE n
ADVOCATES OF DISTRIBUTION AND PROTECTlN
TARIFF-MEAsuREs WHICH | CONSIDER RUINou
i TO THE INTEREsrs OF THE COUNTRY, AND ESP
:, CIALLY TO THE INTERESTS OF THE PLANTING STATE
y i HAVE STEADILY AND AT ALL TIMES OPPOSE
# BOTH
o More evidence can be produced, but this is
. bundantly sufficient to show conclusively that NJ
: Polk insists that the Compromise act limited dlti
to 20 per cent. only; that to exceed that rate is
o violation of the compromise that all the protectio
he will agree to is that which would be incidents
If to horizontal revenue tariff of 20 per cent; an
THAT the proceeds of the public lands are not to