The Ripley advertiser. [volume] (Ripley, Miss.) 1843-1897, 1844-07-13

, life, We must iabf,cnic hem onfsultee. W
nov place our manufacturers by The eide O.
he Aeflcalluiist The iormer question T.
now suppressed, or rather assumes new
tofm. The grlnd inquiry now IL, shall We
make our own comforts or 60 without them
Iat thG vii ot a foreign nation lie, there
iore, "hots now against domestic mangil'
nres, mns be for reducing u. either 10 Il
dependence upon thal nation Or be elulhef
IN skins and tive like beasts IN dens an
cavetns. l am proaf 10 sag that ! am MOI
one OF these. Experience has taught me
tha' manufactures, are now rs necessary to
our infcPendenee as 10 ar comfort
JeDersoas litter 10 Benz Aastia E'q
We TOO, in our hnnbleness. are PROUD
mat we are not zone of tiesen men " ho are
opposed to domestic manufactures; bot il i
rue, that those, who are thus opposed to
domestic manufactures, ar. in favor of re-.
ducinl US 10 state of Dependency upon Tor
el.n nations or to be clothed in SKINS and
i've like beasts in dens and cave,nsf Such
vas he deliberate opinion OF Jefferson and
such too ~ the argument of the grsa. Wing
party of the United S a'es. But. "progres
ave Democracy" has oat done Jefferson
IN political economy generally; and az to
his notions upon the tariff hey hold them in
perfect contempt, we mean the southern 10,
cofocos, for the nor,E states cher,shes these
o, in,ons.
In this conviction le, US present you the
views Of James K Polk, that you may all
he able to contrast them with J1her SON
ana even Gen J .ckson's opinion's; tor II Is
said by some, thot the opinions OF Folk anc
G.a jackson upon this subject are ldcotic"I
Liels are Mr., PoIk's osn opinions:
aThe difference between the WhiG party
and mvsett ,s, whilst they are The advocates
of distribution and protective ,arlfi~-meas
/ ures which consider ruinops 10 tie inter.
. ests of the country especially TO the plan,
: ting Safes. have steadily and all tlnet
opposed both" See pamphIe' Speech IA
Jackson, Trn, april 81 1913
AGAIN rs says "My owa opnion is III,
\ wool Should be dnty free "--Consressional
Debates, Vol, 9, Pill "A.
ANY one can SEQ that Their. is no agree
Imenl amongst the Locas themselves upc'
The -oti-ci # he tariff, aud not only So
bu, hey differ with or contradict hemselVe
ii different times. One O; their "suppose'
big guns" during ony last Court argued Iha
, there was an nyidIous distinction made he
,f tween the wool grower and the manufac al
i. err by the act Of AZ. Because he said To
ID manufacturer was protected, al the raj
,e perhaps, 80 or 40 per cent, when the ia
ad mer had protection of perhas about 5 p'
A, cent. II. seemed to hink that the wo
&c grower or sheep raiser ought to have {
sry much protection as the manufacturer, b
The Nr, Folk thinks that the same farmer Il
: wool grower, should have no protection
he ali: Still in as much as they want the pr
of lection he will graciously give it TO them
~, a small amount al which our neighbor abo'
of aludes to complains so severely. We a
ith willing they shall sot'le this little matt
m be,ween them as they are both Locotoco
IS But as to Mr., Polk, we say that he con,r
JUS diets himself in this, that he SAYS that
er has steadily and at all lines been oppos
his 10 protective Tariff when it is admir-
md that he was in 1888 for restoring the tar
led of 1916. THIS tariff was ayowedlv for n,
Me lection and YET James K, Polk SAYS he h
cos always been opposed toproecnou! This
hat astonishing enough. Why, John G, {.
owe houn, The great advocate OF The tariff Of |
of l6, directed all he force o(his mighty nil
act, to The point of protection. 1t was not argu
the by HIM or any of the lhe en- leading tar
i've men upon any ground but that of protec,io
n it Mr., Polk was for restoring his tariff of IS
me and YET is not and never was in favor