The northern galaxy. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1844-1848, 1845-09-03
For .SenGiors-ADDisoI COUNTY.
DAVIS RICH,
EENOCH d. WOODBRIDGE
James Barrett,
Justin Morgan,
Thomas ID. Barrett,
Benjamin Billings.

the Tariff, andlwhat Locofoco bas raised bis
voice in Congress for this purpose! Yea,
during the last Session, did not threo-tourlhs
of that party 10 Congress vote for Nc Nays
bill. which would reduce the duty GU all wool
from 40 to % per cent? And who attempted
to sacrifice the interests of the wool grower
if indeed, they were sacrificed, on the passage
of the present Tariff! Who moved amend
ments in the House to reduce the Tariff and
who, knuckle to thumb, opposed every cheek
TO the introduction of those checks upon
the importation of South American WOOL
which would have brought three-fourths oil
the article under the big chest rate of duties OF
8 cents pound, and thirty per cent, ad valo-
rem, instead of the duty Of five per cent ad va
loren, as now paid, because those checks are
wholly disregarded by the Custom House Off
GERS Of the present and the last administration.
But we will no longer indulge in asser-
tons, but refer the reader 10 the History Of
the passage of the bill through the House to
determine who were the enemies of the wool
growing interest, and who are responsible Tor
the defects of the present Tariff 90 coarse
wool. In this respect it is we'll known that
the Wing delegation MADE repeated attempts
to enhance the Tariff on coarse wool, in eve
ry one of which they were foiled by the oppo-
sItion OF the Locofoco party.
I'm referring to the proceedings ofthe House
OF Representatives, at the time the Tariff bill
was under consideration, we find the names OF
four Locos, and not a single whig, who mo-
we'd amendments which would tend TO sacri-
flee the interests growers, to wit: Messrs.
Brown of Pa, Johnson Of Tenn, Smith of
Va, aud Roosevelt ofNew York; and on the
other hand there were seven wings who mo-
we'd amendments for the protection of wool,
to wit: Messrs. Fillmore ofNew York, Arnold
of Tenn, Briggs of Mass, Mason of Ohio,
and Slade, Everett, and Hall, Of VT.
Now we will give some statements oil tne
amendments for protecting wool, and our rea-
ders can then judge for themselves by tne
acts OF the locos whether they did or dii not
90 for the sacrifice ofthe interests oil YER
mont .ls-.-f-1
Saturday, July I6 1912, the House had me
Tariff bill under consideration, and on the
question on raising the duty on woolien oian-
kets to 30 per cent, the ayes and noes were
taken and published, and were as follows:
AYES-l0l Wings, 2 Locos, (Parmenter
of Mass, and Read of Pa.) and Tylerltes.
NOES-94 Locos, IL Wings, (all from the
South and 2 Tyleriies.
Here then,:we find all the locos but two vo-
ting against raising the duty on woollen blan-
kets; and it was equivalent to voting against
protection to wool. Every blanket imported
is Just equal to an importation of the foreign
wool of which the blanket was made.
The next question was on raising the duty
on ,cooIlen and ,corsted yarn to so per cent.
AYES-l05 Wings, 5 Locos, Floyd.
Torrance, ParmenieT, Plumer, and Read,
only one loco from New England9 and = Tyr
Ter men.
Here, again, is another vote against wool;
what protection is that TO wool, which per-
mits yarn TO come in under low duty!
The next question was on raising the duty
on woollen and worsted mits, stockings, draw
ers, and shirts, &c. III
AYES-109 Wings, Locos, (ohly one To-
CO from New England again!) 2 Tyler men;
NOES-9l locos, IA Southern wings, and
. Tyler men. I'll
The above is proof positive that the Loco
focos in Congress have done all they could 70
"Sacrifce the interests
of wool growing. LocOs hereabouis have have the
effrontety to pretend that the Tariff affords no
protection to wool growers and is destructive
of their interests, and yet the same party IN,
Congress, made no effort to make it better,
nor would they consent to IFS being as protecI I