Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1846-07-30

Vermont. The Polk Tariff proposes to take of
IL 81 per cent. from the amount of duty on fan
nes, and to open wide the ad Ualorcm door for the
fraudulent introduction of the foreign article Mt far
less than this duty The Patriot may glory over
this sacrifice of the interests OF Vermont; it may
alt,mpt to cover up this assault upon the menuiac-
turers and farmers of Vermont, by plausible argu-
mens against specific duties but we feel it be
our duty rather to those interested of the sac
rifcc which Polkery is requiring of thom-a sacri- !
fee, too for the benefit of British and German man
ufacturcrs and wool growers
We observe that hides and leather arc also in
slancod as specimens of gross inequalhy--the for
MGR being per cent, ad valorom and the latter 6
to cents per pound-bcing equal to from 10 to
80 per cent ad valorcm, averaging say q per cent
Well-the Polk Tariff puts hides at 8 per cent
and leather at 90 per cent.-reducng the protection
on leather per cent. while the gricvous sin of
inequality Is not yet bloted out. Leather too, is
another instance where the duty was intended to
be prohibitory, and the amount of foreign leather
consumed is valued at only about 100000 per
anuum. Probably the farmers Of Vermont, who
are held W in the Patriot as the victims of the duty
Oh leather, have not consumed a single pound of
the foreign article, and are just no victims at all.
We think they are unconscious Of any very severe
hiding. In this case also, we leave the Patriot to
bcstow all its sympathes on the British tuners
We go for yankee tanners, and against Folks re-
duction of the duty
SIR is another instance, says the Patriot, of the
gross injustice of specific duties, inasmucl as "the
lady of New York, nursed in the lap Of luxury,
that never saw sp!unng wheel, or MIXED heit'
or, promcnading Broadway with her silk or satin,
worth $500 (equal yards or wcight,) paid no more
tax than the Vermont girl that spins the yarn, that
milks the COW, or earns her bread and money by
the sweat of her brow in the factory" All ,his is
eloquent hitmJug. In the first place, large por-
ton of silk goods pays an al vuloren duty of from
% TO 40 per cent? and in the next place, the spc-
cific duty is much per pound, and therefore is
very nearly adapted to the true value probably
full as near as could be attained by the invoices
nder ad vaorem duties, tho specific duty actual
ly being equal to from 10 to 80 per cent od valo-
rem. The duties in Folks bill are from % TO 30
per cent. Whether the duties changed or no,
we do not think that any serious consequences
will follow, either 10 the New York lady, the milk
maid, or the heifer.
Let us now call the attention of the reader to the
Patriot on wool
g Now, If | cannot prove to demonstration the
assertion have mate as TO wool, quoted above, I
| ask no man to believe word of it. Under the
tariff of 1912, wool costing cts or less paid du
ty of per cent over cts. 30 per ct. and cents
added. Here, them are two classes of wool pay
ing duties. Now the last act makes all wool pay
80 per cent. nd valorem that the reader readily
sees that al the reduction is on the fine wool Gg,l
that it IS just cts. off pound and that it ADDS
500 per cent. more of duty than the cent
wool and under before.
The Wool imported in The gear ending Juae 30, 1915
cts. and under, 23,;jse,097 lbs. cost
ing Sl,553,7S9 at ) per cent is 1859 d
Over cts, 4509i3 lbs. costing $780,
COS. 80 per ct. on I36,O05 is 4o,8Ol sc
3 cts. Oh a 10. for 450,9l3 is 1885 2y
Making the duties on all the wool i'm
ported, sI32Ol9 "a
That same wool cost as above $685.
794, at 30 per CT. under. BY the
proposed law, it is subject to duty of 10693S &c
Leaving an excess Of protection III favor of the
new BILL over the law of AZ, of S37I,9l996.
Which is three times and over as much protec-
ton TO the wool grower for that year dollars ant
cents by actual demonstrate W."
ing Galschood, in the assertion that the Tariff of 1915
limits the duty wool costing cents or less tC
five per cent. We repeat, perhaps for the hun
drcdth time, that This per cent. duty was expressly
intended to be limited to icoOl opiB and is Sc
expressly limited by the act itself in the PLANES
language That the Locofoco administrators o
the law have violated it-that they have admitted
fine wool 10 compete with our wool-growers at the
per cent duty-that they have been grossly faith
less to the law and to the wool growers, I've will
not deny. The Patriot may glory in their shame
and serviley support them in it, it wills but whe
it charges their guilt upon the Tariff of 1912, il
the face of the words OF the act itself, we know o
| no term too strong to be used in rebuting tn
charge. We remark in the next place, that thi
table of the Patriot (by the way, VIC suppose it wa
gathered from the old Federal Post of New-Yor
city, paper now thoroughly in the British inter
cs,s,) is OF course incorrect, far it purports t.
give the duties which are required by the act o
1872 and does not therefore prove any thing TIN
real question Is, whether or not the % millions o
cheap woo! was coarse and competed with ours
If not, then it should be entirely thrown out, a
having nothing to do with the question of protec
ton to our wool. The account would then stan
thus
80 per cent on Sl3G005 Is S4OSOl,5
3 cts. per pound on 450.943 is 1888
Total duty by The Tariff of 1872 s54,329,7
Same by Polk Tann, 4OSOl,5
Difference in favor of Tariff of ~, Sl3528,2
IT, however, this cheap wool was not course an
did compete with ours, then in strict accordanc
with the words, meaning and intention of the Tar
of 1912, the whole of it ought to have paid dut
of cents per pound and 30 per cent ad valorcn
In that case the account would stand thus:
23,S33Ol0 lbs. of wool at 3 cts S7I4g9l .
30 per cent ad valorcm on $l,Ge979i, 5O6,q33. 9