Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1846-07-09


Ohio could do, and what she could not do what
she would do and what she would not do. They
had had great deal OF discussion here on the doc
trines Of Protection and Free Trade which led to
little more practical result than the discourse held
by the fallen angels who waited on the shores Of
hell, while their great chief was absent on his ex-
petition through chaos
''and reasoned high
or Providence, foreknowledge will, and fate,
Fixed fate, Tree will, foreknowedge absolute,
And found no end, in wandering mazes lost
Mr. B. said he warranted to speak the unani-
nous sentiments Of the entire Ohio delegation,
without the exception Of man. Did gentlemen
suppose that they were going TO support this bill .!
They would do no such thing. And why? They
had objection against it, which, though strong,
would not oflhemselyes be insuperable but there
were others which nothing could remove. They
objected to the bill FIRST because it made wide
and improper distinction in the duties levied upon
spirits and upon wine, There ought to have been
no such discrimination between these two articles.
If there was a good reason for laying duty on
the one there was reason equally good for impos-
ing duty on the other. Both articles were equal
ly unnecessary nor did he think that the health
and morals Of the American people would be at all
injured should both be permanently excluded
Their next objection to the bill the discrimna-
ton made between the articles of woolens and that
OF wool. The duty on wooden goods was put down
at 80 per cent. the duty on wool at 25 per cent
Both articles were imported, and they should both
have been taxed alike. Ohio was largely interested
in the growing of wool, and she held that the wool
growers were entitled to the same protection with
the manufacturer of wooden cloth. They objected,
in the third place, TO the distinction made between
iaxseed oil aud flaxseed. The one being taxed 20
per cent and the other at 10 per cent They had
the same objection to the distinction between raw
hides aud leather The hides in the raw state were
taxed per cent the leather 20 per cent the effect
of which would be 10 destroy the manufacture of
leather in this country.
But these objections might all be got over under
proper modification. There other objections
to the bill which could not, but which were in
superable The bill proposed a tax, contingent
indeed upon the face ofthe bill, but certain in its
operation and effect on tea and coffee. To this
they could not submit, aud they would moi, The
Union TO the contrary notwithstanding. They
could not consent to harmonize their woes with
the cracked and discordant and squeakng notes OF
the Government organ. The tax on tea and coffee
was TO all intents aud purposes poll tax. 1t might
as well have been laid on every man, woman, and
child in the country II was a poll tax, aud the
people of Ohio would not pay it, These articles
were in use by all the people, and most used by the
poor ltwas the poor mans rereshment when he
came home from his toll, aud il often the poor
womans only luxury. Many families in the West
made use Of it three times a day. Besides the tax
on these articles was sectional tax. The people
of the North and Middle States all made use of
them. The laboring population as much if not
more than any, while those who performed labor
in the South scarce used them at all.
But il was said by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr JoNEs) that the Government could not raise
enough revenue 10 meet the public service with
out The tax. No, not while the Committee were
cutting down all other articles and leaving them
free, he presumed they could not. But did gentle
men think that the free Delegation of Ohio for the