New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1848-10-30
TO THE LABoRERs OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mrs AND BRETHRIs
The exposition which addressed TO you OF the
dishonorable means whereby james n. Poik was
recommended 10 you four years since as more
reliable champion OF Protection than Henry CLAY,
and George " Dallas imposed upon you as your
sheet anchor in case OF any danger to your vital
interests has been generally submitted to IN
silence by those whose dishonesty 1t exposes
They cannot vndcate themselves and they know
H. One of them-John w Forney. Editor OF the
PENNSYLVANIA and holder OF a lucrative Office
under Pok-oslls me hypocrite and sundry hard
names, alleging that am commencing Gen lay
lor as an anti Slavery. w ilmot- Proviso man THIS
Is entirely false. have not so commended him.
True, believe the Free Soil principle will be al
vanced by the election OF Gen Taylor, not that
the Whig candidate is essentially nearer right
on this subject than his opponent. but that the
Wing party is. and that Gen Taylor, II elected
will be but the Executive leaving legislation to
Congress, where II belongs. But were TINS charge
against me true how would the fact avail those
have impeached In charging me with duphcity
AZ an offset do they not virtually admit their own
What pertinence in the retort, # they did not
desgnedly deceive you with regard TO Mr.. Folks
hostility to Protection
Nav, more am provoked TO farther exposure
When went to Washington IN lsit, to do what
little could toward preventing the overflow OF
the Tariff of '42 found there this same John w d.
Forney. with Wilson NJ Candless and other promi.
nent parti.ans of Polk, and now OF Csss. doing
Tor protesting to do, their utmost IN support OF
that Tariff. and In opposition TO Mr.. Walkers aud
Mr.. McKays bills which have since become the
Tariff of 40. They opposed the change then IN
contemplation as most injurious TO your State and
morally certain TO subveu their party therein
And why subvert 1t Partly because of the blow
twoud give to your industry, yet more because II
would prove that that party had deliberately de-
ceived and wronged you. IL was the declaration
Of one OF the leading politicians OF that school
who had written public letter IN "a pledgins
Mr. Polk to the Protective policy, that # the bll
of &c were 10 pass, he would be the most thor
oughy used-up man IN America Why Because
he had been an important instrument IN ehecting
the great swndlo, and his responsibility was pro
portionate All the politicians among YOU OF thai
school felt, and most of them said, that the over
throw Of the Tariff OF a. would be the overthrow
of their party Your State Election that soon fol
lowed proved them true prophets They were
routed. not because You had as yet been praeu
cany iniured--for the effects Of the Tariff OF u
had scarcely begun 10 be felt-but because yO'
had been deceived and betrayed and now IN,
very men who then declared that their part,
would be crushed IN Pennsy lvsnis by the change
proposed because Of their violated assurance
and your periled interests are hard at work tryin.
to convince YOU aud induce You 10 vote that YOU
were not injured AZ all-that you were not be
rsyed-thas the change. made IN 40 was bene
fetal 10 your interests-and that you ought 10 b
obliged to Messrs. Walker, Dallas, 4 Co. for over
throwing the Tariff OF ~ Can you be suled b,
this preposterous efronteryl
Ii the overturn OF i6 had been a wise and sala
tary measure the fraud whereby its authors Oh
tanned the power to enact ii would have bees
nevertheless glaring, hardly less oensurable Il
cannot be justified. A man might as well under
take to Justify gres, iorser by urging that h,
gave part Of the proceeds TO the Bible Society
But when the bsseness OF the means is equaled by
the mischief OF the end why should No, the whol,
drama OF fraud be visited on the heads OF is con
uivers
One adversary has undertaken 70 answer NE
experience OF most OF you will refute his ssser
tion that the overthrow Of the Tariff Of ~ ha'
proved beneficial Blu, q, US awe this, and lool
into his logic:
He borows his argument from Sir Robert Peel
who. in iustifying has opposition 10 the Butisl
Corn. Laws takes as an illustration OF Free Trade
the case OF has Tsmworth constituents. who art
farmers and gardeners tor the adjacent msnuiac
,asine city Of Manchester or Birmingham distant
some tea miles. Suppose says he the gardeners
o, Manchester were to complain OF the competi
t,on from Tsmworth and demand the exclusion
of Tamwor,h csbbages, &c. from thes market
would il be wise to comply with their demand
Yet all demands TOR Protection rest substantially
on the same bssis
No, Sr Roberi-no nelghbor Of The Gi0oe-
your error iscasi in the same mold With the veneer
able wf:ticism which asks IN reply to demcns'rs-
iion that BY substituting a stove Tor replace
sewing of hall the fuel may be effected then why