Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1859-05-05
Tho Charge against Mr.. Goggin OF Voting
for u Tax OH Toa ann Coffee.

for II Tax OH Toa ann Coffee.
Letchcr, aud Montague. aud tho Whale brood of
Imposition editors nnd ointors. hnyc charged Mr..
Gongin with having voted for II tax on tea and
coffee. This charge ~ Locotoco chnrgrs usually
are is false. as the Washington CORES pon,lence we
publish to-day will amply demonstrate. Wa also
insart the following article on the subject from tho
Charlottesville Adrocotc which puts tho matter in
II very clear light before the public. Mr. Goggn
will be seen. vntcd invariably dga,nst n tax on
tea aud coffee, although he voted ior the revenue
bill of 1871. which included tax an ten nnd cof.
fee, hut which tax wns put in the bill against his
,rn.onst,ance and oqa,na his roie. lie was com
pclod tn vote for tho bill NJ it stood, or suffer the
wheels If Government to stop. Tint is the whole
matter in nut.shcl. And We hope that tho peO-
pie of Virginia will pay no heed To tho reckless
RoorbacLS of the lmposiiinn Democratic prcss and
the Imposition Democratic candidates for Govern
or md Lieutenant Governor.
''lIavihg earthly excuse to make for poor
John I.ctchcr's denial that he Ind ever voted for
Wendell NJ public printer, tho Jr4;Tmnian aludes
Ia Mr.. Gnggin's denial that he had ever voted to
tax tea aud coffee, set off to charge against
l.ctchcr. We had supposed that the false impress.
sion TINT endeavored To- hc male by this iden-
teal charge against Ga,giu, IN his canvass Of this
district in 1917. had been completely expo
sod ut TINT time that the Jrpfrsoniun would never
again hnvc the hardih"od IN repeat it. We are
therefore greatly surprised to find in the last issue
of that paper rrnsscrtion of that stale, inlse no.
rusntion against Mr.. Goggin. because it creates q
false impression on the public mini, an imprcs-
sion which investigation of tho record fully and
Overwhelmingly rciutcs. Let us examine the
charge and see whit there is in it. And to do
Mr.. Goggin full justice, il should DO stated that in
his denial he has always, far as We have 0bserv
ed. challenged his opponent to read the record,
confident himself, ny every honest man must be
who knows any thing abnut tho facts that tho fncts
alInr nat hn ~ or Ia tn tan dNnf.
lee
In making up the tariff hill of 1871. common
" called thc little tariff.) Mr.. Gotgin uniformly
voted against any for on tea and cepee and against
his remDnstrauce AMI vote. the two items were
included as taxable articles Tho whole Tnrf
Bill, including coffee md ten, with four or Ave
hundred other taxable subjects then put 10
tho vote and passed the House Of Representatives.
Mr.. Guggin voted for the bill as whole, but as
we have said, did everything in his power to de-
feat the incorporation into II OF the two articles
coffee and ten. Can il then bc honesfiy said that
he voted for taxing coffee and tea? IT so, what
have you to say. Mr.. Jeiorsonan to John Letch-
crs voting against the fugitive slave in the
Dunn Amendment Of the Kansas Bill? Mr.. Cog
gin preferred to pass the tariff of lS4l, rather than
to defeat il, even thorgh il contained fnx on cof
fee and tea. And Mr.. Letchcr preferred to defeat
the Dunn Amendment, rnther than to see il pass,
even though it contained the Fugitive Slave Bill.
Both acted properly; and there is much honesty
and truthfulncsa in charging Letcher with being
opposed to the Fugitive Slave Bill because he vo-
ted against the Dunn Amendment, as there in in
saying that Gogsin voted to tax lea nsd coffee, be-
cause he voted under the circumstances he was
placed in, kpr the tariff of lS4l. The JehersO-
nian can take either horn of the dilemma it choos
es.
'But this is not all. The tariff hill as passed
by the House Of Representatives, was sent to the
Senate where it was amended, was returned to
the House for its concurrence. When it was thus
returned Mr.. Goggin then voted to concur ,cih
the Senate, thus making the coffee and ten free Of
duty.
These are the facts proven by the record. Do
they not prove that Gogein was opposed to and
voted against taxing c"iIeo and tcas And do they
not also lead us TO infer that they who are ac-
quainted with the oilicnl record in this matter,
aud who persist in charging Goggn with voting
for tax upon coffee and tea are making what
they must know to be false charge at least
what is we'll calculated 10 make false impress
sion on the public mindr Mr.. Goggn was then
right in denying the truth OF the assertion. that
he voted to tax coffee and tea. And now tell us.
Mr.. Jefersonian, was John Letcter in any way
justified in denying that he voted for Wendell ss
public printer, when the record shows that he vo-
ted Tor him eleyea ft,ues" - Rich Uhi1, t4-5