National opinion. [volume] (Bradford, Vt.) 1865-1874, 1866-07-13
LETTER FROM sen ALTO II
POLAND.
We copy the following from the
Middlebury Register. 1t explains it
self.

t'Bs tilt ioiIoh Ai'hh tht
Middlebury Register. 1t explains it
self:
L. S. SENATE CHAMBER,
Washington, June Dist, 1866.
Hon. JAMES NJ. SLADE,-Dedr
Sr:-l have just received your let
ter of the 18th inst, in which you
say that in your county it is urged
against me that | am free trade
Democrat of the old school, and still
think the same, and you ask an eX
preston of my views upon the queS-
ton of protection to the industrial
pursuits of the country and particu
larly that branch (wool GROWTH so
vital to Vermont.
| have been aware that most per
slstent efforts were being made to
defame my political character, and
create Il belief that am not a sound
and true republican, but | have paid
no attention to such charges; as |
felt entirely willing the people of
Vermont should judge me by their
knowledge of my previous life, and
by my public course here as one of
their representative in the Senate.
Your letter contains the first init
nation I-have had that | was accus-
ed of being unfavorable to the suit
able and efficient protection of eve
ry branch of industry and produc-
ton III our country, and especially
that | could not be trusted upon the
subject of protection for the pecu
liar interests of Vermont. l can
not believe that such a charge is
made against me honestly by any
body. The tariff, or the principle
upon which duties or impostS should
be based, never was strictly and
properly Il party question. Differ
ent sections of the country would
vote according to their ideas of their
own local interests without much
regard to the doctrine advanced by
amy political party, and our country
was so large and its interests and
productions so diversified that no
party could be made homogeneous
on this question. But whatever diff
ierences formerly existed on this
subject, the present state of the
country, its increased expenditures,
and the immense debt under which
we labor, will require us to resort to
every means to raise revenue, for
many years to come, and put at rest
the question about tariff.
The only questions now open, are
how shall duties be adjusted. so as
to bear equally upon all the differ
cnt interests and productions of the
country. The existing tariff, so ta1
asst affects the wool interest is mani
festly unjust and unequal, as he
tween the grower and the manufac
turcr. While the producer of WOO
gets no more, if so much, for hi
wool in the present inflated curren
cyl rs he formerly obtained in specie
the wool manufacturer gets two o
three times as much for his clothes
Its injustice is manifest. The myS
terry to me has hnnn how the fran
r. crs OF the existing tariff ever expect
eS it would do Justice between tn
wool grower and the II ,nufacturel
| | have heard it said that Il bill WI
in preparation in the House (wher
all such measures must originate
} which would do away with this wron
to the great wool interest of til
5 country, and if such Il bill shoul
: come before the Senate, shall Civ
+ it my earnest support. To recur to
J. a moment to myself let me say, thu
J. it is now nearly twenty years sine
e | acted with the democratic part,
While did act with it, | was not
II free trade man, but believed in pr,
tccting our domestic industries h
II the imposition of duties upon I'll
same productions imported. | +
{. member that | was-the author of
!, series .of resolutions adopted at
II meeting of the friends of Il TART
: held in Lamoille County, at leai
/ twenty years ago, which supportC
o this doctrine.
u | have not time now sir, to ent'
9 more largely into this subject. Ic
z are at liberty to make my views ;
T. above stated, public in any mann
YOU deem advisable. Very respet
Il fully yours, Ne,
It LUKE =. POLAND.