Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1870-11-01
NUMBER, ~

so? Because some localities are favored
with rapid growth and thriving business,
while others are struck with the rust and
mildew of years. These illustrations are
plain to all. So it is with money. Money
is worth more to one than it is to another,
and he can afford to pay more for its use.
Why should he not have the privilege of
doing the best he can with 1.-THE same as
he has with other property? Money is
property reduced in bulk and easy to
handle. A horse that sells for $50 is but an
enlarged greenback of that denomination,
and is kept cut of the wallet mainly by
reason of its bulk. Our State treasurer
borrows money in Massachusetts, and pays
but a trife less than eight per cent. Our
banks charge the same rates. Why should
not our moneyed men-our money lenders
have the same privilege? They do by
stealth now what the banks do openly
Why this favoritism Why should not
money lenders in Vermont have an even
chance with the capitalists of Massachu'
sets? Is the stranger any better than our
brother? The law says he is; at least it
gives him superior privileges over our own
people. Why not borrow our money at
home and keep it at home, as well as to go
abroad for it? The effect is now to send
our capital abroad or lock it up in banks,
thus removing it from home scirculat ion.
Why is not Vermont a manufacturing
State? Because our capital has gone west
and those who should use it have gone
west too, or else to Lowell or Lawrence
and Manchester to contribute their brain
and Drawn to build up enterprises in Mas
sachusetts and New Hampshire, that were
as well fostered in Vermont, but for the
| lack of money and the men to use it I'M
| derstandingly. This is the true reason
! why Vermont is not manufacturing State,
and not as Gen. Grout says, because she
''is too far from tide water to enable our
! people to engage successfully in manufac-
lures" 1t may be that we are too far
from eide water" to be successful in the
manufacture of cotton. But if cotton IS
king" in Massachusetts, and rules the waves,
wool is certainly king in Vermont. We
do not need to pay tribute to her in the
manufacture of that staple. We raise our
own wool, and that too Of the finest quail
ty. We have not to transport it from the
sea board, as is the case with cotton. Let
US manufacture wooden goods more largely
thus having agriculture and manufacture
es 60 hand in hand, each helping the 9th
er. To do this we must stimulate them
with appropriate legislation. We believe
the passage of the bill now before the
House would be an efficient aid. Let III
cast to the winds our old togy notions, take
our money from bond and bank, builC
mills and factories that shall give employ
ment to our sons and daughters at remun-
erative wages, rather than compel them t
seek it abroad. Our labor and capital g
away for that which we deny them g
home Who will dispute this? Is til,
policy rational one? Will it bear th,
scrutiny Of statesmen? Look at our lat
census returns. They teach a moral al
their own. Our large towns have great!
increased their population. Burlington
St Adams, Rutland Bennington and St
} Johnsbury have nearly doubled in the las
decade. These places have interested
: themselves in manufactures of one kind o
another-in numbering, in mining, il
= building cars, making scales or shawis, an,
have shot ahead in wealth and population
beyond all precedent, while the rural dis
tricts and farming towns have lost nearl.
as much as these have gained. This show
. that where Vermont has relied upon he
e agricultural resources wholly, she has gon
to the wall, and where she has invested il
the industrial arts her growth has bee
rapid. This, then, would seem to prov
that we are not only an agriculture
State" but that we are naturally manu-
featuring one, and that the tide water
theory is mere rhetorical moonshine.