The Caledonian

ST. JOHNSBURY TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 1842.

A FEW FACTS.

The last Star feelingly alludes to our charge that the locofoco party were opposed to a discriminating protective Tariff, but does not deny, nor can it, the general truth of the charge. We supposed this unquestioned, and our reasons for supposing it were so, are—

1. Every locofoco newspaper in the United States—for the last two years of which we have seen or heard, has opposed such a Tariff.

2. Every locofoco Legislature, has either passed resolutions against such a Tariff, or said nothing upon the subject.

3. Every locofoco member of the present Congress, save only 13, (on the reference question,) has always and upon every occasion voted indirectly upon the subject, against such a Tariff.

4. Every locofoco member of Congress who has spoken upon the subject has advocated free trade and direct taxation, or taken some other ground against such a Tariff.

5. At the last locofoco Convention in Vermont a resolution was passed "to let industry regulate itself."

6. There is not a locofoco paper in Vermont that advocates such a Tariff, and all to our knowledge, covertly, if not openly, oppose it. Not even in the North Star, have we seen a syllable for the last two years, upon its own expression, in favor of such a Tariff, but on the contrary a sideway thrust at it on every occasion. If there has been such an expression, it has escaped our notice.

7. It is well understood, and is frequently avowed on the floor of Congress by the leaders of the locofoco party, that it is one of the cardinal principles of the party to oppose such a Tariff, and as a party, in doors and out of doors, and on all occasions, do they oppose such a Tariff. The exceptions to this, if any there be, are only from here and there an individual member of the party, which amount to nothing, for they have no influence upon the action of the party.

8. And, then, inferentially—If that party were for such a Tariff, their papers, their speakers in Congress, and their Legislatures, would advocate it, and not, as they do, pronounce the Whigs federalists, for doing so.

These are the facts upon which we made the charge—if any of them are incorrect, we are ignorant of it.

Our neighbor evades the question, by avowing that federalists always charged the democrats with being opposed to a Protective Tariff. The motto of the old federal party was "free trade and sailors' rights." The Republicans were for Protection and the ultra Federalists were for free trade. The Whigs occupy the same ground now upon the subject that the Republicans did, and the Locofocos the opposite. The Star must be aware that of all the Presidents of the United States, no one failed to recommend a Protective Tariff except the elder Adams and Martin Van Buren.

If the Star does not understand this matter thus, history and the old Republicans now living will throw light upon it, if consulted. The Star has our sympathies—for we can well apprehend the difficulty of endeavoring to leave the impression upon the minds of certain of its readers who are convinced of the necessity of such a tariff, when it feels the deep conviction that its party, as a body, are opposed to it,—for when honest men thus believing, find out the true state of the case, they must feel constrained to leave their party and go with the Whigs—for the country and its independence. And in all parts of the free States, such, we believe, is the case.