The Issue in Connecticut.
{"character_count": 4184, "word_count": 749, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9664999842643738], "ccnet_perplexity": [1561.199951171875], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
n5ectcut to-day Is oae more than rrins importance


goecticut Is manufacturing Stae--yet He Deta0crGfs


IN eome out boldly for free trade putting the issue ts-
Tcre,ie tdr6 and proecttre Grf Il uis ms ne" new


s,ion b. sustaIned-it under such advstas,s ne -


,ts can keep the Stzte-;he m-ns ;ekel uphsfaln


,,n against the Who'll system Of pohb'toFy and rfo


'ive dus= II the Why's snccsed under ttr bann,T oil
ir-t-ction though will be- test OF the national ee!hS
y,il prove that among lnufacnIer5 there IS s det-f
sustain tie arif Of lsi2 1Ith all m deiorn,-s


MI II probbiiIty tue nsI fesdeLtial election VII" bf


M npon the issue Connecticut has therefore much more


oorap responsibility discharge than the e!e'ilon
II CERTAIN party 10 Office TIE of the nation are uroa
w they before and perhaps b. again


u Perhaps we ought by this time to be be-
yond feeling surprise at any thing which appears
IN the columns of our devout contemporary, but we
we're sorelv astonished at this leading paragraph
in Mondays Journal We are sure the Editor
would not have published it in season to be spread
over Connecticut and well considered there tor
many, many dollars, small as is his abhorrence OF
Iucre. But, so soon as it was too late to be felt
IN the contest, he comes out with the broad as
sertion that the Loc0-Focos of Connecticut OPEN
ly repudiated Tariff for Protection and declared
FOR one levied for Rerenue only Now we have
spent some time in Connecticut during this can
vass, and have met in various parts OF the State
some four or five thousand Of her People, and We
do most unquaIfedly assert that if we had under
taken to make an assertion as widely as possible
at variance with the truth, we could not have
exceeded that VIC have above quoted. We appeal
from assertions to facts, and ask the indulgence
Of those whose names for the truths sake we shall
be obliged to place before the public


That the Wigs every where endeavored to
make an issue between Protective and Reve-
nue. Tariff is the fact, but that issue was unver-
sally and emphatically disarowed by our oPpo-
nents At Ne,o Milford, where we met large
gathering of both parties, our Protective doctrines
were expressly approved by prominent Van Buren,
men, as forming no part OF the difference between
us AT Dnnbury. our assertion tnat the Wing
party was the side OF Protection and that 10 vote
Loco was to vote against Protection was ve
hementy contested by our opponents, and silly
paragraph OF the Richmond Wig, Explained by
the Editor to have been uttered in JEST purporting
that Mr.. Clay is more Of Free Trade man than
MIR. Van Buren, was confidently cited as proof
positive of our mistake At the same place on
another evening, when Judge Bisse was object
ing to Mr. Van Buren, that he was hostile to the
Protective system, he was interrupted (though IN
Wing meetingl by Judge Whittlesey, now of
the Fairfield County Court, late Loco NJ. c. who
declared him in error and cited Mr.. V. BIS IN
dina letter to prove the writer favorable to Pro-
lection.


Again: A COL Hart of this city addressed
the Locos of New Haven on Friday evening
last, and exhorted them not to mind any thing the
Wings would say to them On Election day about
the Tariff, but push ahead the voting. Again:
The Hartford Times Of last week had letter
from Montville in that State urging the voters
not to believe the Wing stories about the hostility
of the opposite party to Protection, and asserting
that Mr.. Van Euren was only opposed to some OF
the details Of the present Tariff-thus knavshly
suppressing the more important part of his decla-
ration that he is "opposed to the present Tariff,
both in principle and details" And at Stafford,
Tolland Co. we are assured that at the conclusion
of a Tariff address by a Wing, some of the citi-
zcns went up to Il Loco Foco electioneerer and
accosted him, "Y You have deceived us You
told us that in order to sustain the Tariff we
must vote for Cleveland and his party, but we
now find that it is the Wing party which is
friendly to Protection" Such are few of the
many facts which so conflict with the Journals
assertions as to prove them not merely haseless
bnt unaccountable.