Virginia advocate. [volume] (Charlottesville, Va.) 1827-1860, 1830-06-25

Mr. b. referred to the example OF England,
Who favored hor provision curers, and permitted
,hcm to import alum salt, free ofduty, for the
encouragement of tho provision trade, even
when her own salt manufacturers where pro-
ducng abundant and superhuous supply of
common salt He showed that she did more ;
That she extended tho same relief and encour-
,gemont to the Irish and he read from The
British statute book, an act of the British Par
lament, passed in 1907, entitled san act to en-
'urage the expert IF satutsd beef and pork from
Ireland" which allowed Il bounty of ten pence
,terling on every hundred weight of beef and
uork so exported, in consideration of tho duty
laid on tho salt which was used in the curing
lit. He stated, that at n latter period, the du-
- Ind been entirely repealed, and the Irish, in
COMMON with other British subjects, allowed u
rec trade with all tho world, in salt and then
demanded, in tho most emphatic manner, ifthe
;.rople of tho West could not obtain from the
american Congress the justice which the op-
PRESSED Irish had procured from British Par
lament, composed of hereditary mobiles, and FL
ed with representatives of rotten boroughs,
nd savish rctainers of the Kings ministers
'Iaving shown the enormous amount of the tax,
- unequal operation in different sections of the
Mon, and the superior claims of the West fol
IT'S abolition, Mr.. b. proceeded to examine the
reasons for kcepingit up. These grew out Of
ihe " .3meriedn System, > for the duty was nc
'onger wanted for revenue The plea OF reven-
was cut off by our own conduct. We had
voted, two years ago, to reduce the duties one
,ialf on wines, and were now voting to reduce
Them 10 fraction OH coffee, tea, and chocolate.
This is proof decisive that the revenue can dis
rense with part of the taxes. The objection
then, to the repeal of the salt duty, stands upon
no I" american System;" and thus this system
is presented to tho people by its own warm
riends and Jealous champions, as reducing the
moderate duties on champagne wine and inIpe-
''l tea, which the rich an luxurious alone, use,
aud leaving the enormous and unequal duties
upon salt, without which the farmer cannot
raise his stock or cure his provisions without
" hch the laboring man cannot eat his dinner,
nor the beggar boil his green's Thus this sys-
tenn is presented as favouring the rich and luxu.
rious, expressing the poor and lab crious But
ist us examine into ii and see with what Jus
lice, and with what conformity to It's own de-
"lared principles, the ".4mtrican System" has
iken the salt tax under its shelter and protec-
Ion. The principles Of that system, as un-
derstand them, and practise upon them, ale to
:aI through the custom house, the foreign rirais
u our oaon essential productions, 1chen, by that
'a1dt,on, an adequate supply tothe same article,
rs good, and as cheap. can be made at home.
These were the principles of the system, Mr..
Z w no, init
changed since, he had not changed with them
and he apprehended a PRONUNCIATION of the
change would produce schism amongst its
followers. Taking these to be the principles
pt the system, let the salt tax be brought to its
test. In the first place, the domestic manufac-
lure had enjoyed all possible protection. The
"uty was near 300 per cent. on Liverpool salt,
and 400 upon alum salt and to this must be ad-
led, 80 far as relates to all the interior manu-
;ation, frequently equal to 9 or 500 per cent
more. This great and extensive protection has
heon enjoyed, without interruption, for the last
eighteen years, and partially for twenty years
:pnger. This surely is time enough for the trial
OF a manufacture which requires but lutte skill
or experience to carry it on. Now for the re-
suits Have the domestic manufactures pro-
duced an adequate supply for the country They
have not not half enough. The production of
ne last year QS2'O as shewn in the returns to
the Secretary of the Treasury, is about FIVE
millions OF bushels the importation of foreign
salt for the same PERIOD as shown by The Gus
'om house returns is 5,945,547 bushels This
shows the consumption to be eleven millions of
bushels, Of which five are domestic. Here the
failure, in the essential particular ofan ade-
qnate supply. is more than one half In the
next place, how is it in point of price Is the
domestic article furnished as cheap as the for
eign? Far from it, as already shown and still
iurther, as can be shown. The price Of the do
inestic, along the coast of the Atlantic States,
varies at the works from 27l-2 to 80 cents 1; in
he interior, the usual prices at the works are
itom 80 ID cents TO one dollar for the bushel
nea=ure. The prices of the foreign salt, at the
import cities, as shown in the custom house re-
'urns Tor lo2J, are, for the Liverpool, blown,
bout 10 cents for the bushel of So lbs for
Turks Island and other West India salt. about
, cent for ST. Ubes, and other PORTUGAL salt
about cents for Spanish salt, Bay of Biscoy,
and Gibraltar, about cents from the Island
of Malta, cents. Leaving out the Liverpool
salt, which is made by boiling, and there fore
contains stack and bittern, septic INGREDIENT
which promotes putrefaction, and renders that
salt unfit for curing provisions, nd which is
not used in the West ; and the average price of
INC strong, pure alum salt, made by solar eva.
7oration in hot climates, is about cents to the
bushel. Here then is another lamentable fail
IRE. Instead of being sold as cheap as the for
elgn, the domestic salt is from four TO twelve
times the price ofalum salt The last inquiry is
as to the quality Of the domestic article. is il
as good as the foreign This is the most essen
tial application of the test, and here again the