Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1840-03-13

tant facts in relation to the subject. AT
this, confess, | was little surprised,
and concluded he must have some motive
other than that of tightening the people.
The duty he says, if'hc recollects right,
is 10 cents per bushcl of Sc pounds, and
probably amounts to 40 per cent on the
original cost, which he believes amounts
to over $4,000 a year; and that owing
to the Unjust and infamous system of
monopoly of the state of New York, inclu-
ding canal tolls, the people of Vermont
pay an additional tax of 80 or $4,000 a
year; and then proceeds to say, 'And
yet the this system has continued for
years, and the attention of Congress not
once calfed 10 the spbiect, until Mr.. Smith
gave notice that he should ask leave to
introduce BILL" &c. Now cannot be-
lieve that Mr. Brown is SO ignorant, as to
suppose that Mr. Smiths Bill to repeal
the duty on salt will destroy or in any
way effect this 'odious monopoly of the
Empire State or that Congress has any
power to reduce the canal tolls. The
people of New York enjoy their monopoly
which their salt springs give, by higher
charter than that of any human legislature,
and do not think that even Mr. Brown
will insist on the right of repeating it
and that he will admit that however infa-
nous tAs system Of monopoly is, that the
people of Vermont arc not obliged to pay
tolls on the canal, if they prefer to trans
port their salt, as they would do if no
canal existed! shall therefore take it
for granted that Mr. Brown does not ask
the people of Vermont to believe that Mr.
Smith will be able to relieve them of any
thing more than the $4,000, which they
pay in duties; and if Mr. Brown had
merely attempted to laud Mr.. Smith,
without doing SO at the expense of others,
by trying to cast odium on them, for neg
lect of duty, he would have been left to
settle this oppressive business, with the
present administration of the general gov
ernment-wlose devoted adhercnt he
Processes to be, and whose business it is
to present this subject to Congress, if
indeed it is as oppressive to the people of
Vermont, as he pretends-without any
notice from me.
/ am not disposed to doubt what Mr..
Brown says respecting the notice given
by MIR. Smith, or to detract one particle
of credit due him for it, but | must say
the subjcc is not quite so new as Mr..
Brown pretends; many Ito use modern
phrase) have tried to make ''political ca
pital'' out of it. 1t has been the unceas-
ING song of Col. Benton for years, and is
one Of his popularity seeking hobbies.
lie has spent a great portion of the last
and present session of Congress upon it.
But independent of what Col. Benton has
done, and MIR. Smltq is going to do, there
is no one article mentioned in the tariff,
which for many years past has excited
more dScussionin Congress orendangcrcd
the protective policy more than this same
artlcle-salt, not only in the adjustment
of tariff laws but on other occasions.
Many will remember Gf Mr.. Brown does
not,) that for many years prior to the
3lst day of Dec. 1880, salt paid a duty
OFFS cents per bushel of 56bs., and that
by many this heavy duty was considered
necessary in order to protect and sustain
( the extensive manufactures of this indis-
pensable article, not only on the sea coast
but in the interior of the Country, and
the manufacture of this article was deem
ed the more important, as in time of war,
foreign supply was cut off, ond there is
not an intelligent man in the community
who does not know that it is impossible
to sustain the tariff policy without COM
promise among the various sectional in
terests of the country. The sugar of
Louisiana, the Cotton bagging and other
manufactures Of hemp of Kentucky, the
iron of Pennsylvania and other States,
the salt of Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Newly ork and other States, claim pro-
lection, as well as the wool and other
productions Of Vermont and it would
hardly be deemed patriotic or proper for
Vermont to claim protection of her in
terests, while she denied this protection
to others.
In the adjustment of the tariff of 1928,
an attempt was made to reduce the duty
on salt, which very much endangered the
passage of the bill, and days were spent
in the discussion of this single item.
Many members whose States were in
terested in the manufacture, refused to
vote for the bill in case of the reduction,
yet the delegation from this State, be-
lieving the duty too high unanimously
sustained the reduction, but the anti tariff
members Of the South, though the duty
was more oppressive to the South than
the North, yet believing that to retain the
high duty would be the most likely means
OF defeating the bill, joined with those OF
the North whowere DESTROYS of protecting
| this narticI III. ln,..l L