Lincoln telegraph. [volume] (Bath, Me.) 1836-1846, 1840-09-03

The committee find il stated in the Saco
Democrat, Belfast Journal and other Van
Buren, papers in Name, that Gen. Harrison
and Mr.. Van Brren we're both members of
the Senate in 1918 and that the former
spoke and voted against the bounty to
fishermen and the latter spoke and voted
in favor of the bounties. Now we have
had recourse to the Records and Register
of Debates in Congress, and find that there
is no truth in that statement. 1t must
have been made for the purpose of mislead-
ing and deceiving the fishermen. On exam
ination we find that neither of those gentle
men were members of the Senate at that
time. Mr. VAN buren, was not men,
Der of Congress till December 1921. Nor
was the subject of repeating the bounties
agitated in 1918. But in 1919 motion
was made to INCREASE the bounties, and was
carried without any opposition in the House
OF which GEN. HARRISON was then a MEM
Der. Consequently it had his support and
appreciation.
Proceedings in Congress in 1027& '2S
No further movement was made affecting
the fishing interest till 1927, when bill
was introduced into the Senate for reduc-
ing the duty on salt from 90 cents bushel
to 10 cents. This was an important bill
for the fishing interest, taking off one half
of the then high duty on salt, without dis
turbing the bounties. Mr.. Van Buren,
and Gen. Harrison were then both mem
bers Of the Senate. Gen. Harrison sup
ported the bill warmly, whilst Mr.. Van
Buren, opposed it. 1t was taken up again
at succeeding session. Again we find
Gen. Harrison advocating it in an able
speech, whilst Mr.. Van Buren, again op.
posed it, urging many reasons for not re-
ducng the duty on salt below 90 cents
bushel. In support Of the bill it was urged
that 20 cents was very heavy duty OPP
pressive to the farmer, the fisherman and
all other consumers of salt, and that they
ought to be relieved from SO heavy tax.
that the bill did not contemplate any reduc-
ton of the fishing bounties, and that the
fishermen would Therefore be great gamers
by the measures. In this discussion, the
interests of the fishermen were ably vindi-
Gated, their patriotism in time of war ap-
plauded, and it was shown that they were
entitled to the bounty and protection of the
government. without paying SO oppressive
duty on the salt used by them. 1t was
shown that the bounties "stood on higher
ground than the salt duty, that they were
intended as an encouragement and protec-
ton to an employment so profitable to the
nation and so indispensable to its supply of
seamen both in peace and war )" and that
"they rested on broader and more national
principles than driving hard bargain with
the laborious fishermen about mere draw
back of duty on salt" 1t was shown that
the American fishermen "pursue their
hardy and per,lous employment under a
direct bounty of full half a dollar less per
ton than the British fishermen, under
smaller protecting duty at home, against
foreign fish," and are subject to many other
discouragements and hardships. For these
and other strong and satisfactory reasons,
the reduction of the salt duty from 20 cts.
to 10 cts. on bushel, was advocated by
those who were in favor of the bill, express
ly on the ground of relieving the fishermen
as well as farmers and other consumers of
salt from high and oppressive duty. No
one intimated wish to reduce or in any
way affect the bounties; but Mr.. Van
Buren, made speech against reducing the
duty, contending that it ought to stand at
90 cts. bushel
On taking the question we find GEN.
HARRIsoN's name recorded in favor of the
fishing interest and Mr.. VAN BuREN's
against it And how far his example on
that occasion has tended to influence his
party now that he is President, against the
fishing interest and in favor of repeating
the bounties, we know not. The reduction
of the duty was thus effected by the exer-
tons of Gen. Harrison and others against
the exertions of Mr.. Van Buren, and others,
and the duty then stood at 10 cts. until
1882 when by the compromise act" as
it is called, it was further reduced. The
effect of that act was to reduce the duty
on salt by degrees down to about cents
On bushel in period Of ten years. 1t
now stands at cents and in 1912 it will,
by virtue of that act, be but cents and
fraction This reduction is effected by the
act of 1882, without touching the bounties,
being an additional relief to the fishing in
terest of which it stood in need.
The proposition now is to repeal this
small remaining duty of cents and a
little over, and at the same time make it
the protect for depriring the laborious fish,
ermen of the ,ohols bounty at one dash