Boon's Lick times. [volume] (Fayette, Mo.) 1840-1848, 1840-06-06
From lie Stakeholder.
SALT CAN'T SAVE THEM.

As the very able speech Of Col. Benton is now
being circulated and read amongst the farmers Of
Missouri, and as General Clark, Mr.. Samuel and
other WING candidates are accused Of iasinceriiy
in supporting this great measure, at the same time
that they support General Harrison, we want to
shew that our candidate for the Presidency was an
earlier adrocdts OF the repeal of the salt duty than
even Col. Benton himself. lie introduced the bill
into Congress, during the first days of the session
of 1927 g. But the question is not between Col
Benton and General Iurrison.-It is between the
latter gentleman ard Martin Van Buren, and the
loco's shall not be permitted to shift it. By read
ing the last message of President Van Buren,, it
will be seen that Notwithstanding it is his S1corn
duty (under the constituton) to recommend such
measures to Congress as he considers for the good
of the country he is SILENT on THE SALT DUTY I!
To ascertain his views, therefore, must 60 back
to the journal and Debates of Congress, when he
and General Harrison were members of the Senate
of the us
In CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, vol L. page SOP,
we read;
SENATE-ArRGL 7th, 1928.
Mr.. Harrison moved to take up the bill 'to re-
duce the duty on imported salt" The motion was
opposed unsuccessfully by Mr.. Van Buren,, who
then moved the indefinite postponement--the rejec-
IiOn--of the bill.
Mr.. Cobb (of Georgia) said ''the course taken
by the Senator from New York ONT Van BUREN,
appeared to him very extraordinary" at was Gu
rious that this YVES the only bill that proposed to
peal tax which paid chiefly by the people of
the Southern States"
| General Harrison, conserved, that he thought il
would not be denied that tax on a necessary OF
life as was that 10 which the bill referred, which
| took from the poor man as much as from the rich
man; which made the same demand upon the ten
ant Of the humble cottage as upon the pOssessor OF
the splendid chateau, in utter hostility to the
principles of our Government. Which Of these
! PRINCIPLES is more sacred, which more necessary
! for the legislator constantly to keep in view, than
that which directs that in the assessment Of the
public burthcns, the demand should he proportioned
to the ability to pay If this principle is not re-
rarded if tile taxes are levied upon the person. and
not upon the property Of the citizens; or, which is
the same thing, upon the necessaries of life, Of
which the poor man consumes as much as the rich
one what becomes Of that boosted equality which
is the basis of our Government! II is in vain that
YOU secure to your citizens their other rights that
their persons and property are involatc, that the
elective franchise is unrestricted, and the Offices o.
Government open to all, if this principle is adopted
and acted upon TO any extent If you tax the FOOD
of the laborng man, all the liberty that will be lief
to him will be that Of choosing his master; for, GO
where he may, he will still be the slave Of his EN-
ployer."
sBut this duty upon salt is opposed to another
important principle. II is tax, and heavy tax
on agriculture upon that interest, which is more
important than any other, and on which, indeed al
the others depend"
After the discussion the bill was laid on thu
table.
On the 18th, as appears by the Senate
Journal, page 3l2, the following proceedings tool
place
."On motion Of Mr. Harrison that the Senate re
sumo the consideration of the bill to repeal in par
the duty on imported salt, it was determined in ia
negative, yeas 2l--nays %. Those who voted i
the affirmative, are,
Messrs Bell, BentOn BGrrcn, BOuliguy, Brancl
Cobb Ellis, Foot, HARRISON, Hayne, King
AlKnley, Macon, Noble, Roman, Smith, of Mary
land, Smith Of S. Carolina, TOzewell, White, Wi
liams, Wocdbury--2l.
Those who voted in the negative, are,
Messrs. Barnard, Barton, Bateman, Chandler
Chase, Dickerson, Eaton, Hendricks, Johnson, c
| Kv., Kane, Knight, M'Lane Marks, Paris, Ridge
f ~, Robbins, RuggleS, Sanford Seymour, SilSbeC
Thomas, Tyler, VAN buren,, Webster and Wi
ey--2J.'
A bill for the reduction Of the duty on in
ported salt was before the Senate the precedin
year. On the 5,h February, 1927, the questio
being taken on the pas age thereof, it was dec
d ded as follows:
: YEAS--1Iessrs. Benton, Bibb, Berrien, Braucl
, Chambers, Chandler, Cobb, Eaton, Edwards, Hal
. RlSON, Hayne, King, Knight, Macon, M'Kinle!
Randolph Reed, Roman, Smith, of Md, Smith,
S, c., White Williams and Woodbury--2l,
NAYS--Mcssr'. Barton, Batemen, BophGu