The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-01-21

The New York Evening Post is paper so
sound on particular questions of public policy,
and even on some general principles, that it
is hard to see how il can act with so proscrip-
tive, intolerant and interfering a party as that
which is now dominant in the country. The
Post is now vigorously combating the efforts
of the tariff monopolists and plunderers to
wiring further tribute from the burdened and
impoverished industry of the country. In
discussing the salt duty with the Tribune, the
Post makes the following points:
l. Suppose Mr.. Wells does contrast the gold
price of salt in 1861 with its greenback price in
is6su AS its price has not advanced In Earope,
il could be imported as oheaply now as ihen,
were the tariff as low. Twenty cents 10 god are
equivalent TO twenty seven in currency, and that
is now far currency price for a bnshel of salt
under heavy revenue duty of Is per cent. Yet
IL sells, Mr.. Wells tells US, at As to 81 cents q
bushel, end the additional twenty one or twenty
four cents are wrung from the people by these
enormously rich monopoists, upon the entire
home supply, without benefiting the treasury
one dollar.
2. It is fact that the two great salt companies
have persuaded Congress to levy duty on for
eign salt Of from 100 10 ITO per cent o1 its value
3. tits fact that these mooopolsis next con.
trived that the internal re7enue tax upon this
product should De removed.
4. IL 10 a fact thar, while they have thus been
relieved, they are now intriguing in Washington
10 have the duty on foreign salt raised third
higher than even the present exorbitsnt rate.
The salt mopopOlists have already made large
fortunes out of their oppression Of the people.
For instance, Mr.. John ". Barker, the secretary
Of the great Syracuse salt monopoly, rave the
following testimony on oath, as stated By Mr..
Wells:
30. viii you state how large the dividends
-.
FIRST dividend was made. II was a dividend OF
per cent. The next dividend was made in March,
1862. Of l29 per cent The next was made April
%, 1852, OF 81 70 per share. The next was Sep
TENDER 10, 1862, also 81 Is per share. The neXt,
September q. 1862, also 81 Is per share. salt
was then selling at five dollars per barrel. Toe
next was October 4, OF the same year, OF 81 Is
per share, and again on October IL, OF the
same year, Of 81 so per share. The last extra
dividend was made Februsry 20. 1874. Since
then the average annual dividends have been
per cent.
80. Has the stock of the company been IN.
creased since that time? A. II has been doubled.
Making the present working capital of the COM
20. Have you divided since 1861 your full
profits, or have you carried any considerable
amount TO q surplus fuud! A. We have sur
plus on hand of about 5000 600. Since the organi.
cation Of the company IN 1860 the whole amount
paid in dividends is about 81 100000. The prop
erty of the company is now absolutely worth
81 49S ,969,"
Here is a company which. upon a working capt.
tai Of $l60 600. has divided 81 100000 IN cash
smong its stockholders. accumulated a cash sur
plus OF 100000, and raised the actual value OF It's
property on hand not less than g 600 600 more, all
within seven years.
Mr.. Wells says ia his official reports
when We consider how, through the indls
penssble use Of this article, an increase Of iis
price from tweniy.three cents per bushel In 1851
TO forty-eght cents in 1861 has come home to the
whole people how such increase affects the great
industrial interests involved In packing of beet,
pork, fish and butter, and consequently the distri-
button and price OF food at home and its exchange
for foreign commodities abroad; and especially
when we consider that the internal tax on this ar
ticle-which in 1865 was collected from one CON.
psny to the extent of about $500, 900 has been
entirely removed in view of all these circum-
stances msy We not well ask whether protection
20 American industry and q regard to the interest
of the whole people does not demand, not only
that there be further increase of the tariff and
the price of salt. but that q reasonable and mo-
derste reduction Of the existing duties be prompt
ly conceded
Now, then. viii the Tribune kindly snsEer this
question Of Mr.. Wells, and thus let Us whether
il is @ friend Of the people. as it pretends, OF
whether it Is really the ally Of monopOlists aud
forestalers and the friend and supporter OF those
who combine TO rob the people! The Evening
Post is trying TO defend the people against thess
salt monopolis,s; We should like the help of the
Tribune. Will il kindly explain where it stands
on ihis question?