The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1869-09-28
Class Legislation in the Salt Duty

To the Editors of the Evening Post:
Nothing, perhaps, will expose the great
wrong Of our tariff, and the persistent
animus OF the monopoliSt's attorney who
edits their chief organ, to the farmers
industry, and to the shipping trade, than
the following taken from the Tribune
some few daysGg0:
''FIsHIyG roUNTIE-sALT.
"To the Editor of the Tribune:
''SIR: Reading some time since an ar
ticle in the Chicago Times, referring to
PendlctoD, who said that New England
fishermen paid no duty on salt, while the
Western packers Of beef and pork paid
sevcnty-tiye per cent. on the same article,
[ would like to have you tell, through
the columns of the TJ1bNne,if that state
ment is true and if so, why such dis
tinction should be made between the two
sections? | am a Massachusetts man,
came West last May as ardent Repub-
lican as any son Of the Bay State; so, if
there is wrong impression about the
thing, l want to see it righted.
HOMER II. FENToN.
decatur, ILL.,, Sept 5, 1869.
"AnSrer-The United States, in the
days of her great men, considering the
ocean fisheries nursery of hardy and
skIlirl seamen, gave by law a bounty on
ali fish caught outside Of our own waters
and brought into this country A few
years ago this bounty was abolished; ;
but, instead of it, the fishermen were au-
thOrized to use salt to cure the fish
aforesaid without paying duty thereon
As the lower order Of Western dema>
gogues seem able to make party capital
ont of this, we hope it also will be abol-
ished.-Ed. Tribune"
The plain exposition of the above is
simply this: The Syracuse and Saginaw
salt mines wanted, and Of course did get,
a class legislation concession to tax for
eign salt in general, and, therefore, their
own in particular, not seventy-fve per
cent AS stated above-bW something
like one hundred and ten to one hundred
aadtortyper cent.
The pork and meat packers of the
West, who, goodness knows, have the
same need for their industry-yiz. cheap
salt-dre denied tie priUitege, and hare
to p0yJrOm I10 to 140 per cent. duty, or
the enhanced price to the fer home mo-
RopoliSts. against this, it seems, NJ.
Peadleton c7emurred, Which a truly honest
son Of the Big State 6lamtly demands
either contFadicted or redreSsed.
And now behold the animus of the
monopolists' attorney. The fact cannot
be denied that the fishermen have salt
free-it is therefore not mentioned or
held for right that the Western farmers
should also have their salt free. No
the remedy is to be found in making the
fishermen pay duty on their salt, so that
the monOpolists' attorneys clients, the
salt-makers should get still more money :;
not a helping hand is offered to the suf-
fering farmer; not cheering hope is
held out for his relief But rod in
pickle is threateningly reserved fer the
ardy,industrious fishermen on our great
Eastern coast. Are the farmers blind !?
are the industrious fishermen blind-to
see the wrong they already suffer, and
the wrong it is proposed by the monop-
olists' attorney they will be made to suf
fer? will only further observe: If, as
the writer in the Tribune says, in the
days of our great men bounty was
thought necessary to our fishermen, that
thereby we should some day become a
great maritime nation, then have we GER
tainly fallen now on the days of men
smaller than the inhabitants of Lilliput,
as it is the desire and sole aim of the
monopvIists' attorneys to destroy and
annihilate our shipping and fisheries for
the sole advantage Of handful of al
ready bloated monopolists.
No MONOPOLY