The Plymouth Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1869-1941, 1869-10-07
The Salt Tax,

OUR New England brethren have =
marvellous tact in escaping from the ccn.
cral burdens which the rest of MS hear
1hus, lew years ago, when they induced
the Government to levy tax on cotton
grown IN this country, they carefully OK.
empted themselves from their Just share OF
the tax, by providing that the tax should
DC refunded on such cotton as was ,o1n,,-
J"ct"Fed III this country. As they them
selves were the chief manufacturers of
COTTON III this country, the latter provision
was only a cunning provision for their
special benefit.
nc salt tax is another case in Doint.
ms TAX Is Is cents per hundred hounds
on SAT- III bulk, and "a cents per hundred
pounds on salt in sacks-an exorbitant tax
on one OF the necesSarics of life, of about
~ per cent. on its prime cost. But New
England itself uses large quantity of salt
IN curing the fish which il sends to the
West, and the tax would weigh as heavily
on New England as on other regions. il
made general. The law therefore was
made to exempt from tax such foreign salt
as Is used IN preserving fish caught at sea.
The pretext Tor this exemption was that
the New England fisheries needed protec-
ton, TO enable them to compete with for
cign fisheries.
The absurtiity and injustice of the Dro-
tectlve sytem could not be more glaringly
brought out than in this little matter In
the first place, salt is heavily taxed for the
prote ;tlOn OF the American manufacture
OF whom there are, perhaps 800. all told
Then this tax is TenOred in the case of Now
England fisheries, for their protection
against foreign competition. The infer
ence we draw from which, is that Drotec-
ton IS very good thing when It is for
the benefit of New Enslanders and a very
bad thing when it is for the benefit IF
other people.
In our reference to the salt tax in YES
terday's Republican, we committed the
error of undertaking its exorbitant ma
ture. We stated that the tax of IS cents
per hundred on salt in bulk, and q cents
per hundred on salt in sacks, amounted to
DO per cent on the prime cost of the arti-
Gle. The truth is it amounts to nearly
100 per cent. on Its prime cost.
Take, for instance, a cargo of Liverpool
salt. 1t costs, delivered on board the yes
sci at Liverpool, 1896 ton of 2,24O
pounds. 1t costs for carriage to New Or
leans $3.50 per ton, making the cost at
that port 1886 per ton. The import duty
Is 2i cents hundred-amounting To- So 81
q ton. This is nearly equal TO its cost at
New Orleans, so that Western farmer is
forced, on account of this tariff, to pay
nearly twice as much for his salt as he
would II there was no tariff at all.
Before the war, when the salt tax was
10 per cent. al calorem, the usual price of
salt IN St Louis was 30 cents To 4 % per
barrel-generally about S11O. Now it is
$3.50. OF course part of this increase is
due to the depreciation of our currency ;
but the larger part is owing TO the cx-
orbltant and oppressive tariff placed
upon it.
That American salt manufacturers do
not, in fact, need the protection Of this
heavy tariff is proved by the fact that the
Michigan Salt Company, at Saginaw, have
declared that they can make salt at 81
cents barrel. The import duty, then,
instead OF being necessary protection, is
a gratuitous profit given to them ut the
cost of the people, Missouri Rspu5ican.