New national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1870-1874, 1872-04-25
Canada Against Michigan Salt.

CANADA against MsCnfkan sssis'
Three or four weeks ago we INDUCED IN
some comments upon the efforts OF Mr..
RICHARD HAwLEY, a wealthy malster OF
Detroit, before the Committee OF Ways and
Means, to induce Congress to repeal the
duty on salt. We based our criticism on the
admitted fact that he appeared before the
committee in behalf of foreign salt manu-
facturer. Feeling aggrieved at our remarks,
Mr.. HAwLEY appealed to Mr.. fINKELN-
BURG, free trade member OF the commits
tee, to relieve him from his embarrassment.
And Mr.. F., with the self-complacent and
authoritative air which marks all his utter
ances, proceeds to the task in this wise, after
referring to the article of which Mr.. HAw-
Lev complains
1.-The objection made that you were inter-
ested, inasmuch as your son is engaged III the
manufacture of salt at Goderich, Canada, and
that hence it was improper for you to appear
before the committee, sounds ridiculous to
one who has been listening all winter to the
statements and demands of hundreds OF IN
terested parties upon every subject IN the
tariff. In tact my experience Is that no one
scarcely comes before our committee but what
is directly, personally and pecuniarily, inter-
estcd III the subject upon which he appears"
Mr.. FTNKELNBURG seems to see no dis
tinctiOn between American citizens, engaged
in business enterprises at home, appealing to
Congress for relief from laws they claim to
be unjust or injurious, and an agent of for
eign manufacturing company beseging Con-
gress for legislation designed solely for the
benefit OF a foreigner, and which must prove
disastrous to the home interest with which
it would come into competition. Mr.. FITZ-
HUGH and Judge CoMsTocK appeared before
the committee to saoe great American in
terest. Mr.. HAwLEY appeared before it IN
beholf ofa Canadian and a partner to build up
Canadian interest by law that would
utterly annihlate an american interest. We
don't expect so blind an enemy to protection
to our own industry as Mr.. F., nor one so
deeply interested in free Canada salt as Mr..
HAwLEY, can see any difference in the two
cases. But we are satisfied that the people
will claim a privilege before Congress and
even a committee of Congress that they won't
cOncede to foreigners or foreign free trade
agents.
But if Mr.. FINKELNBURG thinks there
was no undue selfishness or improperly in
Mr.. HAwLEY appearing before committee
of Congress to advocate policy which had
no other purpose than to build up special
foreign interest in which he was concerned
upon the ruin Of an important American
interest in which he was not concerned,
what is his opinion of the request of this same
Mr.. HAwLEY during this same visit, to Mr.
DAWES, the chairman of his committee, to
appear before it to advocate the increase
of the duty on malt, which he Is engaged in
making on the American side of the river
We have authority upon which we place inn
plicit reliance, that Mr.. HAwLEY made such
a request, which was granted. But whether
he availed himself of it we are not advised.
Possibly it came into his head on second
thought that it would too clearly expose his
purely selfish motives by putting himself on
record as advocating free salt which he was
making in Canada, and higher duty on malt
which he was making in Michigan.
The rest of Mr.. FINKELNBURG's defense
is of no consequence, as it is merely state
ment designed to convey the impression that
Mr.. HAwLEY appeared before the committee
at his special request-a statement that
needs confirmation, in view of the fact that
Mr.. II. came all the way to Washington
charged with long and labored argument,
which he has had printed, to prove why
| L L =
be free of duty. Mr.. f. also attempts to
convey the impression that nobody had APP
peared before the committee in favor of free
salt, which is not the fact. We happened to
be in the committee room when two gentlemen
gave their reasons why the duty on salt
should be repealed. But all this is of little
consequence the main point is question
as to the relative claims of American and
foreign interests. That is disposed of above.