New national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1870-1874, 1872-04-25
$3.50 a year in advance.
. Copies for SO.

are now asked to imperil that prosperity b,
abandoning the system which produced it
why is this demand made? Do the people
demand 1t? L answer, no! 1t is made in the
interest OF foreign capital and the importers
OF foreign goods, who desire to get the control
OF the American market without paying any,
thing for the privilege. To get this market
the protective feature of the present tariff
must be stricken down, our manufactures de-
stroyed, and our mechanics and our working
men must all turn agriculturists. The conse-
quence would be to increase our agricultural
productions, and by the same operation to
diminish demand; by one grand stroke OF
policy to multiply producers and reduce con-
sllmers. And what must be the consequence
OF that? Prices of agricultural produce OF
every kind must fall, and with prices wages.
MIR. DUELL proceeds to illustrate this posi-
ton by reference to the disastrous influence
of free trade upon the price of labor in this
and other countries, and then continues:
trust the time is far distant when the
workingmen of this country shall be forced to
work for the low wages received by European
laborers. l do not desire to see pauperism
and crime stalking about through our land as
in foreign countries. A
blow struck at the protective policy of this
country, is blow at American labor, a mat
ter well understood by our intelligent me-
chanlcs and labOrers, and hence they pour in
| upon us their earnest petitions demonstrating
against change in this policy.
1t Is said that If protection is extended to
any particular branch of business it thereby
creates monopoly" The advocates of
free trade forget that it is labor which we aim
to protect. The channels of labor and trade
are open to all, and there is no such thing as
an industrial monopoly in the United States,
The success of one man stimulates others to
embark in the same industry, and every adj
ditional factory, furnace, or workshop in
creases the demand for labor, while COMPETE
ton keeps prices within reasonable bounds.
Mr.. Speaker, it is a fact which cannot be
denied that when our workingmen find steady
employment, with good wages, the whole
| country Is prosperous. The farmer finds a
ready market for the produce of his farm, the
trade of the merchant is profitable and brisk,
and professional men are promptly paid for
their services. In prosperous times house,
building and other improvements are required,
and our builders, carpenters, bricklayers, and
other trades find quick and profitable employ
ment. But let the depression come, as it
will with the repeal of those laws protecting
the industrial interests of the country, and
how suddenly the demand for this class of
| labor slackens, and followed also by the
dminution OF the wages of labor.
..... SALT.
l ask the indulgence of the House, Mr..
Speaker, while L present some reasons why
the present duty on foreign salt should not be
reduced. A portion of my constituents are
manufacturers OF salt; they have invested their
capital in the enterprise the business gives
employment to five thousand labOrers, all of
whom receive fair prices for their labor, and
although l have no interest whatever in the
manufacture of SALT l cannot but feel a deep
interest in the question. In behalf, therefore,
of this great body of meritorious citizens, /
ask for such continued protection of salt as
will secure them steady employment and re-
munerative wages.
The present duty upon salt is as follows on
salt in bulk, and on all rock salt or mineral
salt, eighteen cents per one hundred pounds
| on salt in sacks twenty-fOur cents per one
hundred pounds. The duty of eighteen cents
per one hundred pounds is equivalent to fifty
cents and four mills on the quantity known
i'll commerce as barrel of salt containing two
hundred and eighty pounds, being five statute
bushels of fifty-siX pounds each. On salt in
sacks it is twenty-four cents per one hundred
pounds, but the additional six cents is the
duty on the sack and not on the salt, there
being no other duty on a sack containing salt
l read from an affidavit made by Samuel r.
st. John, a highly respectable merchant OF
New York city, sworn to on the 9th OF
| February, 1872, and presented to the Com
mittee of Ways and Means, for the purpose
of showing the dd odlorem duty at foreign
valuation of the better kinds of foreign salt :
. further state that the present duty on
foreign salt, of eighteen cents per one hun
dred pounds, is equivalent only to an ad "a
loren duty on the better kinds of foreign salt,
as follows on Ashton salt, foreign valuation
about thirty-seven per cent, valuation or cost
to the importer in New York, about thirty
per cent. ON Marshall's and other fine sack
salt, foreign valuation about fifty-twO per
cent, valuation or cost in New York about
thrty-nine per cent. OF these kinds of salt,
the annual importation is from two million
five hundred thousand to three million BUSH
els, nearly one quarter of the total imports of
foreign salt into the United States"
Now, Mr.. Speaker, l submit to the House
that the duty upon salt cannot be considered
as above the revenue standard, and will bear
comparison with the duties imposed upon
other imported goods.
The salt manufacturers of the United States
have been denounced over and over again as
greedy monopolists, and the import duty on
| salt as crime against civilization. The i'm
pOrters of foreign salt have been INSCRIPTIONS
| in both their assertions and their figures, and
have succeeded in creating an intense preju-
dice in the public mind against the domestic
producers of the article.
propose, Mr.. Speaker, to briefly refer to
some of the charges thus made, and to show
their falsity. 1t is said that the salt manufac-
turers of the United States are parcel of
grasping monopolists. Nothing is more re-
pulsive to the American mind than the idea
of monopoly. But is salt manufacturing a
monopoly? Salt in some form, either as sa-
line waters or crude mineral, is found in every
one of our States and Territories, and never
has been sought in vain in any of these To-
calities. Throughout the interior various
springs, lakes, and pools hold it in copious
solution. Indeed, the supply seems to be
universal and ineXhaustible, not only in the
United States, but in all parts of the known
world. Our salt manufacturers do not en-
gross and control these stupendous resources,
nor is it in the nature of things that they
should be able to do so. No law, either State
or national, prohibits anybody from investing
his capital or his labor in the making of salt.
Senator Chandler, of Michigan, stated in the
Senate few days ago that the best salt lands
at Saginaw, Michigan, could be purchased al
five dollars per acre! The business, there
fore, is open to the freest possible COMPETE