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

forty-four pounds to each nersop ,,1. -.
This includes all the salt used vbc,bor e.
household purposes or manufacturing. The
average price OF a barrel of salt in the difJar~
ent markets OF the United States is two dol
lars, and rs q barrel of salt contains two
hundred and eighty pounds, it follows that
the cost oil salt to each person yearly is thirty
one cents and four mills. Now, conceding
,hat the consumer pays the duty upon salt,
let us see what this burdensome tax is. The
amount OF revenue derived by the United
States for the year lS70upou foreign salt was
1885, 900 in round numbers. The population
OF the United States being about forty mil
lion, 1t follows that the tax imposed upon the
consumers OF salt by reason of the tariff on
that article, according to the free trade the
orists, Is three cents and one mill to each
person annually! What an oppressive bur-
den to carry, to be sure! This, too. is the
CRIME against civilization" we hear so much
about. This is the "odious, +" " infamous, :"
and "pernicious" tax which keeps the people
from consuming as much salt as they would
do IT salt were admitted free of duty. Such
is the mole-hill which interested motives can
magnify into Il mountain. The opponents
OF protection really care nothing about the
salt duty, because it is the duty on salt, but
because its repeal embodies an end to be
gained, legislative admission and indorse-
ment OF the idea that it is wrong to protect
home industry by national law.
| 1t is charged against the manufacturers of
salt at Syracuse that they are making enorm-
| Gus profits. A circular issued by the Free
Trade League alleges that the tariff annually
puts 100000 into the pockets of Ameri-
can salt producers. But the truth is they
sell annually only twenty million bushels, or
Tour million barrels, ut price not exceeding
| two dollars barrel, making their gross re-
ceipts only So, 000, 900; that is 81 OOO, 900 less
than the Free Trade League tells us are the
annual profits OF the salt monOpolists of the
United States.
But, Mr.. Speaker, it is hardly necessary for
me to consume the time of the House by ex-
| posing the talsehOOds resOrted to by the enc
mics of protection in relation to the duties on
salt. The real question to be decided by this
House is, whether salt, like other industrial
| interests of the United States, shall continue
to receive the fostering aid of Government.
1t is estimated by competent authority that
| the amount of fixed capital invested in the
| manufacture of salt in the United States is.
| in round numbers, SIS ,000, 900. 1t is a pecu-
liarity of this property that it depreciates
rapidly from use, and even more when lying
idle. To be kept in good operative order it
requires system OF constant partial renewal.
A few years of compulsory disuse would de-
stroy the largest part of its value. Yet the
enemies of protection propose by the repeal
of the duty on salt to put in jeopardy the
whole of this investment, much of which its
owners have made upon the invitation and
encouragement contained in the tariff legis-
lation of 1861 and since.
If it be said that the producers Of American
salt can stand considerable reduction of the
| duty upon that article, and yet continue the
| business, l reply that those who entertain
that belief are laboring under delusion. L
here assert what / most religiously believe,
that any material reduction of the duty will
compel the domestic producers to close their
works and discharge the fifteen thousand men
who now find steady and profitable employ
ment in the manufacture of salt. They are not
only exposed to competition from salt brought
here from Liverpool and Turks Island, but
also from Goderich. The salt resources of
Goderich are ample to furnish the whole United
States and the whole world. Salt is produced
there with cheap labor and fuel at eighty-five
cents per barrel. Transportation, as we are
informed, will cost only from ten to forty cents
to all the lake ports in the United States.
Withdraw the protection which the duty on
salt affords the American producer, and the
time will soon arrive when American salt
must yield the markets of the United States
to Canadian salt.
] need not ask the House whether it is the
true policy of the United States to rely upon
other countries for our supply of salt We
may not always remain at peace. We have
been involved in four wars within the past
century, and may be involvedin as many more
during the next. If the coming of war should
find us buying our salt abroad instead of max
ing it at home, we cannot expect to escape the
panic and distress, the high prices and priva-
tons which on that account were precipitated
upon this country at the commencement of the
| rebellion. One or two years of prices doubled
| or trebled by great scarcity in the presence
of great demand, would take from the pock-
cts of the people far more than the protective
duty sufficient to establish and maintain an
ample supply Ofhome-made salt, besides gain
| ing the employment which the domestic indus
| tries would afford to domestic labor. Had the
North, in our civil struggle, been as destitute
as the South was of salt manufactures, her
population would have suffered even more
severely than they did, both in purse and pri-
walton. The possession of the much-maligned
salt-works at Syracuse is all that saved large
section of the North from all the miseries of q
salt famine of some continuance. Is it worth
while for the people of this country to run the
risk of a like contingency for the paltry con-
sideration, spurious in its supposed realities,
! of saving three cents and one mill per year
to each person?
| WOOL.
| Mr.. Speaker, feel great interest as to
how wool shall be cared for in any revision of
the tariff which may take place. a portion
of my constituents are largely engaged in the
woOl-growing business, and they are looking
with much anxiety to see what action Con-
gress may take in the premises. L hope the
present duty upon wool will not be disturbed,
for l believe it is well adapted to promote the
growth and development of wool-growing, and
also the interests of consumers, and the public
revenue. The growth of wool in this country
is of national Importance, and no industrial
| interest is more entitled to the protection and
fostering care of the Government.
The present duty upon wool, enacted in
1867, was assented to by the wooden manu-
facturers of the United States, as appears by
a letter from Hon. f. Il. Bigelow, late presi-
dent of the National Association of Wool
Manufacturers, dated December, Is, 1871, and
addressed to Hon. Henry 5. Randall, presi-
dent of the Wool-Growers' Association of the
United States.
There are many reasons why the present
duty upon wool is necessary. 1t is an interest
worthy of preservation, and must not be dis
turbed. III the manufacturers of wooden goods