The times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1882-1897, 1886-10-22
AN OPEN LETTER.
Hon. n. q. Horr Replies to Bogus But
ter Tarsney's Recent Epistle, N
Which the Latter Is Handled
without Gloves.

| Aoi rA"iNA", uiSu', wv V'H' iOco'
HoN. I. E. TARsNEy
DEAR SIR:-On my return home
to day | find long letter from you
which had been previously given 10
the public. | have only time to reply
to portion Of it. note what yon
say about having introduced a resolu-
ton into Congress IS to the surplus
in the treasury. What became Of
your resolution? Was it ever after.
wards heard from? You would have
Us infer that in pursuance OF that
resolution SII8,ooo,ooo of bonds
have been called, ami that their pay.
ment effects the amount of money
which was in the treasury when your
party came into power admit that
that amount of bonds have been call
ed, but does that decrease the amount
of money that was in the treasury
two years ago? You know it does
not. Not one bond WIS called in
1855, and the surplus was increased
over S72, 1000, 900, and today the sur
plus is $4,000, 900 more than it was
when Mr.. Cleveland was elected. In
10 months SIIS.ooo, 600 of bonds have
been called. You know that it is
only little more than the Republi.
cans have been calling every twelve
months for years past. You leave
out OF your calculation the surplus
revenue collected during these rine-
teen months, which amounts to some
thing like $40, 100000. Two years
ago you promised to reduce the
amount Of surplus in the treasury.
Instead of that you have constantly
increased i. Do you not well know
that the payment of the SIIS,ooo, 900
of bonds called will not take one dol
lar from that surplus? They will be
paid out of the money collected since
your party took possession. and their
payment does not exhaust these new
collections into about $40, 900, 900,
SO that instead of "puling up the
slash boards and letting the money
flow among the people" you have
been building the dam higher and
constantly raising the "head" on the
pond. You know this is the exact
fact. Why do you attempt to dodge
III? In your letter you still stick to
your statement that when in Congress
voted 10 put salt on the free list,
because voted for bill that con,
tanned the "reba.e clause You say
there was no rebate on salt prior to
1883. You are mistaken. The clause
giving rebate on salt used in curing
fish was in the old law and had been
since 1872. (See Sec. 3,o22 of the
revised statutes Again you state
as result of the rebate clause $780,
900 barrels are shipped into this
country yearly. Do you consider
that statement honest? You know or
ought to know that previous to the
enactment Of that rebate clause for
years about 5000, 900 barrels of for
eign salt were sold and consumed
each year in this country. Why did
YOU not tell us how much more salt
had come in per year than came in
before 1883, or rather how much for
eign salt had been used in packing
meats shipped abroad. The great
bulk of foreign salt pays the duty and
no rebate can be had, because but
little of it is usedin packing meats
shipped abroad. You seekto make
people believe tina: all the salt from
abroad comes in free under the clause,
whereas you must know that such is
not the case.
Pray tell me if l helped pass bill
which practically puts salt on the free
list? Why have Yaple, Morrison,
Hurd, Maybury and Company been
trying to pass SO many bills ever
since 1883 putting salt on the free
list? If it is there now, why not be
satisfied? The government revenue
from salt last year was over 500, 900.
How could this be If it is now on the
free list? Let us drop that phrase of
the question and start in new. What
do you propose to do in the future,
that is the important question as to