The times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1882-1897, 1888-04-13

iuR HdCnihSS, DdiduSCS, onOSS -,
spapes, axes, hatchets, hammers a,d
reaper, manufactured with stocks or
handles made OF wood grown in tt,'
United States-sach articles shall be
entitled to such draw back in all cases
when the imported material exceeds
one half ofthe value of the material
used" The statute also makes pro-
vision for rebate OF duty on old rail-
road iron which has been imported
and repaired for foreign use, and for
articles used in building foreign ships,
and almost everything that can be
named. This policy was adopted
many years ago 10 encourage and
increase our export trade, and hence
/ say that the act of 1885 of
which you complain was but applying
that policy to salt. An effort was
made at this time in the Senate 20
put salt on the free list, and it re-
ceived "a votes, all Democrats but
Judge Davis OF Illinois. There were
&c votes against the measure, all Re.
publican save 3. Your attempt to
claim that rhe Republican party has
continually been trying to destroy
your salt industry is too ludicrouI to
need any reply whatever.
Now, what was the drawback act
that you comp ain so much about,
and what has been its effect? Eek
porters Oh meats which have been
cured in the Uuited States with i'm
ported salt, shall, upon satisfactory
proof, f" lave refunded to
them the duties paid on the salt so
used in curing such eTborted meats,
in amounts not less than 500" This
law is general and applies to all
parties and persons alike, provided
they use salt for packing meats
for expert to an amount where
the duty exceeds 500. You speak
of monopolies and trusts with as
as much disrespect as if you were an
old line reicrmer. 1t is an old saying
that "Men living in glass houses
should not throw stones" During
the fiscal year 1887, there was man
ufactured 4,z6o.oI2 barrels of salt IN
Michigan, and not S per cent | think
Of that amount could be sold or in
any manner controlled by the pro-
Queer, except by yor Ter or direc
ton. ! ask you as ',,r..d whom ]
personally respect do think you
are in a position whelc u can be
able to assist in purify ne country
from trusts and comb 'ons to con.
troll the price of nam tured pro-
ducts? The suggestion must cause
every farmer in Mich 5an to laugh
at the idea. In fact l can almost see
my pen smile at the suggestion made
Do you think it fair to convey the
idea you do, that the salt upon which
this rebate is given was used on other
other meats than such as was for ex
port1 Your whole language gives
that impression, when you must know
10 the contrary. You say this rebate
clause has made Canada salt substan.
TALLY free. Let us see as TO that.
There were little over $4,000 bar
rels of salt imported from Canada
during the last fiscal year, the total
value of which was $43,so5. The total
duty on this would be say S2I, 900
Now the whole amount of rebate paid
last year on salt used on exboyfel
meats was $so.73S.sI, as am in
formed by the commissioner of Gus.
toms, the department. not having kept
any record showing from what coun.
tries the salt came upon which this
rebate was granted, am unable to
give the exact figures, but the com.
missioner gives it as his opinion that
the amount Of rebate which was
granted upon Canadian salt during
the year would not exceed ten per
cent of the whole amount related,
which would be less than $4,000, and
this is what has ruined the great salt
industry of Michigan.
Now, my friend, does not your
whole complaint look ridiculous? You
say you are for tariff reform, for
revenue with Incidental protection.
You always conveyed the idea to me
until short time ago that you were
in favor of protection with Incidental
revenue, at least On salt and lumber.
"Revenue with incidental protection"
I have seen that before. 1t was
in the Democratic platform of sos,
l think. You have just reached the
camping ground which was occupied
by your party twenty years ago. You
will remember that in 1872 your party
left the tariff question to each con-
gressional district and killed poor
Greeley by its deception. In 1876 it
declared for a tariff "only for rev.
enue," while in 1880 it reversed the
words and declared for "e tariff for
revenue only" and in 1884 it declared
for free trade, for protection, for a
revenue tariff only, for incidental
protection. and for a tariff ONLY for