The times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1882-1897, 1888-03-09
AN OPEN LETTER.
ADDRESSED 10 THE SAGINAW
BOARD OF TRADE BY CON-
GRESHAM BREWER.
He Puts the Blame for Free Salt and
Lumber Where it Bslongs-Re-
views the Course Ct Reps. Fisher
and Tarsney and Gives the Presi-
dent Of the Salt Association a Blast
"A Singing Letter.

TIE Hon. John s. Estabrook, President
4 Stsginaw Board Of Trade.
My DEAR SIR: l am in receipt OF
your circular "memorial" addressed
10 the Senate and House OF Repre-
sentatives, and adopted by your
Board on the 18th inst. You
memoralist Board seem apprenhen
sive that Congress will SO change the
revenue law as to put salt and lum-
Der upon the free list, and | concedt
there is much reason for such appre-
hension. The country has had good
reason to suppose that such action
would meet the approval OF those
who have invested their capital in
these industries, as we'll as the labor
therein employed, for at the last tive
biennial elections the men engaged
aud employed in these industries
have deliberately chosen men to re
present them in the House of Repre-
sentatives here. who were known to
be opposed to the principles of pro
lection and in favor OF such legisla
ton as would cripple, in my judge
ment, all the great industries which
have been fostered and luilt Ut
during the last twenty five years
under our protective policy. You
NAV say that these men were not In
favor of free salt and free lumber, but
the veters in the Eighth and Tenth
Congressional districts knew at the
last election that the men whom the,
elected were in favor of the general
policy of free trade, or a tariff for
revenue only, such as was afterward
announced by the President. They
knew that their representatives were
in favor of free wool. free iron ore
and other things, the production Of
which tie State Of Michigan wa
much interested in. Did the voters
who supported Congressman Tarsney
and Fisher suppose that representa-
tives from other districts would see
other great industries crushed out by
7 free trade policy and still vote to
save The salt and lumber interests in
he two districts named? Your Board
know has IN its official capacity de
ciared itself in favor OF protection.
but le' {, not be forgotten that
4 large nuaioLr Of your members en-
oaped in the sal. and lumber business
gave their money and spen, their
time in trying to elect pronounced
free trader Governor Of our State but
year and quarter ago, and they
ADD the men employed in your salt
and lumber business did elect pro
nounced free trader to represent them
here. If he is not free trader he
certainly stands committed to the
policy announced by President Cleve-
land in his late message, as does
each of his party associates from
Michigan. Has not then the Con-
gress Of the United States a reason
for presuming that those engaged in
these industries desire that the duties
should be removed from sat and
lumber?
But this is not all. You have in
Michigan salt association reaching
all over the State and taking in near.
ly all persons engaged in producing
salt, and you have at the head of that
association gentleman who j, is
presumed represents the sentiment OF
the members of thar association. or
at least a majority thereof We do
not know what his private views may
be on the question Of protection or
free trade-whether he desires the
duty on salt and lumber to be main
aimed or not. Is It not fact that
every persona, and political act Of the