this magnanimity, after the recommendation of such a measure by three separate committees of our own House, -that on agriculture, the last session, and those on finance, of both the last and present sessions?

It now becomes me to notice more particularly some of the specific objections that have been started to the present bill. Objections are to be anticipated to every important measure, either from local interest or natural diversities of opinion; but a consideration of those offered in this case is due to the sources from which they come, and will serve, in my apprehension, to show their true character, as well as strengthen the arguments in favor of repeal.

that it As if a

One of those objections has been, that the bill is an inroad, breaks in upon the permanent system of our public revenue. tax once imposed, though under the iron necessities of war, was never afterwards, though in peace and abundance, to be lessened or repealed. As if, also, a tax, partial and unjust in its operation, could never safely be modified. The facts already named prove that the present duty on salt was imposed as a war-tax, and show that it was never, in its origin, designed as a part of the permanent system of our public revenue. The evidence of our own records, in their minutest details, accords with this general fact: because this large duty, when first imposed, in 1797, was expressly limited to only three years; in 1800, it was again limited to ten years, and, in 1807, entirely repealed. When imposed anew, in 1813, it was, moreover, expressly confined to a year after the war. It was then, as before, held out to the country as only a temporary measure; and that section more immediately aggrieved by it were soothed with the siren song, that, with the distresses and embarrassments of war, which had occasioned the tax, would also cease this unequal burthen.

It was not contended then, or at any subsequent period, till now, that a tax so unequal and exorbitant had been imposed as a permanent part of our revenue system; for, beside all other objections, and especially the inequalities of its operation, before enumerated, everybody can see that the whole of the tax falls almost exclusively on a single section of the country. Let us pause a moment on this circumstance, in connection with the idea that such a tax is to be permanent. Not only is it chiefly paid on the eastern side of the Alleghanies, but, even there, by a portion of that side, as domestic salt supplies some of their population. Our four and a half million bushels of imported salt (for in 1825 it was 4,574,202 bushels, and in 1823 it was 5,435,449 bushels), then, is about the average importation, for a few years past, and is all consumed by a population, in that quarter, not exceeding four and a half millions in number. What is used in the fisheries is as much consumed by that population as what is used at the dinnertable or in the meat-barrel. It thus becomes an exclusive tax on them

of twenty cents per person annually, or nearly two dollars annually, to each agricultural family; or, in the State of New Hampshire alone, where no domestic salt is used, calling her population only two hun

dred and fifty thousand, it becomes a tax of fifty thousand dollars a year; being full fifty per cent. more, on a single necessary of life, than the whole tax on the people of that State for the support of their State government. If the data for this calculation be the gross duty, and be thus apportioned, then the duty of 1823, for instance, which was 889,948 dollars, after deducting drawbacks for reëxportation, when divided among the four and a half millions who consume foreign salt, amounts to more than nineteen cents per head, and leaves the result not essentially different. This enormous tax, likewise, is imposed thus partially, not on a luxury, or even a mere convenience, which persons might, or might not, part with; but on an article of daily and universal necessity, and almost as indispensable to health as the air for breathing, or fire for warmth.

Again: if, in any permanent system of revenue, it should become expedient to tax highly the necessaries of life, it is palpable that the tax should not be so disproportionate as the duty on salt. For, when so disproportionate, one article consumed mainly in one section, and another in another section, are not equalized in the burthen they impose; because the highest impost on other necessaries seldom exceeds fifty per cent., while this impost on salt is generally two hundred per cent., and occasionally higher. On this last suggestion I shall soon offer some particulars, which, it is hoped, will be perfectly conclusive as to the fact of this great and invidious disproportion.

But though this tax cannot, for these reasons, in its present shape, be deemed a part of our permanent revenue system, it has been urged, by the senator from New York, that the amount derived from it cannot, at this time, be spared by the government. That objection is as old as the custom of taxation, and is invariably urged against the repeal of all taxes. Those who receive taxes always wish them continued, either for present or anticipated purposes. This same objection was pressed, but pressed in vain, in 1807, though the amount of revenue then relinquished was $515,920, while the present bill releases only $309,205. Then, also, the whole annual income from the duty ceased at one time, while now the half repealed does not take effect at all till next December, and only a moiety of it till a year from next December.

The same objection was, at first, insisted on against a repeal of the English excise on salt; but was urged in vain, though the revenue released amounted to more than six millions of dollars, or more than twenty times as much as this bill proposes to release, and though at a time when they needed nearly £50,000,000 sterling annually to discharge only the interest of their national debt. But in both countries, on the above occasion, the governments well knew that the impost was a war impost, was partial in its operation and, after the exigencies of war ceased, ought not to be enforced. They well knew, further, that, in its origin, it was never intended as a part of their permanent revenue; and, if its amount was desirable in the financial operations

of the treasury, it would be far more just and wise to collect it from articles of luxury, or retrench, to that extent, some large expendi

ture.

"Better were it," says Anderson, in his Essay on Agriculture, page 330,"for the inhabitants of this country to pay one hundred times the amount of the free produce of the duties on salt, if levied in any one of a variety of ways that might easily be suggested, and which do not bind up the hands of industry as this does." He intimates further, what I hope will never be verified in America,-"But so long as party cabals shall occupy the minds of the leading men in the legis lative and executive departments of government, to the exclusion of any object from their serious thoughts that cannot be immediately connected with them, it is in vain to think that observations which tend to promote merely useful measures, which might, perhaps, affect the interest and tend to disgust some powerful supporters of either party, or their adherents, will ever command the attention of any party."

The effect of this repeal, however, on the revenue, has commanded full attention in this body. The committees on finance, during two sessions, have deemed this partial repeal safe and expedient, under the present state of the finances; and a moment's reflection must convince all that even its nominal effect upon the revenue must prove much more inconsiderable than some have been inclined to suppose. Firstly, because the sum received from half the duty now to be released is small in itself, compared with the whole revenue,-being only about oneseventieth of it, and is to be released at a future period, and divided into two separate years. And, secondly, because the article will be likely to become so much cheaper, by the reduction of the duty, as probably to increase its consumption, and in that way enable the government to realize, from the small duty, almost as much as they now realize from the large duty.

I shall not detain the Senate by arguments and analogous cases, to prove a position so well settled in political economy as that a large duty seldom or never yields twice as much as a reasonable duty only half as large. Two and two, in taxation, as Swift once remarked, seldom makes four. A single fact on this point will be sufficient. By the reduction of the British excise thirteen-fifteenths, it was calculated, on the old amount of salt consumed, that the remaining two-fifteenths would yield only £200,000 per year. But so greatly did the consumption increase, through the fall of price, by means of lessening the excise, that the impost exceeded £360,000; or, in other words, the consumption was nearly doubled. It was there, and will be here, under such circumstances, employed more freely in the feeding of all kinds of stock, in the preservation of meats and hay, in manuring the soil, and in various other uses too numerous for recital.

Again: this increased consumption would not only prevent the revenue from much diminution, but would improve the health, and

promote greatly the pecuniary prosperity of the agricultural class. I will not stop to argue this point in detail, any more than the preceding one, with which it is intimately connected. It will suffice to remark, that a very intelligent writer on this subject, whose work lies before me, calculates that the increased use of salt, by removing from it a large tax, would be so considerable, and at the same time so healthy and profitable, as nearly to double the utility of the same quantity of food without the free use of salt. One of his remarks on this point I will read, to prevent misapprehension: "It will be shown that, by the liberal use of salt in feeding cattle and sheep, not only many diseases of the latter might be prevented, but also that the same quantity of food might be made to go much further, by the judicious use of salt in feeding beasts, than can be done without it; so that, were the duty on salt removed, and the free use of that condiment adopted, it might be said to augment the quantity of food for beasts, I will not say one half, but in a proportion somewhat approaching to it, over the whole island; which is an article of such immense magnitude as almost to baffle all attempts at calculation." (And. 131.) Yet the excise in England on salt used for feeding cattle and sheep was only two shillings and sixpence per bushel, before the repeal.

This increased consumption will also confer an incidental benefit upon the navigation of the country. That navigation is now employed, in the freight of this article, to only from three and a half to five million bushels annually; and any increase of consumption, whether to six or eight millions, will extend a very acceptable benefit to the freighting trade of the country, now languishing and depressed.

The principal remaining objection to the bill comes from the professed friends to the domestic manufacture of salt; and having been reinforced by several memorials, read yesterday and to-day, as well as by eloquent appeals from the senators of Maine (Mr. HOLMES) and New York (Mr. SANFORD), I shall attempt to meet this objection in its fullest and strongest views. I am as ready as any person to give all expedient and just protection to any portion of the great and growing branch of national industry consisting of manufactures. But the present duty on salt was at first not imposed to introduce and protect its manufacture. So large a duty can never, on sound principles, be required for that object; and in its present amount it is both disproportionate and exorbitant. It was not imposed for that object, either in 1797 or 1813; because, as we have seen, it was, at both those periods, imposed for war purposes, and was expressly limited in duration, so as to meet only such purposes. The memorials against this bill concede that the encouragement of manufactures has only been an incidental or secondary effect from the duty. Again, it is contrary to all analogy and correct principles of political economy, to either retain or impose a tax so large and unequal for the protection of any manufacture whatever. Let me entreat the Senate to turn from general conjecture, and sympathetic appeals on this subject, to

established facts. When salt weighs sixty pounds per bushel, which is the usual rate, the duty amounts to full two hundred per cent. on the cost of the article; because it seldom costs, abroad, over ten or twelve cents per bushel. The price on the sea-board, as stated in the memorials on your table, is only from thirty-five to thirty-seven cents, when weighing seventy-eight pounds; which, deducting the duty on that weight, and the freight, would leave the original cost rather less than twelve cents. Another test, that this is about the first cost per bushel, is our own records. Take the imposts of 1825, and they are 4,574,202 bushels, and valued at 589,125 dollars, which averages twelve cents per bushel; and in the treasury tables it will be seen, in many cases, to be estimated at less than ten cents. On Turk's Island salt, which weighs eighty-four pounds per bushel, the duty ranges from two hundred to three hundred per cent.

Will gentlemen now please to compare this duty on an article of universal necessity, firstly, with the duties on our greatest luxuries? Take wines, not used by the poor and middling classes, but comparatively by nabobs, at a duty not one-half as large as that on salt, or never over one hundred per cent.; or take spirits of any kind, the greatest moral poison and curse of our whole population, at a duty never over two hundred per cent. Again, compare the present impost on salt with the duty on articles of general use and convenience, and whose manufacture it is very desirable to establish on the firmest basis, sugars, at a duty not over seventy-five per cent.; cottons, not over twenty-seven to forty per cent.; woollens, only thirty-seven and onethird per cent. And, lastly, compare it with what the senator from Maine calls manufactures essential in war, and hence to be highly favored in peace, the duties on iron not averaging beyond thirty per cent.; on fire-arms, not over thirty to forty per cent.; and on gunpowder itself, only from twenty-five to forty per cent. Gentlemen are liable to err by dealing too much in generalities.

as

Pass the present bill, and it is thus manifest that you still leave for the protection of the salt manufacturers a duty of full one hundred per cent.; a duty treble the amount of what the most judicious politicians now consider sufficient to aid any established manufacture, and a duty far exceeding any other in our own tariff for the protection of the manufacture of any article, either a munition of war, or of the first necessity in either war or peace. Is this ruining manufactures? Is this injustice to the memorialists on the table?- leaving them three times as large protection as you give to the makers of iron, of woollen cloths, or of gunpowder? and some cents more than the present duty on imported salt in England, it being there, since January, 1825, only threepence per bushel? The House will thus judge whether the complaints of the manufacturers in Massachusetts against the billespecially when they themselves say the present duty was imposed for revenue, and not for their protection are either well-founded or consistent.