FEB. 2, 1827.]

The Bankrupt Bill.-Duty on Salt.

[SENATE.

if possible, to be adopted. It was doubted now, as well tion of the Chairman of the Committee who reported this as formerly, whether Congress had a right to fix this bill, to one question. Is it a fact, that, by repealing the bounty, except as a kind of drawback upon the duties on duty on this article, the consumer wil. use more, because salt: and if they repealed the duty, the bounty would fol. of a reduced price, and thus the country reap the profit low. As to the services rendered by the fishermen, they This was not the case formerly, when the duty was rewere of great value. The products of their industry pealed. For a short time it was lower; but it soon rose were the products of the sea, and little other capital than up again. How was this to be accounted for? Why, bethe labor and enterprise of those hardy mariners, was re- cause salt was not a principal article of trade, but entirely quired to carry it on: in fact, labor only was wanted, and one of a subsidiary character. No trader will import salt that must be had, or the trade would fall to decay. We regularly; he will not send out his ships to bring back a were, then, admonished to encourage those laborers, by cargo of salt; but, on the contrary, it is imported to make every motive of public interest. The revenue produced out an incomplete cargo, or as ballast. Thus the importby the importations of salt now amounted to an average er, holding the article by chance, and there being no per annual product of 600,000 dollars. Could the Govern-manent trade in it, to regulate the price, is enabled to fix ment spare so large a sum at this period? Were our it, and the profit will accrue to him, and not to the consuaffairs in such a flourishing condition, that we could, with- mer. It is self-evident, that, if you repeal the salt tax, you out any inconvenience, strike off this amount from our re- will put down all manufactories of the article. You will ceipts? His opinion was, that they could ill spare the want just so much salt, whether at home or from abroad; tax on salt, and that consideration, were there no others, and if the manufacture is broken down, all competition would decide him againt it. with the importer is destroyed, and he is at liberty to set his own price. One way or another, the bill will produce bad effects. Either you do reduce the price according to the duty taken off, or you do not; and if you do reduce the price, the manufacture is destroyed; if it does not, we have lost 300,000 dollars of revenue, without benefiting any one. If the manufactories are broken up, where are we to look for a supply of this most indispensable article, when war overtakes us? The manufacture of any article, which is required in great quantities, wants time and encouragement to make it perfect and abundant. It cannot be expected that it will grow up in a day, to meet the sudden exigency of the country; and hereafter, should Congress pass this bill, the country may need the assistance of the manufactures which it will have destroyed. It was in vain to suppose that they could flourish until there was something should occur to check importation. These loose ideas he had thrown out, on the moment, convinced that the bill ought not, on many considerations, to pass.

While they had been here this session, a memorial had been presented from Portsmouth, praying a repeal of the bounty on the fisheries, in order to remove the frauds which were said to have been committed on the duty on salt. It was said that the fishermen went to sea and bought the salt to cure their fish in the British Provinces, and thus evaded the duty, while they claimed the bounty. Those instances of fraud had been prosecuted, and existed no longer. There was a way to restrict men in such cases, without depriving all those engaged in the trade, of the bounty. Our fishermen formerly had a coasting license, to dry their fish on the British coasts, not to sell fish to the British; and it was objected that the fisherman would go and spend his four months in other pursuits, and then return and claim the bounty. These, however, were but casual occurrences, and offered nothing more against the bounty than occasional individual frauds offered against any system. But this was not all. There were manufactories of salt in the United States, which required to be protected the more, because salt was an article of absolute necessity, without which we could scarcely exist, and which, in time of war, could not be obtained, except at a high price. What is the extent of the manufacture of this article in this country? It is carried on in New York, in Massachusetts, in Virginia, North Carolina, and, he was informed, in Florida. What the quantity manufactured in North Carolina was, he did not know; but he would read a statement in writing, from a gentleman intimately acquainted with the subject, as to the salt works of Cape Cod.

[Mr. H then read a paper, which stated that, along the sea coast of Massachusetts, there were numerous manufac tories of salt, which employed upwards of one thousand persons, each having a small manufactory, managed by himself and family. The value of these establishments is estimated at 2,000,000 dollars, their annual product at about 600,000 bushels, weighing 78 lbs. each, of the best quality of salt. It was also stated that the price of salt was now about 35 cents, and that it had been reduced nearly 30 per cent. in the last three years, owing to a competition between the importer and manufacturer. The manufacturer could not afford it as low as it was now sold: and a reduction of the duty would operate greatly to his injury. When the duty was repealed in 1807, they must have all been ruined, had not Massachusetts exonerated their works from all taxation.]

Now, sir, this is a small section of the country; but in this small strip of coast, one thousand people, and a capital of two millions, are employed, and they annually produce six hundred thousand bushels of the article. Yet, this is considered of no importance, and we are told that the whole must go by the board, by reducing the duty which has hitherto protected them. He would call the atten

The Senate adjourned without taking the question.

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1827.

THE BANKRUPT BILL.

Mr. HAYNE, from the Select Committee, to which was referred the "bill to establish an uniform system of Bankruptcy," reported the bill with one amendment—to strike out the 93d section.

Mr. HAYNE moved to lay it on the table, giving notice that he would call it up on Monday.

DUTY ON SALT.

The unfinished business of yesterday being then taken up, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill making a reduction of the duty on imported salt.

Mr. SANFORD said, that the bill was taken up at so late an hour, yesterday, that he had not the advantage of hearing the views expressed by the gentlemen who addressed the Senate upon the subject. At the last session, this bill, or a similar one, was before the Senate, and, if his memory served him, the first argument used to support it was, that we could very well dispense with the tax upon salt. It was admitted that, at that time, we could dispense with that amount of our revenue. We could have dispensed with a much greater sum at that period. Our funds were then ample, and by some it was supposed almost inexhaustible. But the aspect of affairs had undergone a great change. And now our circumstances were such that we could dispense with nothing in justice to those claims which would come upon the Treasury dur ing the present year. There were now but from three to four millions in the Treasury, according to any account, and, upon this point, statements differed. At any rate,

SENATE.]

Duty on Salt.

[FEB. 2, 1827.

It

it was clear, that, with all the funds in our possession, presented by the gentleman from Massachusetts, gave a and all that were to be received, Government would have statement as to the manufacture of the article on the sea a scanty amount to meet the expenses which would occur coast of that State, from which it appeared that it was beyond tite estimates. The revenue promised this year there a product of no small importance. There were was much smaller than usual, in proportion to the de- also manufactories, to a certain extent, on the coast of mands of the country; and he fully believed we should Long Island. All these would be entirely prostrated by reach the end of our money with the end of the year. In the reduction of the duty. The manufacture from Salt this condition of things, it was certainly not a time to re-Springs in Virginia and New York, was of great imporduce the income. This was not the only reduction pro-tance, and they would be seriously injured. Those of the posed during the year. A bill had been reported to di- latter produced nearly a million of bushels, which found minish the duty on wine. The object was said to be to their way, in great quantities, down the Hudson, and into encourage a greater consumption of that article, and thus Canada. This paid about $100,000 to the State Treasury. increase the revenue. In regard to wine, this effect In other States the manufacture is carried on, to what exmight be produceed; but it certainly would not be in re-tent he did not know, and was progressing even in the ducing the duty on salt. As to teas, we were absolutely extreme West; but the whole product of those manufacforced to make a great reduction of the revenue, or wit-tures made them worthy of the care of Congress. ness an entire stagnation of the trade in that article. Eve. would be unwise to prostrate so extensive an object of ry member of the Senate understood the cause of this. domestic industry-because it was a necessary of life, Formerly, we had no rival in the importation of teas, and which made its home production the more worthy of prothis country, to a considerable extent, supplied the con-tection. He perceived that the bill proposed not to resumption in the British provinces. But, within the last duce the duty until the next year, and might be said two years, immense quantities had been imported by the that we should then be able to dispense with the duty; East India Company into Canada, free of duty, which ena but this was not satisfactory to him: for, as the revenue bled the British merchant to supply our population at a was deficient now, he thought, from the reasons which very low rate. This article, then, of the revenue, we he had given, and others which he might adduce, that it must inevitably reduce, or abandon the competition with was probable it would, for some time to come, continue the British merchants. As to other branches of our reve-so. He did not rise to discuss this subject at length, and nue, he did not think any improvement could be antici- would close what he had intended saying, by one single pated at present. Some persons supposed that an in- remark upon an idea which had been advanced yesterday. crease of importation, during the current year, would be It was said that the bill would cause the removal of the a natural consequence of its deficiency last year; but he bounty from the fisheries. He could not perceive how was not of that opinion. He was sensible that this revul- any such effect could be produced. The bill did not sion might be expected with reason; but, he believed it seem to him to have even the slightest bearing on that was looked for too soon. He anticipated no increase of bounty. His great objection to it was the state of the imports, either this year or next. The reflux would not revenue, which seemed to admonish Congress to make be so rapid as was imagined; nor would the change hap-no reductions where they were not absolutely necessary. pen in less than two years. Nor was he of opinion that prudence dictated the repeal of the duty on salt. The importation of that article, as he had learned from the gentleman from Maryland, amounted to four millions of bushels; and the revenue to $800,000.

Mr. WOODBURY then rose and said, the object and tendency of this bill had, by some abroad, been misunderstood; and by others, misrepresented. Standing, as may be thought, in some degree in a paternal relation to the measure, it might be expected that he should attempt [Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, rose to correct this state-to correct these errors, and vindicate it from the numerous ment. He had stated that, last year, the duty on salt amounted to above eight hundred thousand, and that the average income was from four to six hundred thousand dollars per annum.]

objections with which it had been assailed. The bill, as you well know, Mr. President, was not intended to injure the fisheries; nothing of that kind being either implied or expressed in its provisions. But, its legitimate operation Mr. SANFORD continued. He knew that the sum will be to aid the fishermen, in common with all other varied from year to year-last year it was about $900,000 consumers of imported salt. Neither is it gotten up in -and that the nett proceeds was about two thirds of the hostility to manufacturers, nor will it prove injurious to whole duty, after deducting drawbacks, &c. Were we any due encouragement of them. Just as little, also, is it prepared to dispense with four hundred thousand dollars calculated to endanger the financial operations of the of revenue at this time? If we were not-and he thought Government, as permanently established for peace, or as it was plain-why should we attempt to reduce the scan- they happen to exist at the present moment. The printy receipts into the Treasury by this reduction If a re-ciple of the bill is altogether different, and lies within a duction must be made on teas, if it was likely to produce single inquiry. It is this: Ought not a war-tax-a tax, a profit to reduce the duty on wines, still, he thought, this was the last duty which ought to be lessened. Salt was said to be a necessary of life, and that it ought to be made as accessible as possible to all classes. But, after all, this was any thing but an argument in favor of increasing the importation. If it was so indispensable an article, the more did sound policy require that its production in the country should be encouraged; and the ground of that policy was this: Suppose our foreign commerce should be interrupted by war, no manufacture of this indispensable article could be successfully established at once, to supply the growing demand of the country; hence, an exorbitant and oppressive price would be demanded, and far greater injury inflicted than could, by possibility, be created by a retention of the present duty. It therefore became the Government to foster this useful manufacture by as great a protecting duty as possible, nor did that at present imposed appear unreasonable, The memorial

imposed merely to meet the great exigencies of such a crisis-a tax, temporary at its commencement, exorbitant in amount, and partial in its operation-ought not such a tax to be now lessened? That is the question. Now, after twelve years of plenty and peace, and after the fullest examination by committees, has shown that the pas. sage of the bill will aid, rather than injure the fisherieswill not sensibly affect the present operations of the Treasury, or any permanent branches of the revenue, nor leave our manufacturers of domestic salt without a protection, as great as is extended to any article of a similar character, in the whole tariff-these various circumstances bearing on the bill, shail be adverted to as briefly as posssible. But, the paramount-the primary object-is to ascertain if the present duty be indeed a war-tax. When I call the present duty on salt a war-tax, it is not by way of rhetorical figure, or for effect upon any honest prejudice; but, it is to invite the attention of the Senate

FEB. 2, 1827.j

Duty on Salt.

[SENATE.

to the true origin of the duty, as tending strongly to illus-men, both on my right and my left. Permit me, a motrate the opinion, that, not having been designed for the ment, to appeal merely to what has occurred within our state of things in peace, it is too large and unequal for own brief lives. Have we not seen the salt tax, or ga any legitimate purposes, in the present condition of the balle, in France, first imposed as a war tax, become one country. of those wide-spread and odious oppressions, most instruGentlemen well remember, that, at the beginning of mental in rousing the great mass of the population in their our late war, salt was entirely free from even the smallest late Revolution? A tax far more burthensome and exeduty. It was not till July, 1813, in a state of obstinate crated than even the tax upon tea in our own Revolution. hostilities, under a diminished revenue, with extraordina- Let it not be forgotten that there, as here, it had comry expenditures, and accompanied by great financial em- menced as a war tax; and had been remitted and renounbarrassments, that the present tax was imposed. It is ced at different periods, till, under new pretexts, it slid well known, that, in such a condition of public affairs, into a permanent peace impost, equalling nearly oneall ordinary rules of taxation must bend. They must fourth of the whole revenue of the empire. So stealthyield far enough to meet the controlling necessities of the like and absorbing is generally the character of power country. The necessaries of life must then submit to be when abused; and if no peaceful correction is in time burthened, as well as its luxuries; and the poor, in com- made by rulers, the People themselves, in some great mon with the rich, must then defend their hearths and crisis, are generally inclined to inflict fearful retribution. altars by large contributions and large sacrifices. It is on The tax on salt began in the same way in England, and such occasions only, that salt, though an article of the fluctuated in amount, and was suspended on various ocfirst importance to all classes, may properly be subjected casions. But the vast expenses of her Continental wars, to a great tax. Because, it is thus subjected in common had, prior to the year 1816, compelled her, as a measure with the soil we till for our daily bread, and with the of unavoidable necessity, under such pressures, to increase houses that give us daily shelter from the weather. It is her excise on salt to 15 shillings sterling per bushel when true, I grant, that the great bulk and weight of salt, com- used for domestic purposes, and from two to six shillings pared with its value, and that its universal use, often in- as used in various other specified ways. These, too, duce Governments, in the exigencies of war, to select it having began in war, and at first being limited in durafor the most severe taxation, in preference to other ne- tion-both rulers and ruled felt it had swollen with emer. cessaries; because, for these reasons, it is more difficult gencies to a most oppressive burthen. They understood to be smuggled, and more certain to yield a revenue. the principle on which it stood, and that it was fast beBut these circumstances, it is manifest, furnish no reason ginning to be incorporated into her permanent system of for the tax itself; and in an especial manner, when the revenue; and though they at first resisted a repeal, on artax operates exclusively on a single section of a country.guments similar to those advanced yesterday and to-day; The true reason for the tax itself, is the controlling emer- yet the natural hatred to such a tax in peace, the strong gency of the occasion-the stern necessities of war: and sense of justice among her statesmen, and the paternal I trust that no fair-minded politician can ever repeat again regard of the Government towards its agricultural suband again the incidental circumstances before named, as jects, at length overcame every obstacle. All opposition the true reason for either imposing or retaining a tax so to its repeal was in the end prostrated, and in May, 1822, exorbitant, unequal, and oppressive. Another decisive provision was made for the gradual removal of the whole proof that it was deemed, when imposed, a mere war-tax, excise. is the express limitation of its continuance in the act of Congress to only one year after the war. Had it been intended as a part of the permanent system of our revenue, or merely as a protection to manufacturers, why this limitation?

Again: The history of our country, which on this point cannot deceive us, shows, that, when the duty had once before been increased, in 1797, as high as twenty cents, it was imposed as a quasi war-tax on account of our difficulties with France. Then, too, was a limitation of it to three years and never afterwards, till totally repealed, was it continued without an express protestation, in the act itself, that it was not to become, for any purpose, either of revenue or protection, a permanent part of our tariff system.

Our statesmen, at both periods, had numerous examples before them, and we now have still more, that a large tax on this article was injudicious, and inappropriate to any but a state of war; and that then, as before remarked, it had chiefly for its apology the great tyrant necessity the great principle of self-preservation, and the right of Government to all constitutional means most likely to preserve the endangered safety of the Republic.

When the feelings of mankind, on any one subject, in different nations and ages, thus coincide, it is a pretty sure indication of their correctness. If a large salt tax in peace, then, has justly been the abhorrence of mankind in all time, something has always been thought, and should now be thought due from Government to such a universal sentiment. I shall not detain the Senate by references upon this point, when numerous instances are doubtless fresh in their recollection; and when none of us can have forgotten the eloquence upon this subject, which was displayed in the Senate at our last session, from the gentle

A brief history of the transaction will furnish an instructive lesson to us, who take pride in our alacrity to relieve the great mass of the People from their burthens, rather than in our ingenuity to find reasons for continuing them. The excise was the only tax felt on this subject. The first proposition was to remove the excise one< third annually-the next to leave a part of it permanent、 but in the end, thirteen-fifteenths was at once taken off, and the last two-fifteenths ceased in January, 1825. This was by the third of George IV.; and what I may now as well state, once for all, the same statute removed not only the whole excise, but the whole duty, on imported salt, except three pence per bushel. So that now, for every purpose, in England, whether of excise or tariff, or protection of any kind, the duty is short of ten cents on the bushel. The grounds of opposition to the repeal, as before remarked, were much the same there as here. It was urged to be an article difficult to smuggle-certain to yield a revenue-and too productive in amount for the Government to spare from taxation. But though it furnished to the Treasury more than a million and a half pounds sterling annually-and though the yearly expenditures of England, at the time of the repeal, exceeded seventy-two millions pounds sterling, and she needed more than half of her whole revenue to keep down only the interest on her national debt; yet Parliament, from regard to the landed interest, and in the exercise of sound practical wisdom towards all classes, and in accordance with the enlightened magnanimity of the age, relinquished the whole, and reduced the duty on importations, even lower than what is now proposed in this country. Here, the objections to the present bill are much weaker than to that measure, and the arguments in its favor are much stronger. The amount of revenue to

SENATE.]

Duty on Salt.

[FEB. 2, 1827.

be released by this bill, is not more than one-twenty- interest? Shall we refuse to do even half as much for fourth as large, and the necessities for the revenue here their relief, by a repeal of only half the present duty? are, comparatively, nothing. On the other hand, the Are we unable to do half as much for them, as could be reasons for the repeal here are peculiarly urgent. Not done twenty years ago? Are we not half as prosperous only is the present exorbitant duty a mere war tax, as we as at that time? And, notwithstanding little local interests, have attempted to show, but it is unequal in its operation, shall we not show this magnanimity, after the recommendfalling with most oppressive weight on the poor and mid-ation of such a measure by three separate committees of dling classes. It resembles, to use the language of Mr. our own House-that on agriculture, the last session-and Gallatin, in 1797, an odious poll tax, nearly equal upon those on finance, of both the last and present sessions? every member of community, male or female, indigent or It now becomes me to notice more particularly some rich, because each consumer of food consumes about of the specific objections that have been started to the the same quantity of salt, and thus pays, as a consumer, present bill. Objections are to be anticipated to every nearly a like sum. Again, the tax is especially burthen- important measure, either from local interest or natural some and invidious to the agricultural interest. They diversities of opinion. But a consideration of those offerare not only the most numerous portion of consumers, ed in this case is due to the sources from which they come, but in many cases of the use of salt they pay the whole and will serve, in my apprehension, to shew their true tax in its price, without being able to obtain any remune- character, as well as strengthen the arguments in favor of ration in subsequent sales of the articles in which salt is the repeal. used. To the farmer, like the elements of air and water, salt enters into the expense of almost every article he either consumes or sells; and although in this manner the tax is hourly felt, yet it is in such small quantities in each article as generally to elude calculation in the prices he obtains.

One of those objections has been, that the bill is an inroad; that it breaks in upon the permanent system of our public revenue. As if a 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 opera. Nor can the tax, as one upon a luxury, or upon a mere tion, could never safely be modified The facts already convenience, be avoided by the highest degree of vigi- named prove that the present duty on salt was imposed lance and economy: for the daily bread of every man, as a war tax, and shew that it was never in its origin dewoman, and child, is usually seasoned by this universal | signed as a part of the permanent system of our public recondiment, as well for health as pleasure; and, in the pre- venue. The evidence of our own records, in their miservation of butter, cheese, and meat, as well as in the nutest details, accord with this general fact: Because feeding of every species of stock, its liberal use comports this large duty, when first imposed, in 1797, was expresswith the strictest frugality, and in our present state of so-ly limited to only three years; in 1800, it was again limitciety is almost indispensable. ed to ten years, and, in 1807, entirely repealed. When To measure at once the partiality of the tax against agri-imposed anew, in 1813, it was, moreover, expressly conculture, it has been seen, that those engaged in this pur-fined to a year after the war. It was then, as before, suit, though of moderate fortunes, and often indigent, pay, held out to the country as only a temporary measure, and as mere consumers, as much per head of the tax as those that section more immediately aggrieved by it were do who compose the wealthier classes. Again, as the soothed with the syren song, that, with the distresses and number engaged in agriculture in this country amounts embarrassments of war, which had occasioned the tax, to full four-fifths of our whole population, they pay over would also cease this unequal burthen. $450,000 of the whole annual tax of about $600,000.

But they pay, also, as purchasers of the salt that is incorporated into what they sell, but in so small quantities as not sensibly to affect the price, a large portion of the other $150,000 of the whole tax; and in this way doubly does the tax operate in a partial, oppressive, and, indeed, almost exclusive manner, on that portion of our population. And what is still worse, it operates almost exclusively on a part of that population, in a single section of the Union, bordering on the Atlantic frontier. The British excise, before it was repealed, was much more friendly to agriculture than our present impost; because, while it imposed fifteen shillings per bushel on salt used for mere household purposes, the tax was only one-sixth of that sum, or two shillings and six pence on salt given to eattle, and only two shillings on salt used for preserving provisions. But here no discrimination comes in aid of the farmer; the utmost farthing of the highest duty being in every case exacted.

These and similar considerations have once in this country, under the paternal administration of Mr. Jefferson, produced a total repeal of the duty on salt; and it was effected under circumstances no less creditable to the Government, and gratifying to the agriculturist, than was the late total repeal of the excise upon salt, in England. In December, 1807, some time before the expiration of the duty as limited by the act, Congress cheerfully and magnanimously removed the whole of the burthen. The Journals disclose the remarkable fact of only five nays in one House, and ten in the other, upon the final passage of the repealing bill.

Are we now to be considered less friendly to the great foundation stone of all our prosperity-the agricultural

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. every body can see that the whole of the tax falls almost exclu sively on a single section of the country. Let us pause a moment on this circumstance, in connexion with the idea that such a tax is to be permanent. Not only is it chiefly paid on the Eastern side of the Alleghanics, 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 popu lation, as what is used at the dinner table, 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 hundred and fifty thousand, it becomes a tax of more than 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 re-exportation, 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.

[SENATE.

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 one-seventieth 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 13-15ths, it was calculated, on the old amount of salt consumed, that But though this tax cannot, for these reasons, in its the remaining 2-15ths would yield only £200,000 per present shape, be deemed a part of our permanent reve-year. But so greatly did the consumption increase, nue system, it has been urged, by the Senator from New through the fall of price, by means of lessening the exYork, that the amount derived from it cannot, at this cise, that the impost exceeded £360,000; or, in other time, be spared by the Government. That objection is words, the consumption was nearly doubled. It was as old as the custom of taxation, and is invariably urged there, and will be here, under such circumstances, emagainst the repeal of all taxes. Those who receive taxes,ployed more freely in the feeding of all kinds of stock; always wish them continued, either for present or antici. in the preservation of meats and hay; in manuring the pated purposes. This same objection was pressed, but soil, and in various other uses, too numerous for recital. pressed in vain, in 1807, though the amount of revenue Again This increased consumption would not only then relinquished, was $515,920, while the present bill prevent the revenue from much diminution, but would releases only $309,205. Then, also, the whole annual improve the health, and promote greatly the pecuniary income from the duty ceased at one time, while now, the prosperity of the agricultural class. I will not stop to arhalf repealed does not take effect at all till next Decem-gue this point in detail, any more than the preceding one, ber, and only a moiety of it till a year from next December. with which it is intimately connected. It will suffice to The same objection was, at first, insisted on against a remark, that a very intelligent writer on this subject, repeal of the English excise on salt; but was urged in whose work lies before me, calculates that the increased vain, though the revenue released amounted to more than use of salt, by removing from it a large tax, would be so six millions of dollars, or more than twenty times as much considerable, and at the same time so healthy and profita as this bill proposes to release, and though at a time when ble, as nearly to double the utility of the same quantity of they needed nearly £50,000,000 sterling annually, to dis- food, without the free use of salt. One of his remarks on charge only the interest of their national debt. But in both this point I will read, to prevent misapprehension: “It countries, on the above occasions, the Governments well" will be shown that, by the liberal use of salt in feeding knew that the impost was a war impost—was partial in its" cattle and sheep, not only many diseases of the latter operation, and, after the exigencies of war ceased, ought" might be prevented, but, also, that the same quantity not to be enforced. They well knew, further, that, in" of food might be made to go much farther, by the juits origin, it was never intended as a part of their perma-"dicious use of salt in feeding beasts, than it can do withnent revenue; and if its amount was desirable in the finan- "out it; so that, were the duty on salt removed, and the cial operations of the Treasury, it would be far more just "free use of that condiment adopted, it might be said and wise to collect it from articles of luxury, or retrench," to augment the quantity of food for beasts-I will not to that extent, some large expenditure. "say one-half, but in a proportion somewhat approaching "Better were it," says Anderson, in his Essay on Agri-" to it, over the whole island; which is an article of such culture, page 330,"for the inhabitants of this country to "immense magnitude, as almost to baffle all attempts at "pay one hundred times the amount of the free produce" calculation." (And. 131.) Yet the excise in England "of the duties on salt, if levied in any one of a variety of on salt used for feeding cattle and sheep, was only 2s. 6d. ways that might easily be suggested, and which do not per bushel, before the repeal. "bind up the hands of industry as this does." He inti- This increased consumption will also confer an incimates farther, and what I hope will never be verified in dental benefit upon the navigation of the country. That America: "But so long as party cabals shall occupy the navigation is now employed in the freight of this article, "minds of the leading men in the Legislative and Execu-to only from three and a half to five millions bushels an"tive Department of Government, to the exclusion of any "object from their serious thoughts that cannot be imme"diately connected with them, it is in vain to think that "observations which tend to promote merely useful mea"sures, which might, perhaps, affect the interest, and "tend to disgust some powerful supporters of either par"ty, 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,

nually; and any increase of consumption, whether to six or eight millions, is to 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 indus