Mr. DAWES. Mr. Chairman, two or three things may be taken for granted in the discus sion of this question. In the first place, it may be assumed that what has been stated by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. FINKELN BURG] and other gentlemen is true-that, while we may live without tea and coffee, we cannot live without salt; that it is an article of prime necessity, the absence of which is almost as fatal to the continuance of human life as the absence of the atmosphere. Upon the statement of such a proposition the query arising in my mind is whether it does not become us to so establish the production of so necessary an article that in no contingency shall we be deprived of it. It occurs to me that in so far as this article is essential to our comfort and well-being it becomes us to see to it that we shall under no circumstances be deprived of it.

The history of nations in war and other circumstances, where they have been deprived of this article, is fresh in the minds of all those who can remember the condition of things in the rebel States during the war. With inexhaustible beds of salt under their feet, with mountains of it before their eyes, they had been in the habit and custom of depending on others for salt, and when by untoward events they were cut off from that supply, the distress of the rebel States in all other respects did not compare with the distress which the absence of this prime necessity brought upon them. That is one condition of things.

Another condition of things was stated by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] yes. terday. If we so legislate as to secure under all circumstances a home supply of this article, then we should not have the condition of things to which he has referred. It will be impossible for that condition of things to be true which the gentleman from Ohio stated, that is, where two manufacturing establishments of salt, one in this country and one in a foreign country, could so arrange matters by contract that they could control the price of salt in our markets and the price of salt in foreign markets. Under no circumstances whatever, when an article of prime necessity of life, when its supply depends on the cupidity and avarice of a monopoly like that which the gen. tleman from Pennsylvania

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts has expired.

Mr. SUTHERLAND. I take the floor, and I will yield whatever time I am allowed under the rules to the gentleman from Massachusetts, so he may continue and conclude his remarks.

Mr. DAWES. Now, sir, I desire such legislation that under no circumstances can that ever be true that the cupidity and avarice of monopolies shall control the supply of this article of prime necessity. But I want to know whether we accomplish that end by crushing out that monopoly on this side and surrendering it entirely to another monopoly on the other side? There is a monopoly on the other side of the line, and there is one at Onondaga, New York. The gentleman from New York [Mr. DUELL] stated the condition of the production in this country was such that they were not able to make it give at the end of one year with another but the very smallest profit in each barrel of salt manufactured. I do not wish to see such a condition of things.

I do not wish to crush out the manufacture of salt on our side of the line for the purpose of surrendering it to a monopoly on the other side of the line. The only remedy is to so legislate as to multiply production here until in this country under all circumstances, adverse or prosperous, peace or war, it shall render us independent of any such combination hereafter like that of one monopoly here and another foreign monopoly, fixing the price of salt in both markets. That production can only be 42D CONG. 2D SESS.-No. 203.

realized by just putting this where a fair remunerative profit and no more can be yielded to the production of salt in this country where ever it may be.

At Syracuse, New York, with sixty square miles; in Michigan; in the Kanawha valley, Virginia; at Lynchburg, Virginia; down in Louisiana, everywhere almost over this country, salt is as abundant almost and as free as air, but it is six hundred or a thousand miles below the surface, and it requires labor, although free to all of God's people. There it requires labor to lift it up to the surface of the ground. Let us have it. If we are not disposed to strike down ali efforts to manufac ture salt, let us multiply its production in this country, so that no monopoly shall rule the price, that no condition can hereafter happen by which we may be without the largest supply of salt at the most reasonable prices. In order to do that, we must see to it that those who lift the salt shall have fair compensation for it.

Mr. Chairman, I voted for free salt two years ago. Last summer, on nobody's invitation, and on no suspicion I should occupy the condition I now do, I went on my own motion among these salt-works. I went through them, examined the works, and inquired in reference to the production and profit of the manufacture of salt. I think I know the condition of things. The manufacture of salt barely produces compensation to the men employed in it, and no more. With sixty square miles in Michigan, as fine as anywhere in the world, gentlemen came before the committee and tendered it in ten acres, free, to anybody who would go there and produce salt.

You perhaps think you are going to have cheap salt on the sea-board by withdrawing competition at the sea-board with foreign salt on the part of our own manufacturers. Now, do not gentlemen see that when you withdraw competition of American salt with foreign salt on the sea-board, that instant the price of foreign salt will go up?

Nothing has kept it down in this world; nothing can keep it down but competition. He who has a free field will put his own price upon the article, as we have been told was done by the Onondaga company and the Goderich company when they combined, the one to have a free field here, and the other to have a free field there. When they did so, they set their own prices upon the articles.

So all along the sea-board; so all along on the Mississippi river, if you take away the competition between the foreign salt and the American salt, you that instant are at the mercy of the importer, and he puts on just what price he pleases. You cannot escape

that result. And he who asks free salt can only have free salt by competition.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I would ask the gentleman if there is only one importer of salt?

Mr. DAWES. There are thousands of importers.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Is there not competition among themselves?

Mr. DAWES. No, sir. There will be the same combination among them which there was between the Goderich company and the Onondaga company. Does not the gentleman know that when the Onondaga company reached the Atlantic with their salt they

brought down that instant the price of foreign salt twenty-five per cent.? Does not everybody know that it is only by competition the world over and in everything that prices are held down? We should not surrender our independence in this respect. It would be better that the Government, as it provides powder in its magazines and fills its arsenais to meet great exigencies of war, should absorb and pack away this article for such exigencies, than that we should be left without it, as the rebel States were during their contest. [Here the hammer fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The time allowed by the House for debate on those paragraphs has expired, but after the pending amendments are disposed of, other amendments will be in order, to be offered and voted upon without debate.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I move that the committee rise, for the purpose of extending the time for debate on those two paragraphs thirty minutes. The subject is a very important one, and, as I have already said, there is a mistake in the clause which I wish to have corrected.

The question being taken on the motion that the committee rise, there were-ayes 62, noes 59.

So the motion that the committee rise was agreed to.

The committee accordingly rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. ScoFIELD reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had had under consideration the Union generally, and particularly the bill (H. R. No. 2322) to reduce duties on imports, and to reduce internal taxes, and for other purposes, and had come to no resolution thereon.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I move that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union to proceed to the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 2322) to reduce duties on imports, and to reduce internal taxes, and for other purposes. Pending that motion I move that the time for debate on the two paragraphs relating to salt and the amendments thereto be extended thirty minutes.

The motion to extend the time for debate was agreed to-ayes 64, noes 61.

The motion that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union for the consideration of the special order, was also agreed to.

The House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. SCOFIELD in the chair,) and proceeded to the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 2322) to reduce duties on imports, and to reduce internal taxes, and for other purposes.

The CHAIRMAN. By order of the House, the time for debate on the paragraphs relating to salt has been extended thirty minutes.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I move to amend, by adding after the thirteenth line the proviso which I send to the Clerk's desk to be read.

The CHAIRMAN. No further amendment is now in order. But the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER] can explain now the amendment which he proposes to offer hereafter.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. to offer as an amendment this proviso:

I desire

Provided, That salt actually used in the preserving or curing of fish shall be admitted free of duty under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe.

Mr. FINKELNBURG. Will not the gentleman add the words "and pork?" Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I am content that pork shall be inserted. I go for free salt. I will read the law, so that everybody may understand it. When the bounty was taken off fisheries, instead thereof this was given them:

"Provided, That from and after the date of the passage of this act vessels licensed to engage in the fisheries may take on board imported salt in bond to be used in curing fish, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe; and on proof that the said salt has been used in curing fish, the duties on the same may be remitted."

Now, the men who construed that law held that the fish were to be cured on board ship. Now, fish are never cured on board ship, and consequently we never have had free salt. All fish are cured on shore, and this law has therefore been rendered entirely nugatory by the

construction put upon it. We have done the best as fishermen to evade it, but it was of no use; it was there, and in order to get the duty remitted they all had to swear that the salt was used on board ship in curing fish. They could not do that; even if they had been willing to do so, they would have had to laugh in each other's faces. Therefore the law has really been nugatory.

Now, what I desire is to so amend the law that salt used in curing fish shall be free as was intended. I agree that salt ought to be free. The only difficulty in my mind is, what would be the effect if our salt-works were to be broken up? But I want to state one fact to show that we need never be afraid of a

monopoly of salt. When Jefferson purchased Louisiana, one of the controlling reasons that he gave for that purchase was that the island of Petit Ainse, which was an island in Louisiana two miles in circumference and four handred feet high, was one pure bed of salt, and it is so. There it is to-day, an island two miles in circumference and four hundred feet high, of rock salt of ninety-seven per cent. in fine. ness. Well, gentlemen may say, why has not that salt been worked? It was worked during the rebellion, and I sent down a force to capture it and prevent its being worked. So I know all about it. Why was it not worked before? some may ask. This is the reason: salt was literally brought in free, without price, by the cotton-ships of New Orleans as ballast. They would almost give it away to get rid of it.

Mr. CONGER. That was in violation of law, for there was never a time when there was not a duty on salt.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I am not talking of duty; it was free of freight and free of price. For that reason they never worked the salt on the island of Petit Ainse.

Do they

Mr. McCORMICK, of Missouri. work it under the present tariff? Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. They do

not. Then, again, it is very remarkable that on the Pacific coast there has been found almost precisely another such formation, and it is being worked for salt. Therefore, we have in this country deposits of salt imperishable and inexhaustible forever, so far as that is concerned. Salt is an object of prime necessity.

However, I desired, when I took the floor, to explain first the amendment which I propose to offer, so that the fair intention of the law may be carried out; and secondly, to explain the fact that from physical reasons there need be no fear that there will not be salt enough in this country, not one thousand feet below the surface of the earth, but four hundred feet above the surface.

Mr. COX. I do not propose so much to antagonize the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER] in regard to making salt partly free. I should like to see it entirely free. I speak on this side of the House [standing near Mr. DAWES] because my side of the House is somewhat demoralized on the tariff, [laughing,] judging from some of the votes given on coal there yesterday.

Some curious arguments were made yes terday. They go far to disturb some of my principles, if not control my vote. A gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. GRIFFITH] appealed to my friend from Indiana [Mr. KERR] not to oppose the coal tax, because he was born above a coal formation [laughter] in Pennsylvania, and his playmates were honorable men. I feel the force of that ad hominem. I was born near the salt-wells of the beautiful Muskingum, in Ohio. Before that stream had slack water, before it was considered hardly worth a dam, [laughter, ] its banks spouted salt water like a Massachusetts member of Congress. It was evaporated by bituminous coalI mean nothing personal to the gallant member from Massachusetts, [Mr. BANKS]—I mean the salt water, not the banks. [La ghter.]

Around the wells and kettles of my native river cluster those sweet saline associations which have preserved me ever young! They are hard to resist..

Another argument has still more force. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. RITCHIE] begged us not to throttle the infantile coal interests of his beloved Cumberland. [Laughter.]

Although that unhealthy baby has been fostered by a "paternal Government" on "pap," or, as I ought to say, by a maternal Government on milk, [laughter,] for so many years, its power of suction is at least forty thousand horse-power. [Laughter.] These are sta. tistics. [Laughter.] Yet with rare economic genius, followed by the eloquent fiscal member from the Kanawha salt-works, he appealed to us to let him steal, so long as other sections stole from him. Was there ever such an illustration as that just made on the gentle. man from Massachusetts, [Mr. BUTLER?] The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. FINKELNBURG] wanted to be so honest as to help the people to keep pork by cheap salt. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER] wants to cheat the Treasury by free salt for cod-fish. This is all larceny. [Laughter.] What could be more reasonable or ethical? Let us be to each other instruments of reciprocal rapine. [Laughter.] Michigan steals on copper; Maine on lumber; Pennsylvania on iron; North Carolina on pea nuts; Massachusetts on cotton goods; Connecticut on hair pins; New Jersey on spool thread; Louisiana on sugar; and so on. Why not let the gentleman from Maryland steal coal from them? True, but a comparative few get the benefit, and it comes out of the body of the people; true, it tends to high prices, but does not stealing encourage industry? Let us as moralists, if not as politicians, rewrite the eighth commandment: Thou shalt steal; because stealing is right when common.'

This principle commends itself to the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BANKS,] who has made the speech on this subject that delights my heart. It has so much moderation and wisdom. It has no nonsense; no doctrine in it. It is based on the principle of pure and undefiled, it is petit larceny. He would not steal as much as others, but to steal into good company-he would steal less. There is then not so much motive for detection and punishment. Other gentlemen are overdoing it. He would steal sixty per cent. less than

A few more "statistics," and I subside. [Laughter.]

How beautifully this thought is illustrated by the well-laid breakfast table of my colleague, [Mr. BROOKS.] The happy family gathers around it; grace is said; God is asked to

66

and say,

protect us" in our joint and several efforts to steal! One guest pockets the knives and forks; another the salt and salt-cellar; another the cream-jug, plates, and sugar-bowl; another the cloth; another the bread; another the potatoes; another the plated ware; another the mutton-chop; a brauny Robert Macaire from down East lifts out the table; while a sly Jean Jacques, to encourage domestic cookery, slips into the kitchen, puts out the fire, and carries off the stove and coals. [Laughter.] The guests look at each other innocently "We have done all this to increase the general comfort and to make free with the breakfast table. [Laughter.] Are not our wolfish appetites assuaged? Though we have not each a general glut of nourishment, are we not happy? Is there not left coffee unground and unburned, and tea undistilled, sweetened by the memories of sugar upon an absent cloth, and covering an invisible table !" I was about to produce some more statistics. They are so powerful here. I will ask leave to print one thousand copies of this speech at the expense of the Industrial League of Philadel phia, to which I hear no objection. [Laugh ter.]

Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. Chairman, would an amendment to the second paragraph on the subject of salt be in order at this time?

The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to that paragraph is in order at present.

Mr. BUCKLEY. If I could offer an amendment now I should propose one fixing the duty on salt in bags, sacks, barrels, and other packages at six cents per bushel, or 11 5-7 per cent. I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that the southern States, situated remote from the places where salt is manufactured, receive no benefit whatever from the competition of the domestic manufacturers of this article. As the gentleman from Massachusetts has very well said, in the ports of Charleston, Savannah, Mobile, and New Orleans, Liverpool sack salt was before the war placed upon the wharves and sold by the cargo at fifty cents per sack. That same salt was transported two hundred miles into the interior and sold for one dollar or less per sack. At the present time such salt is sold in the interior at three dollars per sacksometimes more, seldom less. Before the war this salt was brought from Liverpool by vessels which carried out cotton and brought back salt in ballast, so that, as has been said, it was imported almost freight free.

Now I wish to call the attention of gentlemen from Michigan and New York to the fact that in the Gulf States you cannot find a barrel of Michigan or Onnodaga salt. I have never seen such a thing in any one of the Gulf States. But if the tariff on salt were now reduced to what it was before the war, all that section of country would be provided with salt at the same reasonable rate as formerly.

In addition to the various uses of salt in different portions of the country, this article enters very largely into the fertilizers which are now so extensively used in all the States of the South, especially upon the older and worn lands. In this way the high tariff upon salt becomes a serious burden to every raiser of cotton, to every laborer in its production in

the Gulf States-to every man who in any way makes his living from the production of cotton. Upon this subject of fertilizers I desire to invite the attention of the House, especially members from the South, to the fact that during the four months from Decem. ber, 1869, to April, 1870, over seven million dollars' worth of fertilizers passed over three railroads in the Carolinas and in Georgia, to 'be used upon the cotton lands of the South.

Mr. CONGER. Why did not the gentleman get rock salt from the rock mountain, one hundred aud fifty miles distant, referred to by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BUTLER?]

Mr. BUCKLEY. I will say to my friend from Michigan that before the war, when there was a reasonable and moderate tariff upon salt, we could buy salt in Charleston, Savannah, Mobile, and New Orleans cheaper than we could get it even from that mountain of salt. Salt was brought over from Liverpool and put down at fifty cents a sack of three bushels.

Mr. CONGER. You would get it now if your ships brought back salt in ballast after carrying out cargoes of cotton.

Mr. BUCKLEY. We send abroad almost as much cotton now as we ever did. The trouble is that if we bring back salt now we have to pay this enormous duty of one hundred and twenty to one hundred and sixty per cent. The result is that every farmer, no matter whether he be a stock raiser or a cotton raiser, suffers by this enormous tariff.

In reply to the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. DAWES,] the honorable chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, I wish to say that if we have such vast resources in this country for producing salt, the energies of the American people, whenever the time shall come and it shall be necessary to depend exclusively upon the home production of salt, will be able to meet the emergency. I am not afraid at all of any foreign country monopolizing the salt market so long as we have such abundant means of production in our own country. The suffering in the South during the war on account of the scarcity of salt was but temporary. I will give the southern people credit for that energy which very shortly after the breaking out of the war provided them all the salt they needed.

Mr. STEVENS obtained the floor, and yielded to Mr. HIBBARD.

Mr. HIBBARD. I am only able to get an opportunity to address the committee for a moment. As has been already stated in this debate, salt is produced in the United States, and exported and sold abroad in competition with salt produced in foreign countries. We export considerable quantities of domestic salt to Canada, and some to other countries. We also, to some extent, reëxport foreign salt. The following tables, which have been kindly furnished me by Edward Young, the efficient chief of the Bureau of Statistics, will show whether the manufacturers of salt need the high and unjust protection they so persistently demand:

Domestic exports and foreign reëxports of salt from the United States, and its value, for the fiscal years ending as follows.

tion, closes a letter on the power of Congress to encourage domestic products by regulations of Congress in these words:

"In the exercise of this power they are responsible to their constituents, whose right and duty it is to bring their measures to the test of justice and the general good."

In the State which I in part represent in this House the inhabitants are nearly all agriculturists. Our surplus products of corn and wheat, pork and beef, after supplying the demands of the home or eastern market, are sent abroad to foreign nations.

It is a well established principle that the price of the part exported regulates the price of that sold in the home market. Our cereals have to compete with those from the Baltic, the Black and Mediterranean seas, with the natural advantage of cheaper transportation in their favor. The labor of our yeomanry, with this natural disadvantage, has to compete with the cheap labor of the Laps and Finns, the serfs of Russia, and the sclaves of Hungary and the lazzaroni of southern Europe. On almost every article of comfort or necessity we purchase abroad in exchange for our products we have to pay an exorbitant duty. The price of our domestic salt, of the iron for our agricultural implements, and of our lumber, articles of prime necessity and extensive consumption, are largely enhanced by the protective monopoly bestowed upon their producers. We are compelled to sell our products in a market regulated by the cheap prices.of foreign labor, and to buy our necessary articles of consumption in a market made unreasonably and unnaturally dear by the favors and bounties granted to most every branch of manufacturing industry. Is this right? Will it stand Madison's test of equal justice?

Our fathers laid the foundations of our Gov. ernment deep and strong in the principles of justice and individual liberty. They who were so jealous of the rights of self-government certainly never designed to surrender to individuals or corporations a monopoly of the hard-earned rewards of honest labor. I trust, Mr. Chairman, that the members of this House, perceiving how very little the dwellers on the prairies share in the favors of protec tion, will not deny to them their just claim, free salt.

The committee rose informally, and the Speaker resumed the Chair.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message was received from the Senate, by Mr. SYMPSON, one of its clerks, notifying the House that that body had concurred in amendments of the House to Senate bills of the following titles:

An act (S. No. 607) to establish the pay of enlisted men of the Army;

An act (S. No. 448) to establish a system of deposits and to prevent desertions and elevate the condition of the rank and file of the Army;

An act (S. No. 347) granting a pension to Sarah McEnany; and

An act (S. No. 955) granting a pension to Mary Ann Montgomery, widow of William W. Montgomery, late a private in the Texas volunteers.

The message further announced that the Senate had passed a bill (H. R. No. 1661) making appropriations for the support of the Military Academy for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1873, with sundry amendments; in which the concurrence of the House was requested.

The message further announced that Mr. SHERMAN had been appointed in the place of Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, excused, as a manager on the part of the Senate of the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the deficiency appropriation bill.

The committee resumed its session.

Mr. DUELL. Mr. Chairman, since the amendment I have had the honor to offer has been under consideration a variety of arguments have been advanced why this amendment ought not to prevail. The gentleman from Illinois who addressed the committee yesterday made the assertion that in consequence of the tariff on salt it added $2,000,000 of cost to the consumers. The gentleman from Delaware, who addressed the House this morning, made an extraordinary statement, that it increased the cost to the consumer of $10,

The agricultural interest thus discriminated against, is suffering all over our country. The past summer I had occasion to visit my early home in the old Granite State. I found in my native town, where formerly there was a saw and grist mill, a large manufacturing village. I saw with much satisfaction the fine mills vocal with the hum of manufacturing industry, the neat and capacious school houses filled with tidy scholars, the elegant churches and the elegantly dressed worshipers, so well described by the eloquent gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BANKS,] and I rejoice with him at the prospect. I also saw with much pleasure the beautiful cottages of the mechanics of the Keystone State, furnished with rich carpets, elegant furniture and gaslights, and all the little comforts of life, so happily alluded to by the eloquent gentleman000,000. Now, Mr. Chairman, when we take from Pennsylvania. I also saw some things the eloquent gentleman forgot, I presume, to mention. I saw the elegant and stately mansions of the lordly owners of these manufacturing establishments made rich by the protective bounties wrung from the sweat and toil of western agriculturists, working in the fields from early morn to dewy eve, from twelve to fourteen hours a day.

Such advantage is given by protective law to the mechanic interests that the agricultural interests in New England are dying out; the lands once cultivated with profit are being abandoned to grow up to bushes. Many farmhouses are closed up, their occupants having been compelled by these unjust laws to quit the healthful labor on the hill-sides, which developed their manly forms, to swelter in the heated and confined atmosphere of the manufactory. The census returns too clearly show the physical deterioration consequent upon this policy.

Computed at fifty-six pounds to the bushel.

into consideration the fact that twenty million bushels of salt only are manufactured in the United States, and this is sold at thirty-three cents a bushel, we find the manufacturers of salt actually receive only $1,600,000 for all the salt they manufacture.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that is on a par with many of the assertions and representations which have been made in the presses of the country in order to create a prejudice agaiust the manufacturers of salt.

The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. FARNSWORTH] says that because salt is a necessity it ought to be admitted free, and this interest crushed out in the United States. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that that argument is too large. If that is true, then the cloth from which our coats and the leather from which our shoes are made should come in duty free, because these are articles of prime necessity. The argument then proves too much, and I assert that we ought to cultivate the production of salt in this country in the same way as we do any other industrial interest.

In order to show what effect will be produced on the salt manufacturers of this country if the bill of the committee is adopted by the House I send to the Clerk's desk and ask to have read an extract from a letter received

from an intelligent and honorable manufac turer of salt in my own district.

The Clerk read as follows:

"You ask me what effect will be produced upon the salt interest at Syracuse by the adoption of the Ways and Means amendment reducing salt to eight and twelve cents. I answer:

"Under the present duty of eighteen and twentyfour, we produce eighty-five hundred thousand bushels annually, and send our salt to nearly all the markets on the sea-board, where we keep up a sharp competion with foreign salt. For the past year we have not been able to pay seven per cent. interest upon the investment, because we had three million bushels of salt unsold on the 1st of January last.

"If the duty is reduced to eight cents, we should be obliged to retire from all the markets on the sea-board and in the interior, except for one or two hundred miles in the vicinity of our works. We could not find a market in that territory for more than one million bushels of salt, and consequently the manufacture would fall off with us at least seven eighths.

"If salt should be placed on the free list, or below eight cents, we should be compelled to stop entirely, as we could not compete anywhere in the United States with foreign salt."

Mr. DUELL. That is not only the evidence furnished by the manufacturers of salt who have addressed letters to members of this House, but it is the sworn evidence given to the Committee of Ways and Means while this subject was under investigation before that committee. And I can say, Mr. Chairman, from personal knowledge of the subject, that the statement contained in that letter is true, and that if the amendment of the committee upon this subject is carried and adopted the salt-producing interests of this country must be destroyed and crushed out.

If, therefore, it is of any importance to the people of the United States that salt should be produced here in our own country, I appeal to members to vote down this amendment of the committee, and to make the duty twelve cents in accordance with my amendment. That reduces the present duty thirty-three and a half per cent. Let the reduction be gradual, if it is to be made at all.

[Here the hammer fell.] The CHAIRMAN. The time allowed by the House for debate upon the paragraphs relating to salt has expired. The question will first be on the amendment of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. DUELL,] which the Clerk will read.

The Clerk read as follows:

on

In line thirteen strike out the word "eight" and insert the word "twelve:" so that it will read, salt in bulk, twelve cents per one hundred pounds." The committee divided; and there wereayes 34, noes 84; no quorum voting.

The Chair, under the rule, ordered tellers; and Mr. DUELL and Mr. FARNSWORTH were appointed.

The committee again divided; and the telllers reported-ayes 44, noes 90.

So the amendment was disagreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The next amendment is that offered by the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. CONGER,] which the Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows:

Amend the paragraph so that it will read, "on rock salt and salt in bulk, twelve cents per one hundred pounds.'

The amendment was disagreed to.

Mr. DUELL. I move to amend the paragraph by striking out the word "eight" and inserting in lieu thereof the word "ten."

The question being taken on the amendment, it was disagreed to-ayes 45, noes 95. Mr. McINTYRE. I offer the following

amendment:

Strike out these words: "eight cents per one hundred pounds," and insert the following: "no duty shall be collected;" so it will read, on salt in bulk no duty shall be collected."

Mr. CONGER. I raise the point of order that that amendment is not germane.

Mr. MCINTYRE. Then I will renew my motion to strike out the paragraph.

The CHAIRMAN. That motion is in order.

Mr. CONGER. I move that the committee now rise.

Mr. DAWES. I hope not. Mr. CONGER. I think we have gone far enough in this matter.

Mr. DAWES. I do not think the Committee of the Whole will strike out this paragraph; I think it will leave it just where it is.

Mr. CONGER. At the request of the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, [Mr. DAWES,] I withdraw my motion that the committee rise.

The question was taken upon the motion to strike out; and upon a division there wereayes 53, noes 69.

Before the result of the vote was announced,
Mr. YOUNG called for tellers.

The question was taken upon ordering tellers; and there were eleven in the affirmative. So (the affirmative not being one fifth of a quorum) tellers were not ordered.

Accordingly, the motion to strike out was not agreed to.

The Clerk read the following:

On salt, in bags, sacks, barrels, or other packages, twelve cents per one hundred pounds.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I move to amend that paragraph by adding thereto the following:

Provided, That salt actually used in the preserving or curing of fish shall be admitted free of duty, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I move to amend the amendment by inserting after the word "fish" the words "butter and meats of all kinds."

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. My amendment is merely to correct an error in the law; that is all.

Mr. DUKE. Is it in order to move to further amend by inserting the words "or to be used as a fertilizer?"

The CHAIRMAN. It is not; no further amendment is in order.

The question was taken upon the amendment to the amendment; and upon a division, there were-ayes 77, noes 55.

Before the result of the vote was announced, Mr. DAWES called for tellers. Tellers were ordered; and Mr. HOAR and Mr. FARNSWORTH were appointed.

The committee again divided; and the tellers reported that there were-ayes 68, noes 65. So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

The question was upon the amendment as amended.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I propose now to withdraw my amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman cannot having amended it. withdraw it, the Committee of the Whole

Mr. MCINTYRE. I move to further amend by inserting the words "and for all other purposes."

Mr. CONGER. I raise the same point of order that I did upon the former amendment of the gentleman.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair sustains the point of order.

Mr. DUKE. I move to amend by inserting 66 or as a fertilizer" after the amendment last

Mr. CONGER. If I remember the book on farming, Mr. Greeley nowhere recommends the use of salt as a fertilizer. [Laughter.]

The question was taken upon the amendment moved by Mr. DUKE; and upon a divis ion there were-ayes 75, noes 40; no quorum voting.

Tellers were ordered; and Mr. CONGER and Mr. DUKE were appointed.

The committee again divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 70, noes 53.

So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I move to further amend by adding the following: Provided further, That all laws for collecting the duty on salt are hereby repealed.

Mr. DAWES. I raise a point of order on this amendment.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I do not propose to make salt free. I leave the duty as it now is, but propose to repeal the law providing for its collection.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair sustains the point of order.

The question was taken upon the amend ment as amended; and upon a division there were-ayes 56, noes 73.

Before the result of this vote was announced,
Mr. DUKE called for tellers.

Tellers were not ordered; and accord. ingly the amendment, as amended, was not agreed to.

The Clerk read the following:

On bend or belting leather, and on Spanish or other sole leather, fifteen per cent. ad valorem.

Mr. KELLEY. I move to strike out the paragraph just read. The present duty upon this article is but thirty-five per cent., being below the average of our import duties. The article is one of very large native production; and I can see no reason why we should invite competition from abroad by striking off sixty per cent. of the existing duty. I would like to hear from some of the friends of this bill the reason why that should be done.

Mr. DAWES. The Committee of Ways and Means gave a long hearing-I regret that I am unable to remember whether the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] was present or not-to the tanners and the dealers in leather, one party seeking to have hides free, and the other to arrange in conformity with that proposition the duty upon leather. These parties were heard together; they con ferred together; and they all agreed that if hides should be free, this leather could be put at fifteen per cent. After this hearing of those interested in the question, especially from the city of Philadelphia, the committee at their suggestion fixed the duty at fifteen per cent., that being stated as all they would ask if hides should be free; and in this bill hides are put in the free list.

Mr. KELLEY. Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Debate is exhausted. Mr. KELLEY. I move then an amendment to the amendment, to make the duty thirty per cent. instead of thirty-five. I remember to have heard the delegations to which the gentleman from Massachusetts refers; and I remember that the assurance given on all sides was that the admission of hides duty free would not affect the American market for hides; that hides came in salted and dried so that they could be useful only in connection with certain kinds of sole leather. Now, though we may have reduced the actual cost of certain qualities of sole leather to the extent of the duty upon salted or dried hides, we make no change that will justify so large a reduction of duty as this. Nor did I understand from the representatives of shoemakers and other users of leather that the admission of dry or salted hides would affect the price of leather generally. Therefore I withdraw my second amendment and ask for a vote on the first.