SALT.

Mr. HARPER then proposed that an additional duty of five cents per

bushel should he laid upon all salt imported in the United States. [Mr.

H. read the letter of the Secretary, wherein he mentions salt as being

at a much lower rate of duty than in other countries, and that no tax

laid upon it could be evaded, from its necessity and bulk.] Mr. H.

added, as, in his opinion, satisfactory answers had been given to the

objections which had been urged against this tax, it was not necessary

to say more on the subject.

Mr. GALLATIN said the arguments of the Secretary of the Treasury were

excellent fiscal arguments, and went to say, "provided we can get money,

no matter how." He says salt cannot be smuggled; that we know: whether

the duty was increased, or remain as it was, the people must consume the

same. This was true, and the same arguments might be used for taxing the

light or the water. Of all the necessaries of life, a duty was most

easily collected upon salt; and this was the reason which had induced

other countries to tax it so heavily; and yet this was used as an

argument for increasing the duty here; but he was not one of those who

felt any consolation, upon such an increase of duty, that there were

other countries where the duty was yet higher.

Mr. G. said, as to any satisfactory answers which had been given to the

objections to this tax, he had not heard them; he believed they had not

been answered at all; except, indeed, sullen silence might be deemed

satisfactory answers; if it were, they had indeed been answered

satisfactorily.

Mr. G. here repeated the objections to the tax which he had made on a

former occasion, viz: that it would operate as a poll-tax; that it would

fall partially on some districts of country, and upon some classes of

citizens more than others. He said salt in that part of the country from

which he came was already upwards of four dollars a bushel, and that it

would be therefore oppressive to increase the evil, by adding fresh

duties upon it.

Mr. NICHOLAS said a tax on salt was equally objectionable, whether it

was considered as a poll-tax, or as a tax upon agriculture. As a

poll-tax, every one would see the injustice of charging all men alike

with a tax, without respect to their ability to pay it; as a tax upon

agriculture, he was able to say something from experience. He was

willing to give all the authority to the opinion of the Secretary of the

Treasury which he could wish, but he could not yield his opinion to him.

He knew that agriculture was at present very much depressed by the high

price of salt; he had himself refrained from the use of it, by its

dearness, though he believed his cattle had been the worse for it. The

poorer class of citizens in the part of the country from which he came

were generally owners of cattle, and employed themselves in taking care

of them. These men found it at present as much as they could do to make

a comfortable living, and any additional tax on salt would be very ill

received by them. He was satisfied that it was a tax which would operate

with great inequality; it was a tax upon one kind of employment--upon an

employment which was generally pursued by the poorer classes, and

consequently least able to pay it. It might be said, five cents a bushel

was a trifle; but he said he objected to it from the principle of taking

money where it could be got, as, if five cents were now to be added, the

same argument would hold for adding another and another five on a future

day.

Mr. HOLLAND was opposed to the amendment; he said no article which could

be mentioned would bear a greater augmentation than salt; indeed the

whole revenue of the United States might be raised from it, because it

must be used by every person; but that was no reason why the whole

burden should be laid on it. In North Carolina, Mr. H. said, it was four

dollars per bushel, which was sufficiently high without adding to the

price, and was always a cash article, and difficult to be had for that.

It being an article of absolute necessity, the rich would not pay more,

if so much, as the poor.

Mr. RUTHERFORD said, he was against this tax for two reasons; the first

was on account of its inequality, and the next on account of its

odiousness. A tax on salt, he said, was almost like taxing the common

air. Farmers were obliged to use large quantities of it for their stock;

it rendered them docile and easy to be managed. Indeed it could not be

done without; a person was nothing without salt. The price at present

was enormous on the frontier, and this duty would add prodigiously to

it; for this reason he should give it his flat opposition.

Mr. FINDLAY said, because salt was necessary, and because it could not

be smuggled, would not surely be sufficient arguments for increasing the

duty upon it. The law of reason, he said, was the law of justice. Mr. F.

gave an account of the progress of this tax. His colleague (Mr.

GALLATIN) must have been mistaken as to the price which this article

bore in the Western country. He had himself lately paid six guineas for

six bushels of salt. Indeed this was considered as the greatest

inconvenience in that part of the country, and they could not at present

be relieved from it. Providence, who generally bestowed the necessaries

of life in a very general manner, had not provided them with salt. And

shall we, for this reason, monopolize a revenue upon it? For the same

reason would hold good for paying the whole upon it as a part. He

trusted they would not be so unjust to the people of that country.

Mr. HARPER said, after all the time which had been taken up in

discussing this subject, he would not occupy the attention of the

committee longer than while he made one or two remarks.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GALLATIN) had said that no answer

had been given to his objections against an additional tax on salt. He

should not enter into a dispute with that gentleman upon what might be

deemed an answer; but he believed many members of that House would

remember that an answer was given, and probably they might also think it

a satisfactory one; at least it was so to one person. The objections

brought against this tax would be well-founded, if the whole revenue was

proposed to be raised from it; or if it were intended as a substitute

for a land tax, or any other great object; if two or three millions were

wanted from it, then it might be objected to upon good ground; but when

one hundred thousand dollars only were proposed to be drawn from this

source, he did not think the objections would hold. Admitting, said Mr.

H., that there was some inequality in the operation of this tax, those

persons upon whom it fell heaviest were exonerated from many other taxes

which other parts of the country had to pay. They had, for instance,

just agreed to increase the duty upon a certain species of cotton goods,

of which they would not purchase a single yard. The present revenue was

six millions four hundred thousand dollars, of which salt pays near

three hundred thousand dollars. The people on the frontier, who pay for

salt, are in a great measure exempt from other articles taxed; they

purchased neither foreign wines nor spirits, high priced dresses nor

furniture; all they wanted was corduroys, &c., which was very

unfrequent. If five cents per bushel was laid on salt, those persons

would have about a dollar a year more to pay, and nine-tenths not half a

dollar. What could be more easy? Indeed, except the people were told of

the duty they would not know it, as its effects would be so trifling.

With respect to the price of salt at Fort Pitt, as a gentleman had

observed, it might be high, but was this occasioned by a duty? No, but

by the situation of the country. Ought they not, then, he asked, to

devise some species of tax by which to draw some part of the revenue

from the inhabitants of the back country? He thought so far from this

being wrong, that justice required it. This subject did not address the

understanding, but the sensibility of the House, or perhaps the

sensibility of those out of the House.

The objections against the tax which had been urged, he thought, ought

not to have any weight, since it would operate with the greatest

equality upon the whole, and there would be safety, propriety, and

justice, in making the augmentation in question. Suppose two cents were

put, instead of five; this would raise a good sum, and be very easy.

Mr. S. SMITH moved that the committee rise; which was negatived--there

being only twenty-five in favor of it.

Mr. W. SMITH said the question had best be taken on blank cents, then

five, four, or any number of cents could afterwards be added.

The question was then put, and lost--yeas 41, nays 48.

SATURDAY, February 18.

_Naval Appropriation._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill

granting an appropriation for finishing the three frigates, and also

upon the bill repealing that part of the act which provided for the

officering and manning the frigates, both having been committed to the

same Committee of the Whole. That for repealing a part of the former law

came first under consideration.

Mr. W. SMITH said he could not abandon the idea of our some time

becoming a naval power; he very much disliked the repealing this act; in

order, however, to make the bill more palatable, and to remove some of

the embarrassments which the Senate would otherwise have to encounter,

he would move to substitute, instead of the word "repeal," the words

"suspend for ---- years."

Mr. COIT thought the very beginning of the frigates a wild notion, and

hoped the most distant idea of manning them would not enter gentlemen's

minds; he should therefore oppose the motion.

Mr. VENABLE said, it seemed the gentleman who moved the amendment did

not think it necessary the ships should now be manned. The operation of

the amendment appeared to put it in the power of one branch of the

Legislature, at a future day, to man the ships, and send them to sea. He

was surprised at the changeableness of the gentleman who moved and

favored the equipment. When a naval armament was first proposed, it was

objected to, as looking like forming a Naval Establishment. They then

told us it was expressly to repel the encroachments of the Algerines;

and that, as soon as peace was obtained with that power, the building of

them was to stop. Now they come forward, and avow a desire to have a

Navy Establishment. Thus originate evils which if not stopped early,

would spread and become dangerous. The only fair argument they have on

the subject is, that a Navy is now become necessary. Certain it is,

that, if they intend to have a Naval Establishment, to protect our

commerce and repel our injuries, three frigates will be very incompetent

to the object. He should not object to finishing them, and only because

so much had been expended on them already, but should ever oppose

fitting them for sea.

Mr. SWANWICK asked the gentleman what security there was in a peace with

Algiers? Could he say we were at peace with them now? Certainly we are

in a worse situation with that power now than then; we are parting with

our cash, (which makes it such a scarce article,) and yet we have no

benefit. Now it is said it is altogether a vision--a fancy or a dream.

Then gentlemen get up and ask what we are to do with three frigates? He

would answer, that so far as they went, they gave stability and

protection to our commerce. True, they were not thirty frigates, but he

believed, few as they were, they would save more than five times what

they cost in only one year. The richest ships we have are now taken and

robbed by every picaroon and pirate infesting the seas, because we have

no security; and he was surprised it was not worse. He had no doubt but

it would be an emolument; it would be a protection to the great revenue

we enjoy. That very trade, he said, which was subject to spoliation from

such petty robbers, paid into the revenue five or six millions of duty

annually. If this was still permitted to be encroached on, it was an

error, and it would soon be seen; and this was by a people called "free

and enlightened." He had no doubt they would soon be enlightened enough

to see they had done wrong. If gentlemen are against finishing these

frigates, why do they not come forward and declare it? Let us sell them,

said he, at public auction. What will be the effect if we have it told

at our wharves that we object to man them, because we have peace with

Algiers? He hoped they would be manned, or else have tacked to the bill,

that, when finished, they were to be sold for East Indiamen or

something. If that were gentlemen's wish, this was the time to come

forward and say so, and let it be put in the bill. He would ask, Was

there any thing in the name of Government, if it operated in this

manner? It was extraordinary conduct, indeed.

Gentlemen say they will not vote to finish these frigates, except the

repeal for manning is included. When it goes up to the Senate, may they

not say they will not vote to finish, except it be to man them? But, Mr.

S. said, he supposed gentlemen depended upon negotiation, if any thing

was wrong. What were the consequences of our late negotiation? We have

two things before us--treaty or ships. As for treaty, we have seen our

money sent across the Atlantic, and scattered a thousand ways: this was

throwing it into the ocean. He had heard of a Doge of Venice throwing a

ring into the sea to marry it: it seemed this money was gone for the

same purpose, and its use would be no better than the Doge's ring. He

thought the most complete treaty was, power to resist aggression. This

business of negotiation is very unprofitable. You may obtain fair

promises from foreign ministers, but very poor redress, if any.

The question on the amendment was put and lost--ayes 30, noes 51.

Mr. HARRISON moved for the committee to rise and report the bill without

amendments.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, it seemed that gentlemen were making a new business

of this. At the time it was brought forward, gentlemen voted in favor of

it, because the law was to be repealed. He voted to separate the bills,

because he conceived it would not be right to say to the Senate, You

shall do two things together, or neither. He hoped the committee would

rise, that the House may not have such power over the business as to

keep it back. If the other bill pass the Senate, said he, we can take up

this, and pass it in a short time.

Mr. PARKER thought this a most extraordinary procedure, to say we will

not pass the appropriation bill till we know the Senate have agreed to

that for repealing. He thought the Senate had as great a right to

exercise their discretion as that House. He never expected to have heard

such expressions. This was holding out a _dictum_ for their conduct:

this he thought neither fair nor proper.

Mr. VENABLE thought the bills were connected. He wished to vote merely

for finishing the frigates. He hoped the committee would not rise, but

that it might be so amended as to add the other bill to it. When he

voted for the appropriation, he said, he voted for it only in such a

manner as should be reconcilable with his judgment. If the gentleman

would waive his motion, and the House would so connect it, he should be

gratified.

Mr. HARRISON said, as the last gentleman's ideas were fully to his

purpose, he should withdraw his motion.