Mr. TROWBRIDGE. I desire to call the attention of the committee to some of the facts made known by the Gentfrom the Buffalo district [Mr. HUMPHREY] upon whose prop position I suppose the test vote in the committee will be ad. His proposition is to reduce the tariff on salt to the exact figures at which it stood before the war and under the old tariff. Now, I ask the committee to recollect the vast difference there is in the values of everything used by manufacturers and by thos who furnish them with their supplies. y, sir, in the region where salt is manufactured in Michigan wood could then be purchased at 75 cents a cord, and it now costs between 3 and 4 dollars percord. Labor was then a dollar and a dollar and a quarter a day. Now it is 2 and 2 dollars and a quarter a day. I claim then that there would be no possible justice in compelling them to compete with the foreign salt manufacturers under the old tarifi" while theyare compelled to pay these enhanced prices for everything they use and consume in manufacturing salt. I desire also to call the attention of the committee to another fact stated by the gentleman, and stated very nearly correctly, and that is that less than half the salt consumed in the U.S. is produced in the U.S. I assert what my colleague [Mr. Dmocs] has asserted, that so far as Michigan is concerned, unless our salt manufacturers can have this 'protection, they will certainly be comelled to suspend, as more than half of them have already suspended. More than half of the works on the Saginaw river are idle today because they cannot produce salt for what they can get for it. And thus the entire production of that region, amountiii to over 800,000=dollars, will e driven out of the market. I cannot speak for the salt workers; they may, os sibly, produce as much as they did before; at, sir, we are not producing in the U.S. half the salt we consume, and we are dependent on foreign countries for the remainder. Now, I ask if this article, which the gentleman has re iresented as so necessary to e ery body, which enters into the consumptit" of the whole community, can be lefl to be su lied to us by foreign manufacturers. I asr, if as legislators for the U.S. we should not secure the domestic manufacture of this article against the contingencies of foreign dif ficulties and troubles. It seems to me that no wiser course can be pursued by this Congress than to secure to ourselves as far as possible the manufacture of this article of necessity. We giossess capacity to supply the entire U.S. if we can only get a reasonable price for it. And it seems to me that so far as we can we should protect those who are producing this great article of necessity for our people. I desire also to call attention to the statement of the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. HUM rlinnv, that we propose to increase the duty on salt 66 cents perbarrel. Now, he is too clear headed a man to believe that himself. By far the greater portion of the salt that comes into this country comes in under the 18 cent tariff now, and by this bill it is only made 32 cents. So that the increased duty on salt will be only about 35 cents perbarrel. Now. it is not.fair to mislead the committee by the statement that the duty is to be increased 66 cents perbarrel. And further, although this article is so necessary for the consumption of the country, the amount consumed percapita is calculated to be only about 42 pounds annually, and therefore the increase will be but little to each person. Here the hammer fell.]