Mr. HART. I rise to oppose the amendment of my collea ruc, [Mr. HCMfllllEY.] I am surprised that c should stand here upon this floor and speak against an interest of his own State in which so large an amount of capital is invested. He has made some very extraordinary statements. He says that we propose to increase the tariff on salt to the extent of 66 cents perbarrel. Even if we should take the figures which he has presented here, it would show an increase of only about 50 cents perbarrel. Now the real fact is, that about 70%. of all the salt imported is imported in bulk, while the remaining 30% is imported in bags. increase is, therefore, really only about 30 8 cents perbarrel on the average. And there is a great deal of such ad cu tandum argument here, a great deal of talk about salt being agreat necessity of life, that it was wanted by the poor man, and that it enters into the the consumption of all classes, and therefore it should be furnished as cheaply as possible. Now, I do not know any reason why our manufactures of cotton, of woolen fabrics, or any other articles of similar character, should be protected more than the manufacture of salt. The fact is that it is estimated that the per' capita consumption of salt in the U.S. is estimated to be about 42 pounds a year. And the increased cost to each individual of the proposed increase of duty would be the petty sum of 6 cents; that is all that it will amount to. In the present condition of the salt manufacture in the U.S. it is absolutely impossible to roduce salt at a profit at. present prices or merly we could)gct labor at ten shillings perday; now we have to pay $2 50 perda. Wood we used to get at ten and 14 shil lings and 2 dollars percord, and now it is $3 50 percord. we could formerly purchase barrels at from 18 to 20 cents each; llOWf they cost from 40 to 45 cents one 1. Salt is now manufactured at a cost of $2 14) a barrel in theity of Syracuse. It was sold last year in Chicago at $2 25 perbarrel, leaving but about 15 cents to pay expense of transportation, &c. Now, it is impossible for our salt manufacturers to compete with the salt manufacturers of GreatBritain. There they have labor for chca er than we have; the have coal at one do lar a ton, while in this country coal is anywhere from 8 dollars to 15 dollars a ton. Salt can be brought over here ata merely nominal freight. And very many of those bags and packages in which the salt is brought over are sold ata profit on the cost abroad; thus reducing in many instances the entire duty 6n salt. Now, unless some relief, such as is presented in this bill is afforded, the salt interest. in this country must suspendentirely. The Committee ofWaysand Means have not given as much duty on salt as has been asked for by the salt manufacturers. It was thought that the Beastrates that would be satisfactory were 36 and 50. But the committee have thought proper to report the figures contained in this bi l, and the manufacturers have agreed to acquiesce in that report. I trust that no member Of this House who pretends to be a protectionist, who pretends to e in favor of protecting the necessaries of life, I do not care what they are, that are manufactured in this country, will vote for the amendment of my colleague, [Mr. HunPERI IL]