Mr. FOSTER. The present duty is 18 cents per one fiulio pounds in bulk and 24 cents per 100 pounds in sacks or in any other manner than in bulk; and that I repeat is an enormously high duty. Senators scarcely realize how heavy it is. In 1861 the duty was only 4 cents per bushel in bulk and 6 cents per bushel in sacks, and it has now run up to 18 cents per 100 pounds that is more than a bushel, it is true in bulk, and 24 cents per 100 pounds in sacks. That is more than 100%., and the amount of salt imported has fallen off since this increase of duty. In the port of NewYork, where a very large portion of the foreign salt imported is entered, the importation was 2,258,800 and ushels less in the years 1864 and 1865 than in the years 1862 and 1863. I have a memorandum which shows the% age which the present rates of duty 18 cents and 24 cents make on cargoes imported into the port of NewYork under the present law. The ship Intrepid, from Cadiz, arrived in NewYork, February 1, 1866, with a cargo of salt. That cargo cost at Cadiz, in gold, $3, 490. The owners of the salt paid duty in NewYork upon that at the rate of 18 cents per 100 pounds, and the amount of duty thus paid on a cargo which cost only $3, 490 was $5, 629 14, being over 160%. duty on a prime necessary of life. So, again, the bark Emily, from Turk's Isl and, brought a cargo of salt to NewYork, which cost in Turk's Island $1, 329 58. The duties on that cargo, in gold, at the port of NewYork, were $2, 122 20, being over 160%. on that cargo. That was all salt in. The ship LaGloire brought over 1500 tons of common salt from Liverpool, which cost in that market $4, 504 in gold. The duty on that in gold at NewYork was $6,063, or about 135. cent. I submit, Mr. President, that those duties are enormously high even as compared with our highest duties on luxuries; and to add now 6 cents to the 18 cents per 100 pounds on salt in bulk and 6 cents to the 24 cents per 100 pounds on salt in sacks, making the duty 24 cents on salt in bulk and 30 cents on salt in sacks, would be a large addition to a burden which is already quite too severe. I hope that under these circumstances this amendment will be made. The honorable chairman of the ComFinance suggests that the com: mittee were not entirely unanimous in regard to this clause; there was a difference of opinion; and I hope we shall be entitled to the difference for the benefit of all who eat salt, for that, I trust, is our whole population. That that article should now be subject to this increase of tax seems to me not called for by public necessity, and will be adding to the public burdens without really any good reason.