f :
10 Conservative.
THK SALT TRUST.
Has Raised Prices Fifty Per Cent Since
1897.
Salt was on the free list of the Wilson
bill in force from August 28 , 1894 , to
July 24 , 1807. Under the McKinley and
Dingley bills the duty on salt in bags or
barrels was 12 cents and in bulk 8 cents
per 100 pounds. These duties vary from
80 to 100 per cent and will average about
BO per cent.
Before salt was put on the free list ,
the manufacturers appeared at Wash
ington declaring that such a proceeding
would practically ruin the business.
Thus , Mr. Thomas Molloy , secretary of
the Onandaga Coarse Salt Association ,
told the senate committee on finance
that "when salt shall be admitted free
* * * our even now.struggling in
dustry shall be paralyzed or destroyed
in an unequal competition with the
cheaper product of foreign cheaper la
bor. We will then soon be made to pay
the English Salt Union the price which
it exacts eltewhere. "
Contrary to predictions , we both pro
duced and consumed more salt from
1895 to 1897 than ever before , as is shown
by the following table of production
and imports :
Consumption of Salt Jii United Slates , In
Barrel * of 900 Pounds Each.
Prices and Tariff Duties.
The average net factory price for all
ki ds of salt ( about one-half of which is
common fine salt ) according to the
United States Geological Survey , was
S6) cents per barrel in 1894 , 82 cents in
1895 , 29.2 cents in 1896 , 80 8 cents in
1897 and 35.8 cents in 1898. The "net"
price means the price of the salt alone ;
the cost of the barrel adds about 20
cents though much coarse salt is not
sold in barrels.
The present price of "factory-filled"
dairy salt at works in Michigan is 55
cents as against 85 cents , or loss , in 1896.
The Chicago price is now 75 cents. The
New York City price of same grade salt
from western New York is $1.40 as
against $1 to $1.10 in 1896 and 1897.
Prices of salt in many middle and west
ern states are now nearly double those
of 1896.
In 1897 many manufacturers asked to
have the McKinley duty on salt replaced.
Over forty pages of the "Tariff Hear
ings" of 1897 are occupied by the state
ments of the manufacturers who wanted
duties and of the importers , meat pack
ers , etc. , who wanted free salt. The
manufacturers , in 1894 , stated that the
repeal of the duty would not make salt
cheaper , and in 1897 that the replace
ment of the McKinley duty would "not
perceptibly" add to the cost of salt. Yet
for some indefinite and unexplained
reason they wanted the duty and could
not continue to live much longer with
out it. They got the duty and immedi
ately began to fix prices and to form a
trust which has quite "perceptibly" ad
vanced prices.
Salt Associations and Trusts.
The salt manufacturers have always
had an affinity for selling agencies and
price agreements. In 1866 the Michigan
manufacturers wore uniting. The Mich
igan Salt Association began in 1876. It
takes the product of all members and
sells it thus avoiding much competi
tion. It has been renewed every five
years since 1876 and has generally con
trolled about 90 per cent of Michigan's
product , which is one-third of our total
product. Since 1890 New York has pro
duced more salt than Michigan and the
two states now produce 70 per cent of
our product.
Other similar selling agencies were in
operation in New York and Ohio and
each had alliances and agreements with
the others. As , however , previous to
1898 , but little was done to restrict pro
duction , the permanent effect upon
prices was not great.
On March 20 , 1899 , the National Salt
Company , a New Jersey concern , was
incorporated with § 12,000,000 capital ,
5,000,000 of which is 7 per cent prefer
red stock. It immediately acquired the
dozen or more manufactories in New
York for which its predecessor , The
National Salt Company , of West Vir
ginia , was the distributing agent. Those
plants were said to manufacture 90 per
cent of New York's product and to have
made net profits in 1898 of "not less
than $450,000. " By October this com
pany had purchased many of the best
plants in Ohio , West Virginia , Michigan
and Kansas , had leased other plants for
five year periods and had contracted for
the output of other plants. Thus in the
Pomeroy , Ohio , district , the trust ap
pears to have bought and closed one
plant , closed three other plants , which
it had "dead rented" for five years , and
contracted for the output of three more
plants. In Michigan it has contracted
for the product of the members of the
Michigan Salt Association.
The prosecuting attorney for Meigs
county and the attorney general of Ohio
are proceeding against this trust to test
its power to own and close furnaces
which have been running for thirty
years.
The United Salt Company , an Ohio
corporation of 1890 , appears to have been
the local trust which prepared the way
for the National Company. Both of
these organizations are said to bo offi
cered by Standard Oil people and to be ,
practically , adjuncts of the Standard
Oil trust. The headquarters at Now
York are in the building of the Standard
Oil Company and Standard Oil attor
neys in Ohio are defending the National
Salt Company.
The National Salt Company now has a
natural monopoly in many of the inland
states and an artificial tariff monopoly
in many of the coast states. It has only
recently begun to limit production and
to put up prices in the middle and west
ern states. It will undoubtedly soon
put up prices to what it considers the
maximum profit point. It is said to
have had an "understanding" with the
Salt Union , which controls much of
Great Britain's product. It is difficult
to verify this statement , although New
York salt importers admit that there are
"friendly" relations of some kind be
tween these organizations.
Our imported salt comes principally
from Great Britain , West Indies and
Italy. The cost of transportation from
Liverpool averages about $1.60 per toner
or 20 cents per barrel. This added to
the duty gives our manufacturers an
advantage in our markets of about 20
cents per 100 pounds or 50 cents per bar
rel. This advantage ia less on the coast
and greater inland. If our trust , as
now seems probable , gets what is virtu
ally a complete monopoly , there is no
reason why it cannot , by charging high
er prices inland , collect the whole tariff
tax on all of its product. This would
amount to $4,000,000 or $5,000,000 a
year. It is probably collecting half this
amount at present.
The only classes who have , thus far ,
avoided the trust are our fish packers
and our exporters of meats. These en
joy the special privilege of getting their
salt free and cheap. Is there any sound
reason why others should bo compelled
to pay tribute to this trust ?
BYRON W. HOLT.
The tariff trust letter which wo print
today , discusses our recently formed
salt trust The National Salt Company.
This trust owns many of the salt factor
ies or furnaces in New York and Ohio
and leases other factories. In addition
it has contracted for the output of the
most of the factories which it does not
own or lease. In these ways it has , dur
ing the last few months , obtained a
monopoly of the salt industry east of the
Rocky Mountains , except in a few coast
states. It has raised prices from 40 to
100 per cent , above those of 1890 , when
salt was on the free list.
Our fish industries and our meat ex
porters still get their salt free of duty
and are not compelled to pay tribute to
this trust. Why should not the rest of
us be freed from its exactions ?