119 



ments, is naturally enoiigli to strengthen its own liandSj 

 irrespective of other considerations, for the purpose of pro- 

 tecting with theoretic completeness the revenue which it is 

 charged with the duty of collecting, and it is, therefore, a 

 matter for particular satisfaction that the Government of 

 Madras in 1889, when the salt law was revised, resisted the 

 attempt made by this department to have it declared by law 

 that any earth in which salt might enter in ever so small 

 quantities was to be regarded as contraband " salt," and any 

 dealing with such earth including mere collection, as " illicit 

 manufacture," even in places where there is likely to be no 

 appreciable danger to the revenue. A further objection to 

 the salt tax is, that it has rendered the suppression of the 

 manufacture of earth salt in various places a necessity, thus 

 preventing the utilization of natural resources, and has inter- 

 fered with the development of the saltpetre industry and the 

 manufacture of glass, salt being the chief material in alkali, 

 and alkali in glass. In the Ceded Districts and Kurnool 

 alone, manufacture of earth salt amounting to 5 lakhs of 

 maunds or nearly 6 per cent, of the entire salt production in 

 the country was suppressed. The salt manufactured was 

 perfectly wholesome and considerable quantities of it used to 

 be given to cattle. This practice has now entirely ceased. 

 The effect of the tax on public health ^^ is very prejudicial. 



The chief grounds for the view are, that the slight enhancement in the price of salt to 

 the consumer in recent years is the result of the excise system, that if Government 

 sold the salt to the public they could control the price so as to reduce it to a lower level 

 than that at which it is now, and that it is possible for Government to regulate 

 production with reference to the varying conditions of trade without the help of 

 natural prices to guide itself by. In a note V.-E. (f) appended to this memorandum, I 

 have endeavoured to show that these expectations are illasory and that it would be an 

 error for the Government to undertake the responsibility of regulating production with- 

 out any adequate means of discharging it and without leaving it to private trade to 

 adjust supplies to demand. The evils of concentrating all power in the hands of a 

 Government department constitute also an important consideration which ought not 

 to be overlooked. 



*® In England in the first quarter of the century a duty of £30 per ton (equal to £1 

 a maiind) was levied on salt and the consumption per head was only 16 lb. The price 

 of salt was then £32 per ton. No duty is now levied and the price is 12s. per ton. The 

 consumption per head is 72 lb., of which it is calculated that 40 lb. are consumed for 

 co«)king and condiment, the rest being used for chemicals, manure, &c. Mr. Mulhall 

 states that reduced death-rate and higher efficiency of workmen are the results of the 

 greater consumption of salt. As regards the Indian salt tax, it must be remembered 

 that the poorer classes, who purchase salt required for consumption for a pie or two 

 every day, really pay for the article twice as much (if not more) as the rich who 

 purchase in much larger quantities. The following remarks of the Dnke of Argyle 

 must also be borne in mind. He said, " I observe that several of those officers whose 

 opinions on this question have been given in the papers before me, found that opinion 

 upon what they have heard, in the way of complaint among the native population ; but 

 this is a very unsafe ground of judgment ; it is one of the great advantages of indirect 

 taxation that it is so mixed up with the other elements of price that it is paid without 

 observation Iry the consumers. Even at home, where the people are so much more 

 generally educated, and more accustomed to political reasoning, the heavy indirect 

 taxes formerly leried upon the great articles of consumption were seldom complained 



