Imagens das páginas

But 260,000 barrels fine salt at $1.80 per bbl.,

90,000 barrels coarse salt at $1.36.6..

$468,000 00 122,940 00

Total cost,

$590,940 00 350,000 barrels at $2.35=$822,500.00, leaving as profits, ...

$231,560 00

$822,500 00

Thus showing a surplus profit of $231,560.00 on sales of 1866 to inhabitants of State, over and above 7 per cent net on real estate, 10 per cent on capital stock, and 7 per cent on surplus and borrowed money.

TABLE No. 6.

Showing the amounts divided among the owners of the Salt Works, coarse and fine, both in the shape of rents for real estate and dividends made by the Onondaga Salt Company, together with its surplus now on hand, thus showing the aggregate net profits of the owners of the Salt Works since 1860:

The valuation of property on which 123 per cent was paid for year 1866, was : Coarse salt covers,

$1,618,640 00 Fine salt blocks, &c.,

1,777,613 76

Total for 1866,.....
Deduct so as to make average,

$3,396,253 76

50,000 00

$3,346,253 78

On this 127 per cent has been paid yearly, for seven years, wbich for one year is $418,282.22, and for seven years make total rent paid,

$2,927,975 54 Amount of dividends made by Onondaga Salt Company,..

$1,130,442 86 April 1, 1867, surplus, .

768,123 08

1,898,465 94 Making total net profits divided in 7

years, $4,826,441 48

If you deduct the bonus received on sale of coal mine, as not strictly within the business, viz: $510,000, you still have $4,316,441, or about $1,000,000 more than the valuation of the property on which they pay 127 per cent, it being 127 per cent on property invested, and an average of more than 18 per cent annually.

From these tables, if correct, the following facts are established:

1. That of the 316 salt blocks only 106 are necessary to manu. facture all the fine salt sold in 1866.

2. That the Onondaga Salt Company has since its organization paid 12} per cent on an excessive valuation, when made, of all these 316 salt blocks (although only 106 were needed and only 214 actually operated) net, over and above all taxes, insurance, dilapidation or other injury, and that this amount is called and calculated as part of the expense of the manufacture of salt.

3. That even under the liberal calculation and allowances of The Salt Company, and on this basis of 12; per cent rent on all 316 blocks in 1866, the entire cost of a barrel of fine salt was $1.81.5, for coarse salt $1.51.2. If only 7 per cent net had been allowed on valuation of all 316 blocks, the cost would have been $1.72 for fine and $1.28.6 for coarse salt per barrel; and if 10 per cent net on valuation of 106 blocks necessary, then the cost would be $1.66.4 for fine per barrel (Table Nos. 2 and 3), while all salt was sold at a net average of $2.03 per barrel.

4. That the inhabitants of the western, northern, middle and southern portions of this State for the 350,000 barrels bought by them in 1866, were compelled to pay $147,000 net more than the inbabitants of Canada paid for same quantity, $220,500 more than same amount sold in New York city net, and $150,500 more than the average sales in all other markets net (Table No. 4). This is the benefit that the people of the State derive from the exclusive ownership and control of the salt springs and manufacture of salt therefrom.

5. That the profits made on the 350,000 barrels sold the people of this Stetc, residing where the Salt Company has a monopoly of the market, was in 1866, over and above 10 per cent net on the capital stock, 7 per cent on surplus and borrowed capital and 12}

per cent net on said leases, $186,520.00, and over and above 10 per cent net on capital stock, 7 per cent net on surplus and borrowed money, and 7 per cent net on leases, $231,560.00 (Table No. 5).

6. That since 1860 the owners of the salt works, have on a property of the value of not more than $3,500,000, divided to themselves as net profits the amount of $4,316,441, or 18 per cent net y early (Table No. 6).

7. That during the same time the entire net revenue of the State from these salt springs has been only $79,812.98, or only $11,401.85 annually for the use of all its property (See return of receipts and expenditures of Onondaga salt springs, page 12). If this be a true statement, the undersigned submits that the representatives of the people of the State, whether in Legislature or Constitutional Convention, should try and seek an appropriate remedy.

But before the undersigned proceeds to consider the remedy, he begs leave to refer to certain positions taken by those who represent the interests of the manufacturers of salt.

The undersigned is well aware that even before the committee there appeared a worthy man, who had been engaged in and acquainted with the manufacture of salt for many years, who stated that in his opinion manufacturers of salt had not, in the aggregate, made a net profit of over 7 per cent per annum on investment. While the undersigned doubts not that the opinion thus given is perfectly honest, he would suggest that so many questions of the valuation of the property and cost during so many years are involved in the opinion, that it would be impossible to determine as to its actual value. Nor does he deem such an opinion material to the question under consideration. For the past seven years we have the actual results as returned to the committee by the officers of the Onondaga Salt Co., and hence against this no opinion can prevail. As we are seeking to remedy present evils instead of those of years long ago, the undersigned submits that the actual results of seven years past should be satisfactory.

But it is claimed that the large profits of The Onondaga Salt Company came not from the manufacturer of salt, but from its great success in the purchase, working and sale of the coal mines.

It will be seen that the undersigned allows for the $510,000 bonus obtained on the sale, and he submits that is all that should be allowed.

The purchase was made entirely for the benefit of the manufacturers of salt, and the undersigned is quite sure that if it bad proven a loss that would have been charged. Hence as a profit it should be credited.

Again, all other losses without particular statement are charged.

Take the year 1866. 1,036,064 barrels fine salt at $1.81.5 cost per barrel,.. $1,880,456 16 395,637 " $1.51.2

598,203 14


1,431,701 barrels in all cost,..

$2,478,659 30

But the 1,431,701 barrels sold for net at Syracuse, .. 2,918,127 15

$339,467 15

Leaving a net profit to Salt Company of, while the Salt Co. only return the

profits of year 1866 at........ $107,016 38 to which if you add divd. of Feb. 2, 1867

67,200 00

you have

$174,216.38 Profits, $174,216.38

Leaving of losses not particularly stated


It is claimed that this deficiency arises from losses by agents and in various ways, but the undersigned submits that with such a margin of losses all the profits of an undertaking especially for the benefit of the business should not be deducted. But the evidence shows that the coal companies have furnisbed coal during the early part of this year at $5.02 and as the calculation was at $6 per ton, and the price of salt is the same this year as in 1866, the under: signed submits no deduction can be made for year 1867 on that account.

Although the undersigned claims it should not be done yet even if you allow all the profits claimed on account of coal contract, yet the remaining net profits would be amount of a 127 per cent on leases,....... $2,927,975 54 and profits of Salt Co. over and above alleged profits on coal,

399,263 93

$3,327,239 47

which is at least equal to the entire valuation of all property belong. ing to the manufacturers in 1860, making a net profit of 100 per cent or over 14 per cent per annum net profit.

In the report of the majority of the Committee, the relation be tween the State and the manufacturers of salt is spoken of as a quasi-partnership, and taking this as a foundation, the minority report of Mr. Comstock makes certain calculations as between the State and the manufacturers.

The undersigned begs leave to dissent from any such position. The relation between the State and the manufacturers bears no resemblance, and has no similarity to a partnership. There is no joint interest in either the property or the profits. The State is the owner and lessor performing certain work for a fixed compensation for the work and the use of the property. The manufacturers are the lessees, with no obligation to pay anything but the rent. The State legally has the whole control. For the past seven years the manufacturers have practically had the whole control.

But even on the basis of a co-partnership or quasi-co-partnership the report of Mr. Comstock while it sets forth the true general principles which govern the settlement of a co-partnership omits to take into account many items that should properly be considered, and in the opinion of the undersigned sach report does not properly consi. der other facts.

In his statement of the capital stock invested on the part of the State, he only allows the nominal price paid the Indians for the reservation, and the cost price of buildings, offices and erections thereon, it being only about $11,000 over and above the cost of the erections. Such an allowance need only be stated to see its unfair

« AnteriorContinuar »