Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1862-09-27
From the Clarke County Democrat.
FARMERS READi
Tax on WhIsky-Mr. COx,s Position
His PrOphesY

Tax on WhIsky-Mr. COx,s Posit,on
His Prophecy.
We promised last week to give the positIon
OF Messrs. Shellabarger and Cox on the ruin
Gus tax on whisky, whereby, by 90 cents per
gallon or l00 per cent, the manufacture has
been stopped and no reuenue will result. When
she bill was 10 the House, IL proposed Is cents
per gallon; this was equivalent to 60 cents per
Dushel on corn. 1t was reckoned to be tax of
tweBty millions. That was the amount propoe-
ed to be raised from whisky, collected from the
corn oTopsTs OF hs West! Mr., ShelIabareer
voted for the bill with Is cents per gallon, as
1t went from the House, and he afterward voted
for the bill which contsined 90 cents per gallon,
as 1t finally passed. Mr.. Cox voted for neither.
He Is not chargeable with the foolish fsnatidism
OF taxing his farmer constituents enormously,
by reducing the price Of their corn, and that,
too, without having the satisfaction either Of
the revenue which was expected. All this was
done on the Maine law principle, of muzzliDg
mems mouths and taxing mems apppetites; and
yet, after all, II operated-as Mr. Cox said In
Congress 1t would to bresk down the produc-
tion and break down the revenue
On the 26th day Of March, 1862 (see Globe
page 1859, when an Aboltionist from Oberlin,
Ohio, by the name OF Blake, moved that the
tax on whisky, then fixed at is cents per gal.
Ion, should be applied as well to oil whisky
made after the passage Of the bill, as to ali
made previous to the let Of May, 1862, aud
sold after the passage of the bill" debate
sprung up, limited TO FIVE minutes to each
member, and then at last to one minute The
fanatics we're &C eager TO pass il, they would
not allow 1t to be decently discussed. Mr.. Cox
got one minute only, but put IL in as follows:-
His prophesy has become true:
"Mr. Cox-Mr. Chairman, l have but one
minute. There Is danger Of the whisky tax of
fifteen cents per gallon failing OF It's Object
IL may lessen production and therefore consump.
tion and therefore Teuenue. As I have no time
TO discuss, beg to have printed for the in.
formation OF the committee this letter from
constituents who are distillers. Their u,sipS
shoto that he tGrming interest 10 inuOiped In this
tds. hope the letter may be appended, and,
pro toTrd, move IL 81 an amendment to have
1t inserted, and will then withdraw it."
The Clerk read the letter, as follows:
| ,. LoCEBoURNE, ONO, March II, 1862
SAMUEL 8. Cox, Esq: sshsg,-.
We beg leave TO call your attention to the
war tax bill, which your honorable body will
soon be called to act upon, particularly that
| clause that taxes our business, and, az we con.
| ceiye, the great corn-growirg interests of our
own State and of the entire West. We wish TO
notice few facts and incontrovertible moon.
slstencles In this bill az We have it reported by
the newspapers, and hope by 60 doing you will
not consider US AZ intruding on your valuable
time. In the first place, you will notice that
che bill proposes tax of ten cents per barrel on
-four, while on whisky it s fifteen cents per
gallon; In other words, two cents per bushel on
wheat, and SIXTY cents per buskeI on corn. The
value of the wheat in this State is generally
about one dollar per bushel, while the value Of
corn Is generally from twenty to thirty cents.
These two articles are produced from The two
great staples of the West. Now, why should
| the corn be taxed 90 much, while the wheat
goes nearly scos freeH II evidently seems to
any reasoning mind to be deadly blou aimed
at The great eoTn-pyodueing portions Of the middle
and toestsrn States, while no people are more
loyal to the Union, and no people could be any
more willing to pay their share OF tax.
1t may be argued by some of your New Eng.
land compee's on the Aoors of Congress, that
this la tax on spurious lquors and not on corn,
and consequently they class 1t among the luxu-
ries OF the country, which, they contend, ought
to be taxed the heaviest. This argument is
based on the presumption that spirits distilled
from grain are all, or nearly all, used by drink
ing as beverage. Now. sir,nothing could be
further from the truth. Alcohol, you know, Ia
manufactured from She high wines-or whisky,
as 1t Is sometimes called-which is manufsc.
tuFed out of the corn, and alcohol forms com
ponent part In medical operations of nearly all
kinds, mechanics, and, In fact, in most of the
arts and sciences, Now, sir, we do not claim
TO be prophets, nor any relation thereto; bat it
does seem to us that the working of this tax
will be about as follows; as soon as tho tax law
goes into operation, the consumer viii be slow
to advance the price, and will Immediately
commence making less Of 1t do, and substitut-
| ing something else; the manufacturer cannos
afford to pay the tax, and he will Immediately
commence manufacturing less, and finally stop
altogether. Now, what Ia the result on ihe
corn markell II is that little will be manu-.
factured at points most favorably situated, and
where the proprietors of distilleries have pe
culiar advantages In the waylof being located
In cheap corn market, close proximity 20 eoot
market for the manufactured article, chea,
railroad freights, etc. There Is not the shado, /,
Of c ccuh. BIZ. that Il will elmess annihIlat.
the corn market. You know there Ii Iarp.
surplus after supplying tho foreign market and
tatsening all the pork that q market can be
fourd for. Is ~ -. ~. n W
The trainers Of the bill certainly connot be
aware of the immep tax levied on this atfi-
ole In proportion to the capital invested u all
oshere; tcr insisnce, we consume daily one thou,
sand bushels Of gra.n, eight hundred Of which
Ia pure corn, balance the oifal from wheat, rye,
and barley, producing about four thousand
gallons Of proof hIgh sWincs, on whieh W6 are
70 be taxed only &6Q0 per day, while the stooh