New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1864-04-02
TAXING WHISKY AND TAXATION
GENERALLY.

We print in our Supplement an argument by
Aston against any relaxation by Congress
of Liquors that have already once paid excise.
Let US here briefly indicate our total dissent
from that argument:
Our correspondent assumes that, because
parties have heretofore been authorized to pro-
duce and sell Whisky, on paying tax OF
twenty cents per gallon, Therefore no second
tax ran be imposed on the Whisky so manufae-
tured. We dissent from this most emphatically
If il were sound your watch, your horse, your
plate, your farm itself, having been once taxed,
could never be taxed again. Nay: man worth
Five Millions Of Dollars might, by investing
it all in Wines and Liquors that had
once been taxed, live untaxed evcrmore. That
doctrine will never do. Nine-tcnths OF the
property on which taxes will this year be as
sessed has been taxed hitherto; but that does
not exempt it from paying again. And the Tact
that the distillcrs and other holders OF liquors
were in effect lr scented with twenty cents per
gallon on their stocks respectively when the
original Excise bill was passed By Congress, SO
far from emitting them to another and still
larger gratuiiy, should shame them into a
PROMPT and cheerful acquiescence in the duty OF
paying in full hereafter
Now LET us look at the reason of the case:
The Government needs revenue. II IL COM
pelled to increase its taxes. 1t fixes on Whisky
as an article on which largely increased rates
may be paid more easily than on most others.
1t rai.c the duty on oil Whisky hereafter man
ulaotured from twenty to fifty, eighty or one
hundred cents per gallon. Instantly, ineyiia-
bly, by a law as resstleSs as graytation, all
LIQUORS on hand are increased in value to the
extent of the increased duty thus imposed.
Now, why under Heaven should not the holders
Of this Liquor for sale pay the increased tax, or
at least three-fourths Of it, Ought they to be
enriched because the community must sub
nit to further and heavier burdens' Ought
A. TO have 100000 pat into his pocket by a
necessary act Of Congress which compels Is,
C., D., f., F., &C., to pay $50 additional per
annum of their respective incomes for the sup
port of the Government What is the natural
and necessary connection between the taxation
of the many and the enriching of the fewl No
man pretcnds or imagines that the Whisky
holders will sell gallon of their stocks, that
have paid but twenty cents per gallon, below
The rates at which they hold and sell that which
paws the enhanced rate then why should they
not pay it, or n good part ofitl Who can afford
to pay, who ongLi to pay, if not they'
As TO Mr.. Stcvens's intmation, on intro
ducing the original Excise bill to the House,
that all taxes would be prospectioe, We have
only to say that Mr.. Stevens's dcta are not ex-
actly law, md that he has done quite enough
to yndicato his sincerity in making that asser-
ton Ue never asscnted to any such rule, nor
did Congress, nor the country. On the contra
~ we insist that said rule, consistently fol-
lowed, would require the restriction OF all iu-
ture taxes on real estate to the lands hereafter
cleared, the houses hereafter built; and even
they must be taxed but once only.
We beg 'Astor' to understand that the con-
sumps, not the makers or importers or produ-
GERS Of on article, pay the excise thereon.
They must all pay the enhanced tax henceforth;
and the question at issue is-Shall they pay it
oil into the Treasury, or a good part OF it into
the pockets OF the Whisky-gamblersi We vote
for the Treasury.