Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1864-03-17
The Whiskey Tax--ReasOns for not Taxing
.-s Stock on Hand. ra-

The Whiskey Tax--Reasons for not Taxing
Stock on Hand. -sa-
Judge HOWE, of this state, was a member
of the Senate committee which reported
against imposing a tax upon whisky on hand
and which has once paid tax. In debate
on the subject in the Senate on the I'd inst,
he gave the reasons for his action as follows:
Mr.. HOWE. l am not going to detain the
Senate but this strikes me as very remark
able controversy. When you wanted to in
crease your revenue, you consented to the
the principle, year Or two ago. that you
would tax certain products, manufactured ar
ticles, and you did not exempt the article
known as spirits or .whiskey. | do not think
you ought to have excepted it but you re-
solved that you would tax it as you taxed
other manufactured articles, and you were
guided to that conclusion by the understand
ing that whatever duty you put upon the arti-
Giles could be collected of the consumer by
the producer. This very session it seems to
be the Judgment of both Houses of Congress
that you did not put so large duty upon
that one commodity as you Dug bit to have put :;
that is to say, you did not levy so heavy
duty on that as the consumer would pay, and
therefore as the producer could collect, and
you propose to raise that duty.
1t happens that there is a quantity more or
less OF that article on hand, and from the
commencement of this session down to this
day the two Houses have been wrangling upon
the question whether you shall attempt to
collect the whole or a part of that duty from
that quantity OF the commodity which is now
on hand. 1t strikes me as curious struggle.
1t is said that that quantity, whatever there
Is on hand, has been laid up by spectators
that they have obtained it in anticipation of
your putting On such tax, and that the price
of the commodity in the market is going to
be enhanced by your legislation, and you say
that that increase ought TO go into the Treas
ury OF the United States and not into the
pockets OF those men who have bought the
article.
Upon that point have three things to say.
The first Is that you do not know that this
forty cents, or this twenty cents or this ten
cents, whatever may be the amount, will be
added to the value of the article in the hands
of the holders. You do not know that fact.
for you do not know what the holders paid
Tor 1t. You know that since you commenced
to talk about this legislation, they have bought
from all prices, from fifty up to ninety-eight
cents gallon; and when you say that every
man who holds gallon or barrel or a thou
sand barrels shall pay given sum on that,
you do not know that he will be able to sell
it at an advance which will remunerate him:
you do not know but that the producer can
undersell him, whatever may be the additional
duty that you put on.
On the other hand-and this is the second
thing want to say-you know that great
deal OF this liquor cannot be sold by the hold
er at a remunerative' price if he is made to
pay twenty cents Or ten cents additional tax
The man who bought in January at ninety
eight cents gallon, if you make him pay ten
cents tax, must sell at sacrifice.
l have one more thing to say: if you mean
to establish the principle that the Legislature
of the United States shall hang over the trade
of the United States, and in the name of tax
alton collect all the profits that are realized
from that trade, just advertise the PROPOSE
ton at once and go at it.
Mr.. LANE, of Kansas. l look upon it as
confscation to the extent that it goes So
much of the value of the property in the
hands of loyal men is confiscated to the use of
the Government
Mr.. HOWE. OF course, it is in effect confis-
cation. That is the principle. You say that
by your legislation an additional value is given
to a certain commodity, and you say the man
who happens to hold that commodity shall
not realize it, but the Treasury of the United
States shall. Sir, was told yesterday that
what you know as 6 five twenty" bonds are
worth premium of six per cent. [ do not
know how the fact is, [ was toldit is so. You
have sold $500, 100000 of those bonds in the
last year at par. The holders of those bonds
by your legislation have realized $50, 900, 900;
they are worth that. Why do you not go to
work and levy six per cent. on the holders of
those bonds? You say you can get Sc, OOO,OOO
or Sl2 100000 some say, by undertaking to
collect this duty from the holders of whiskey.
You can get $4,000, 900 if you will levy that
tax upon the holders of the bonds. And
there is another thing to be considered. You
know who has got the bonds; you can find
them; you do not know exactly where to look
for the whiskey. You can..get hold of all the
bonds; you will get hold of but very small
share of the whiskey; not all you will want
| vote against the whole enterprise. | de-
sire to speak respectfully, but l do think we
have contended over this question a great
deal longer than becomes the Legislature of
the United States.