Mineral Point weekly tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1859-1868, 1864-03-16
The Whisky TaX--Reasons for not Taxing
Stock on Hand.

Stock on Hand.
| 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 a tax In debate
| on the subject in the Senate on the I'd inst,
! he gave the reasons for his action as follows
Mr.. How. | am not going TO detain the
/ Senate; but this strikes me as a very remark
! able controversy. When you wanted TO in
crease your revenue, you consented TO the
/ the principle, year 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 putupon the arti-
cles could be collected of the consumer by
the producer. This very session ii seems to
be the judgment of both Houses of Congress
that you did not put large a duty upon
that one commodity as you ought to have put 4;
that is to say, you did not levy so heavy a
duty on that 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 wrangliug upon
the question whether you shall attempt 10
collect the whole or part of that duty from
that quantity of the commodity which is now
on hand. 1t strikes me as a curious struggle
lt Is said that that quantity, whatever there
Is on hand has been laid up by spectators ;
that they have obtained ii in anticipation of
your putting on such a tax, and that the price
of the commodity III the market is going to
be enhanced by your legislation, and you say
that that increase ought to 60 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. 1ou do not know that fact
for you do not know what the holders paid
for it. You know that since you commenced
to talk about this legislation, they have bought
from all prices, from fifty up to ninety-eight
cents a gallon; and when you say that every
man who holds gallon or a barrel or a thou
sand barrels shall pay a given sum on that,
you do not know that he will be able to sell
it at advance which viii 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 a great
deal OF this liquor cannot be sold by the hold
er Ut 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 a sacrifice.
l have one more thing to say: if you mean
to establish the principle that the Legislature
Ill I.
o. 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 90 at it.
Mr.. LANE, of Kansas. | look upon it as
cOnhscatIon TO the extent that 1t goes. So
much of the value Of the property in the
hands Ofloval men is confscated 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 MAJ
who happens to hold that commodity shall
not realize 1t, but the Treasury of the United
States shall. Sir, was told yesterday that
what you know as tive-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
pt your legislation nave realized S9o,VOu,ooci
they are worth that. Why do you not 90 to
work and levy six per cent. on the holders of
those bonds? You say you can get Sc, 900, 900,
or Sl2 100000 some say, by undertaking to
collect this duty from the holders of whiskey.
You can get $50, 1000, 600 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 viii get hold Of but very small
share of the whiskey; not all you will want.
l vote against the whole enterprise. l 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.