The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-12-23
The FIRST INTERNAL REVENUE DISTRICT.

To The E tor ojthe EUening Telegraph:-
John W. Frazier, Assessor of the First District
in this city, appears to have an uncomfortable
passion for newspaper notoriety, and not salts
ted that in the past he has gained no credit in
such course, he Is out again in the Dispatch of
last Sunday in support OF his district, upon the
matter Of distilled spirits, seeking by the same
false reasoning and disguised statements as
heretofore used, to mlslead the community into
the belief that the distillers in his district are
Ill pursuing an honest business, making full
and correct returns, and paying the whole tax
for which they are liable under the law
Mr. Frazier Is great on statistics, and whilst
holding to tue view that figures don't le," he
evidently recognizes the idea that it is the
easiest thing in the world to lead public opinion
TO false conclusions, by Offering figures repre-
sentng aggregate results, when the design Is to
cover up abuses which would be disclosed by
detail statements. Having tried this dodge
on previous occasions without rebuke, MIR. Fra
zier is bold enough to repeat it. Thus with a
flourish he states that in the Eve months ending
elst OF October 1866, there was collected in his
district as tax on distilled spirits, the sum OF
S4l6, ,453'90, and for the same period of 1867,
S3l6,7O316; but he does not show, or attempt TO
show, how much of the spirits upon which said
amounts OF tax were collected, was m9nufac-
tured in his district; and 1t Is in this omission
that he intentionally attempts what we may
mildly characterize as deception. The aggre.
gate amount of tax paid in district does not in
any way show the quantity of spirits made in
such district, for the reason that by far the
largest portion of such tax is on spirits made in
other districts, and removed therefrom under
transportation bonds, placed in bonded ware
house at the receiving district, and removed
theTeirom for consumption upon payment of tax.
Mr.. Frazier knows, beyond all doubt, that by
FAR the largest portion OF the whisky tax re-
ceived in his district (probably threefourths or
more) was collected on spirits manufactured in
other districts, transported in bond to his dis
tTict; and yet he presents his statement ia such
manner as TO leave the impression that all the
tax collected was on spirits made IN his district.
We will not characterize this apparent attempt
at deception as we think it deserves.
Mr.. Frazier has in his Office the records which
will enable him to show how much of the
amounts Stated by him to have been collected
IN his District was for tax on, spirits manutac-
tured in his District, and we hope he will not
hesitate to give it to the public, giving also at
the same time the number and aggregate capa-
city OF the licensed stills in the District Che may
leave out the illicit ones) for the periods to
which the collections referred to apply, and the
public can then form some estimation of the
manner In which he is managing his District,
and how far he is entitled TO the high praise he
lie, in the absence of all modesty, SO constantly
claiming.
The comparison made by Mr.. Frazier between
the receipts for taxes on spirits in the First and
Second Districts, for the reasons stated, proves
nothing as regards the quantity of spirits made
in each district-it only proves that more whisky
has been taken out of bond in the First than
In the Second.
MIR. Frazier also gives in the Dispatch copy
of letter addressed by him to one Michael
Haggerty, a rectl6er in the FIRST District, whose
place of business was put under restraint by
Collector Diebl of the Second District, under
authority duly given to him by the Commits.
sioner of Internal Revenue, to seize in all the
districts of the city; which authority stlll stand;
unIevoked.
In this letter Mr.. Frazier not only denies the
right of Mr.. Diehl to act in the premises, but
ignores the authority OF the Commissioner o
internal Revenue, and overrides an express
Of ha of 10
tainly most pitiable position for an assessor oi
an important district TO occupy. 1t evidences
an ignorance of the law, upon an i'm portant
point, which is inexcusable in an officer, and
argues strongly against his competency. There
rs another point in the course pursued by Mr.
Frazier, which goes strongly to show that he
neither understands his rights nor his duties
under the law. The case OF Mr.. Haggerty, in
question, is one of seizure, in reference to which
the Asse essor can have nothing to do-the Law
gives him no power whatever in such matters
The process of seizure Is limited by law to col
Iectors and such other officers SIS the Commits
sioner of Internal Revenue may special.
appoint
miserably written letter, addressed by him +
the Commissioner, the man purpose of which
ms il strikes us, is to prevent any supervisor
over the district through other agencies, whic
NAV lead to more efficient protection of tn
Interests OF the Government. The publication
of this letter (which could only have been mad
with the consent OF Mr.. FraZier) before even
reply could have been received from the Con
missioner, is such violation OF the oblieatio
of secrecy which is supposed to surround othclt
correspondence, as to deserve the seVerest cor
demnation.
given to him by Mr.. Rollins was voluntary az
of the Commissioner, and that having receive
it. he telt it to be his duty to act under 1t WheI
ever occasion required: this authority, as "
have before stated, remains IN fun force.
ZONE VINO KNOWS