The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-06-27
THE INTERNAL REVENUE BUREAU.

IdE lN1GhNAh DOhEhO.
From the N Y. Times.
The Tax bill, as reported to the Senate,
confers upon the President discretionary
power to consolidate revenue districts, and
thus to lessen the expenses of the internal
service.
A separate bill is before the House, with
the sanction of the Ways and Means Com
mittee, providing for the reorganization of
the service-the diminution of its number of
officers, the settlement of disputed questions
of authority or reconstruction, the abolition
of informers and spies as parts of the system,
and generally the adaptation of the bureau to
the public needs as affected by the contem-
plated reduction of taxes.
1t is further understood that, in connection
with the Tax bill, Mr.. Sherman proposes to
convert the Internal Revenue Bureau into a
department, and to invest the Commissioner
with the power and dignity of member of
the Cabinet.
AS between the merely permissive clause
Of the Senate bill and the mandatory provi-
sions of Mr.. Schenck's bill, there ought not
to be much hesitation on the part of Con-
gress. 1t is not enough that authority to SIM
plify and reform the internal revenue organi-
zation is conferred. The necessity for sim
plifcation and reform is so obvious that both
should be made imperative. A large saving
might have been effected had the tax list
remained unchanged. The districts have
always been far too numerous, and the num-
Der of officers has always been far too great
for the work to be performed. With the list
largely reduced the duty of instituting
sweeping yet judicious changes becomes more
urgent The merit of MIR. Schencl's measure,
as compared with the proposition before the
Senate, is that its enactment will secure the
desired retrenchment.
The fact that it will dispose Of many ques-
tions of Interpretation and administration is
another consideration in favor of the House
bill. Hitherto the law has left too much to
the Judgment of the Commissioner, whose
rulings have furnished ground of discomfort.
There have been many arbitrary decisions
and some not altogether reasonable. A
scheme of reorganization which will not only
construct afresh the machinery of the bureau
but will, as far as possible, insure its smooth
and acceptable working, ought not to be de-
layed. 1t will be proper, even a necessary
supplement to the Tax bill, if it become
law in anything like its present shape.
Whether at such time, and with such a
prospect, project is acceptable for elevating
the Commissioner into Cabinet officer may
well be doubted. There were reasons during
Mr.. McCulloch's management of the Treasury
for rendering the Commissioner in larger
degree independent of the Secretary, but
these reasons operate no longer. The con-
f1ict between Republicanism and Johnsonism
is happily over; and except under excep-
tional circumstances, a concentration of
authority is preferable, as a matter of eco-
nomy and efficiency, to its subdivision. What
ought to be a conclusive argument against
Mr.. Shermans idea is, however, the diminu-
tion of labor and Importance which the Inter
nal Revenue Bureau will experience when the
new Tax bill goes into effect. Even had
the income tax been retained, the changes
wrought by the Senate bill would be very ex-
tensive. But if to these changes be added
the REIMBURSEMENT of the tax on incomes
striking the total amount of tax reduction
off the internal revenue--it is apparent that
the magnitude of the changes within the SER
vice will so lessen the work and responsibility
of the Commissioner as to render any eleva-
ton of his status unseemly and inexpedient.
If simple commissionership was sufficient
when the internal taxes yielded very large
proportion of the national revenue, it would
| be absurd to convert the bureau into a de-
partment and the Commissioner into mem
| ber of the Cabinet, at moment when the
internal tax system assumes much less i'm
portance. There will doubtless still be need
| for energy, intelligence, and executive ability
at the head of the service, and integrity and
efficiency in the corps of subordinates but
there would seem to be no justification TO,
the creation of a new Cabinet position, an6
one that would, to some extent, infringe
upon the responsibilities and duties a.
present associated with the Secretaryship oi
| the Treasury. t..