Daily Republican., 1881-04-14
BREWERS I'm A DILEMMA.
Does the New Law Require Tax
ON Malt Liquors f-Talks with
Brew ers ON she subject.


at could hardly be the meaning of
sensible law makers that two little
breweries here in Wilmington should
nav the whole State debt in few
years" remarked Mr.. John Fehren-
bach of the firm of Hartman & Fehren-
bach, brewers, to-day, in the course of a
conversation with o reporter of the RE-
PUBLICAN, upon the provisions of the
new liquor law with reference to taxing
manufacturers of all spirituous or alCo-
holic liquors. The reporter had made a
hasty computation ofthc amount Of tax
the firm would be required to pay un-
der the new law. The regulation bar
rel of beer contains thirty-one gallons
which would make the State tax, if il
applies to beer, foot up to just $3 10 per
barrel. Last year Hartman & Fehren-
bach manufactured about 1000 barrels
of beer, and the amount of tax wonld
therefore be S2l,700. 1t was then that
Mr.. Fehrenback laughed, and made the
remark credited 10 him above.
The publication IN Tuesdays RErUB-
CAN Of the full text of the liquor bill,
together with the editorial yesterday
upon its provision with reference 10 the
State tax has created q good bit of ex-
citement among the liquor men in gen
eral and the brewers in particular. In
order TO get the views of the local
brewers upon the case, reporter called
upon them this morning. In the course
of the conversation with Mr.. Fehren-
bach it was stated that the law would
have tendency to close up the two
Wilmington breweries il the clause pro
yiding for the imposition OF the ten
cent tax included beer. The margin on
beer is very small at present, and with
hops and malt at their present high
figures it is cold day for the brewers.
If'the tax is imposed it would be i'm
possible for the home brewer to com
pete with the brewers outside of the
State who would have no tax to pay,
and they would have to close their doors
and let Maryland, Pennsylvania and
New York brewerieS supply the home
trade.
At Joseph Stoeckle's brewery it was
stated that the effect of the law if il ap-
piled TO beer breweres would certainly
break up the home industry. The tax
already is heavy. The United States
tax is 81 per barrel, and a Government
manufacturing license costs 500 more,
while the county tax paid yearly in May
foots up to a considerable sum. II the 10
cents per gallon tax was imposed Mr..
Stoecke would have to pay over ZIG, 600
more 10 the State.
WHAT THE LAW MEANS.
Section 6 of the new liquor law pro-
vides that "every manufacturer of spir-
ituous or alcoholic liquors for sale shall
pay to the State Treasurer, on or before
the first day of January of each year
hereafter, IL tax of ten cents per gallon
for every gallon of such liquors manu-
filctured by him during tho preceding
wear r and any manufactures
violating any of these provisions, shall,
upon conviction thereof, pay a fine Of
one hundred dollars and costs, and Shall
also be imprisoned not less than one nor
more than six months.
Now this clearly has no reference to
lager beer, which is u malt liquor and
does not com" under the bead of either
"spirituouS' or alcoholic. But it is
maintained by some that Section set
ties that point to this effect:
"SECTIoN THE court may take
official notice of the fact that splrituOuS,
mixed or f"rmented liquors, by the
usual or common Eamcs (eXccpt Cider)
are Intoxicating but unmiXed cider
shall not be- considered Intoxicating.
II is argued that this does not in any
way indicate that all Intoxicating
liquors manufactured are to be taxed
and when put to the test in the courts it
is altogether likely that it will be de
cided that in the spirit of the law only
Spirituous and alcoholic liquors are to
be taxed. This WAS clearly the in
tent Of the trainers Of the law A
proposition was made to the joint com
Inittees OF the Senate and House to in
sert a clause taxing vinous and malt
liquors five cents per gallon. This was
rejected.
When the law finally pasSsd the Will
mington brewers was assured that the
object of the law was not to tax beer
in any sense. 1t appears that the
taxation was to compel the fruit brandy
distillerS 10 pay tax. The manifest
injustice of the law, if brewers are COM
PEELED to pay this tax, will create much
dissatisfaction, and well it may.