The semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1882-1886, 1883-12-01
Uncle Sans Surplus Revenue

PHILADELPHIA, Nov. q. The
Philadelphia Press tomorrow will
contain q letter from James G. Blaine
to Charles Emory Smith, editor of
the Press, stating Blaine's objections
TO the distribution of the surplus rev.
enue OF the Federal government
among the States, and proposing as q
substitute, If the national govern
ment no longer needs the tax on
spirits that the entire amount it
yields be paid to the States. Three
fatal objections, in Blaine's opinion,
make the Pennsylvania proposition
to distribute the Federal surplus un-
wise: First-The utter uncertainty
regarding the amount of revenue; It
may be million or a hundred mill
lions. and unless it be steady, no
State tax could be remitted on ac-
count of the receipt of this aid, while
the sporadic Federal contributions to
States would be wasted, as was the
last distribution of Federal surplus.
Second The division of this surplus
would impose on Senators aud Rep
resentatives a divided duty; tor the
sake of their States they would wish
the surplus to be as large as possible,
which would present q constant
temptation to withhold appropria-
tiOns from objects of a really national
character. Third-The assumption
Of a continuing redundance OF
the national revenue is Op-
posed to all sound views
of administrat on because ii is sure
to yield to extravaganza, corruption
and all manner If schemes for get.
ting rid Of the money. The time is
rapidly approaching, however, when
the national revenue, yielding under
the present system of taxation hun
dreds of millions beyond the amount
required for government expenses,
must be reduced. A strong move
ment Is already on foot Tor the repeal
of the entire system of internal rev.
enue which receives the support of
protection. It is like Judge Kelly
and free traders like Cox, of New
York. This conjunction Of opposing
views In support OF the abolition of
some Of the taxes gives a rare 0ppor-
tunlty to relieve taxation in the
States. Of all our taxes state taxa
ton Is the most oppressive. 1t is di-
rect, it falls on property with crush
ing force In few communities 1t
Is less than one per cent. aud in most
it is over two per cent. Why, there
fore, should not the states be permit
ted to have u tax on spirits TOR their
own benefit if the national govern
ment does not need 1t? Can it be
worse to continue the direct tax Oh
property and At the same time COM
lnsnd hurtful luxury like spirits to
70 free, luxury whose taxatlen OPP
presses no one. The custom reve-
nues by which the national govern
ment mon0polizes the excise open
IN theory to both state and national
use in taxation. tut in practice the
national authority alone car
levy an excise tax on whiskey. No
state can guard its borders against
whisky from other states or make an
economical collection of such tax
Within ITS own revenue. The federal
machinery for the collection of this
revenue is in full operation and bill
of ten lines could direct the secretary
of the treasury to pay the whole of it,
less the small expense of collection
to the states aud territories in propor-
ton to their population and continue
it permanently as part of their reg
ular annual revenue. Such q plan
would give the revenue from such q
tax wholly to the states and would
not depend on any chance surplus or
accidental remainder in the national
treasury. 1t would make the tax on
spirieuous and malt liquors . perlna-
nent resource to all states, enabling
them thereby to definitely readjust
and reduce their own taxation. Eacn
state could most wisely use its sur
plus according to its own necessities.
The total return Of taxes on spiritu
Gus and malt liquors last year was
over SO. OOO, 600. TIE amount which
would tend to increase rather than
diminish as each state saw the sup
preston of illicit dlstilleries was to
its advantage. With this revenue,
state taxation could be remitted, state
de bts paid, or if the aid were divided
among the cities and counties their
expenses would be proportlonately
diminished. In a table annexed 10
his letter Blaine shows the share OF
larger states in basis of population
would be $S, 1893, 900 for New York;
S7.493, 900 for Pennsylvania; S.2S5,-
600 for Illinois; SIS $4,000 For
Ohio, the smaller states receiving In