The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-12-06


!. g. B!ail.e ga Surplus ECyeulsp.
PHILADELPHIA. Nov. 2S.-The Phil
adeiphia Press tomorrow will contain
u letter from Jas. @. Blaine to Chas.
Emery Smith, editor OF the Press,
stating Blaine's objections TO the dis
tfihudon of the surplus revenue of
the federal government among the
states. and proposing as substitute.
II the national government no longer
needs the tax on spirits, that the en-
TIRE amount 1t yields be paid to the
states. Three fatal ohiecIi ions. in
Btalne's opinion, make the PennsyIya-
ma proposition to distribute the fed
efaI surplus unwise first. the utter
uncertainty of the size of the redun-
cant revenue, it may be million or
hundert millions, and unless steady.
no state tax could be RENTED on ac-
count of receipt; this aid. while a
sporadic contribution 60 the states
would toe Wdisted and lost distribu-
ton OF federal surplus. Second the
division or this surplus would impose
on senators and representatives a di-
Nidcd duty; for the sake af their
states they would wish the surplus rs
larga as possible, which would pre-
sent constant temptation - withhold
appropriations from objects reai!, OF
a national character. Third, the as
sumption Of continuing redund;.ry
national revenue is opposed to all
sound views of administration be-
cause it il sure TO lead to cXtraya-
gance, corruption and al manner
of schemes Of getting id of the
money. The time is rapidly APP
preaching, however, when the national
revenue, yielding under the present
system Of taxation hundred millions
beyond the amount required for gov
ernmentieXpenscs, must be reduced.
y strong movement Is already on foot
for the repeal ol the entire system of
internal revenue which will receive
the support Cf the PIotectionists like
Judge Kelly and the free traders like
Cox of New York. In this coniunc-
ton opposing views in support of the
abolition Of the tax gives q rare OPP
poTtunity to relieve taxation in the
state Of all our taxes. State taxation
is most oppressive; it falls on property
with crushing force; in few
communities it is less than l per cent
and in most over , per cent. Why,
therefore, should not states lie per-
mitted to have tax on spirits FOR their
own benefit, II the national govern
ment does not need it? Can it he wise
to continue direct tax on property
and at the same time command ahurt-
full luxury like spirits to so free, a
luxury whose taxation Expresses no
one. The customs revenue OF the
national government monopoliZe; The
eX" -, and is open in theory to both
80 and national use in taxation,
&C in practice The national authority
al0 ne can levy IN excise tax on
whisky. No state cSn oven
GUAR, its own border against
whisky from O. her states, or make ell
f@ctuI. Il objection Of such tax Wijhin
its ONE borders. The feder.l ma. him
cry for the clirc.iJn of this revenue
is III full operation, and LII of ten
lingS could direct the secretary Of the
lie $ tie expense of collection,
to the states Ia proportion TO their
population. and continue it pprma-
nenJly lis II part OF the regular reve-
nue.. Such plan would give Il reYe-
nue. from spe celtic taxation wholly to
| the states, and would not de-
pend on chance surplus or accidental
remainder in the national treasury.
| IL hOAilAA manu- NAiO lfRh OD CDll
and malt liquors a permanent re-
source To ali states, enabling then
thereby definitely to adjust and re-
d EN- their taxation. The total re-
turn of tax on spirits and malt IL
quor5 last ycaT was over $S6,O00,000,an
amount which would tend to increase
rath r than diminish. With this
revenue the state tax coHld be remit
ted, state debts paid, or ii it were di-
vidcd among cities ard counties,
their expenses would be proportional
te!y diminished. In Il table annexed to
the letter, Blaine shows the share of
the In 81 states on "a hjsis Of popnla-
tion wouid be S9.J39.G0O for New
York; 3 $4,000 tor Pennsylvania:
50, 1885, t0,or Illinois; $5,559,000 Cor
Ohio; the smaller states receiving in
proportion.