Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1883-11-30
iSLNINE's yttws.
ADVOCATING the PoIicy OF Distributing the
MhlskS IAN Among tho siaIea.


WhisHy Tax Among the States.
Our state and municipal taxation is
direct. II comes upon the property with
crushing force. There are few commuui-
ties IN tho United States that pay so little
as one per cent. per anuum on the actual
value of their real property. There are
many communities that pay more than
per cent. on their actual value. Tho
houses, the farms, the factories, the stores
the shops all feel it as heavy burden, n
burden unrolicved by any form Of indirect
taxation.
Why, therefore, should not the states
be permitted to have the tax on spirits for
their own benefit, if the national govern
ment does not need il > The national aud
state governments, as | think have shown,
cannot safely share tho same revenue, but
II the national government has no longer
need OF the tax on spirits, Why should not
the entire amount which II yields annually
DO paid over to the states ? Could 1t b.
regarded as wise craftsmanship to con.
tinue the oppressive direct tax on all prop
erty under the state governments and At
the same time. command a hurtiul luNur y
like spirits to go free That would bo u
folly which no other government on the
globe could by any possibility commit.
The tax on spirits oppresses no one. II is
extreme advocate of temperance canuo.
maintain that taxing the article increases
It's consumption.
The national government has an absolute
monopoly Of the revenue from customs,
! because the states are forbidden by the
constitution TO levy a tax Ou imports. The
| excise tax was left opon to both the
| national and state governments. But, as
i matter of fact, II is only tho national
! government that can effectively levy and
collect it. Shonld the state Of Illinois, for
| instance, attempt 10 levy an excise tax on
| whisky, the distilleries would be removed
across the river TO Missouri. Each state
| in turn that should attempt to collect an
excise tax would find itsolf bafiisd and
| disabled. 1t Is only the national govern.
ment that can do it, and the national
government can do IL for tho benefit of all
| the states.
| Instead, therefore, OF repeating the tax
on spirits, the national government can
assign i: to the states in proportion 10 their
population. The machinery of collection
| is to-day in complete operation. a bill OF
| ten lines could direct tho secretary OF the
treasury to pay the whole of II, less the
small expense of collection, % tho states
and territories in the proportion Of their
| population, and TO continue 1t permanently
as part of their regular annual revenue.
The amount yielded by the tax on spiritu-
GUS and malt liquors last year was over
| $50, 900, 900. On the basis Of the census of
1880, it would pay about sl:75 per capita
| 70 all the people. The tendency would be
| to increase rather than diminish this ratio
| as time wore on. Illicit disul.erlcs
would disappear when every state aud
every town should come to realize that it
was being defrauded of its own revenue by
permitting or winking at the violations OF
law. On the basis OF sl.75 per head, the
relief TO the states would bo very great.
| append table showing what each state
would receive on the basis of tho present
revenue. In considering the question, as
have very carefully for several months
past, | have possibly overlooked objections
which others may suggest, but the more
have reflected upon 1t the more evident II
has been TO my mind that it is visor TO tax
whisky than to tax farms and homesteadh
aud shops, and that it would DO an act Of
incalculable folly to remit the 5SG, 600, 600,
instead Of giving it TO The statCJ FOR the
relief Of oppressive local taxation.
The revenue Of the last fiscal year from
spiritueus and malt liquors was little
more than $sB, 200, 900. This amount,
divided among the several states and ter
ritories according to the plan outlined in
the preceding letter, would give the fol
lowing sums to each, tas statements being
made In round thousands :
Alabama, &C, 20s,00; Arkansas, sl, ,405, =
900 California, sl,557, ,0C0 Colorado,
s340, 900 Connecticut, 1,0S9 900 Della
ware, s255, 900 Florida, s470, 900
Georgia, 81, ,59s, 900 ; Illinois, s5,255, 900 ;
Indiana, %, ,46l, 900; Iowa, s2,S42 GOO ;
Kansas, 81, ,743, 600 KenSuol:y, e., Ssl, 0OC
Louisiana, sl,644, 900 kaino, sl,134 900
Maryland, 81, 1884, 900; Massachusetts,, 90,
100, 900 Michigan, S2, 1888, 900 Minnesota,
IL, 385, 90; Mississippi, 81, $50, 900; Missouri
50, 797, coo Nebraska, ST9l, 900 Nevada,
s1O0, 600 New Hampshire, 1905, 900; New
Jersey. 81, ,9sO,OoO New York. $685.
!, 900 North Carolina, 81, 2,450,O0O Ohio,
s5, 500, 900; Oregon, s215, 900; Per lsylya
MIA, s7,493,0O0 Rhode Island, .o3, 900
! South Carolina, s1,742, ,0GO Tennesseer
o., COS, 900 TeIas, s2, 7s5, 900 Vermont
s5s1, 900; Virginia, s2,64G, 900 West
! Virginia, s1,Os1 900 Wisconsin, o., ,30l,
900. erritories-Arizona, 100000 Da
kota, $3.50. 900 Idaho, s57, 900 Montan
t69, 900 New Mexico, S2OS, 900 Utah
, $25l 900 Washington, sl2i, ,O0Oi Wyom
lag, $4,000 District OF Columbia
| S3l0 900