Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-11-29
BLAINE TO SMITH.
The Gentleman from Maine Objects to
the Distribution Of the Surplus
Revenue Among the
States. but Proposes, as a Substitute,
to Give Them the Entire Tax
on Spirits.

PHILADELPHIA, November 2S.-The Phil
adelphia Press tomorrow will contain
letter from James g. Blaine to Charles
Emory Smith, editor of the Press, stating
Blaine's objections to the distribution OF
the surplus revenue of the Federal gov
ernment among the States, and proposing
as substitute that if the national govern
Rent no longer needs the tax on spirits
the entire amount it yields be paid to the
States. Three fatal objections, in Blaines
opinion, make the PENNSYLVANIA PROPOSE
ton TO distribute the Federal surplus un-
wise. First, the utter uncertainty of the
size OF the redundant revenue. 1t may be
millions or hundreds of millions and un-
less steady, no State tax could be remitted
on account of the receipt OF this aid, while
SPORADIC FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS To STATES
would be wasted as was the last distri-
button OF the Federal surplus. Second a
division of this surplus would impose on
Senators and Representatives divided
duty. For the sake of their States they
would wish the surplus to be as large as
possible, which would present constant
temptation to withhold appropriations
from objects of really national character.
Third, the assumption of continuing the
redundancy OF the national revenue is OPP
posed to all sound views of administra-
ton, because II is sure to lead to eXtraVa-
gance, corruption and all manner of
schemes for
GETTING RID OF MONEY.
The time is rapidly approaching however,
when the national revenue, yielding un-
der the present system of taxation $780,
OOO,OO0 beyond the amount required for
government expenses, must be reduced.
A strong movement is already on foot for
the repeal OF the entire system of internal
revenue, which receives support from pro-
tectionists like Judge Kelley, and free
traders like Cox, OF New York This con-
junction of opposing views in support of
the abolition OF the same tax gives an op-
portunity to relieve taxation in the States
Of all our taxes
STATE TAXATION is MOST OPPRESSIVE.
1t is direct, it falls on property with
crushing force. In few communities it
is less than one per cent, in most it is over
two. Why, therefore, should not States
be permitted to have a tax on spirits for
their benefit, if the national government
does not need it? Can it be wise to continue
direct tax on property and at the same
time command hurtful luxury like spirits
to 90 free-a luxury whose taxation op-
presses none? Customs revenues the ma
open in theory to both State and national
use in taxation, but in practice
NATIONAL AUTHORITY
alone can levy an excise tax on whisky
No State can guard its borders against
whisky from other States or make an
economical collection of such tax within
its own revenue. Federal machinery for
the collection of this revenue is in full
operation and a 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 and Territories
in proportion to their population, and
continue it permanently as part of the
regular revenue. Such plan would give
REVENUE FROM SPECIFIC TAXATION
wholly to the States, and would not de-
pend on chance surplus or accidental re-
mainder in the national Treasury 1t
would make the tax on Spirituous and
malt liquors permanent resources to all
States, enabling them thereby to definitely
readjust and reduce their taxation. Each
State could most wisely use its share ac-
cording to its own necessities, The total
revenue from the tax on spirituous and
malt liquor last year was over $50, 900,
600, an amount which would tend
to increase rather than diminish as each
State saw that the suppression OF Illicit
distilleries was to its advantage. With
this revenue State taxation could be re-
mitted and State debts paid, or if it were
divided among cities and counties their
expenses would be proportionately dimin-
ished. In a table annexed to the letter
Blaine shows that the share Of the large
States, on basis OF population, would be
s., S,S93,0G0 ioT New York, $7,493,000 for
Pennsylvania, 50, ,2S5, 900 for Illinois, and
| $5,590,000 for Ohio, the smaller States re-
ceiyinp in prODortion