The Portland daily press., 1883-11-29
THE SURPLUS REVENUE.
MIR. Blaine's Plan for It's Dis
tribution.
He Proposes TO Distribute the Revenue
from Whiskey Among she Different
States,


PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 2S.-The Press Of TO-
morrow will contain letter from Hon. James
G. Blaine to Charles Emory Smith, editor of
the Press. stating Mr.. Blaine's objections to
the distribution of the surplus revenue OF the
federal government among the States and pro-
posing instead as substitute. If the national
government has no longer any need of tax on
spirits that the entire amount which it yields
| should be paid to the States. Three fatal OBJ
iections, in Mr.. Blaine's opinion make the
Pennsylvania proposition to distribute the fed
eral surplus unwise. First the utter uncertainty
of the size OF the redundant revenue; 1t may be
Que million or one hundred millions, ana I'M
less steady, no Sta'e tax could be remitted on
account of the receipt of this aid, while spo-
radio federal contributions to the States would
be wasted az was the last distriDntion OF the
federal surplus Second, the division OF this
surplus would impose on Senators and Repre-
sentatives 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 approprla-
tons from objects of a really national charac-
ter. Third, the assumption OF continuing
Redundancy of the national revenue is opposed
to all sound views of administration because it
is sure to yield to extrasagance, corruption
aud all manner of schemes for getting rid of
money.
n0 tiLuO ID fhpiuty dpfkpaCAAbSf AOWO'SAs
when the national revenue yieIdlpg under the
present system Of taxation bpsAafed millions
beyond the amount repaired for government
expenses, must be reduced. A strong move
ment is already on foot for the repeal OF the
entire system of internal revenue which re-
ceives the support of protectiouists like Judge
KeileyIand of free traders like Mr.. Cox OF New
York. This conjunction of opposing views
in support of the abolition of me same tax
gives rare opportunity TO relieve taxation in
the States. OF all our taxes, State taxation is
the most oppressive. 1t is direct IL falls on
property with crushing force. In few COM
manities 1t is less than QUE per cent. and III
most it is over per cent. Why, therefore,
should not States be permitted to have ths tax
on spirits Tor their own benefit, il the nationa,
government does not want il? Can it be wise
to continue direct tax on property and at the
same time command hurtfui luxury like
sp rts co go free, luxury whose taxation op-
presses no one.
Customs revenues the national government
monopolizes. Excise is ooen in theory to both
State and national use In taxation; but in
practice the national authority can levy an ex-
else tax on whiskey. No State can guard It's
borders against whiskey from other States or
make an economical collection Of such a tax
within its own revenue. The federal machin-
cry for the collection of this revenue is III full
operation and a bill OF ten lines could direct
the Secretary of the Treasury to paw the whole
of it, less the small expense of collection, 10
the States and Territories in the proportion
of their population, aed to continue IL perma-
nently as part of their regular annual reve-
nue..
Such plan would give a revenue from a
specific tax wholly to the States and would not
depend upon a chance surplus or an accidental
remainder in the national treasury. 1t would
make the tax ON spirituous and malt liquors
permanent resource to all the States. enabling
them thereby to definitely readjust and adjust
| their own taxation, and each State could most
wisely use its snare according to its own neces-
| sites.
The total return of theta on snirituous and
malt liquors last year was over $50 600 ,000 an
amount which would tend to increase rather
| than diminish, as each State saw that the sup
preston of illicit distilieries was to its advan
tage With this revenue, State taxation could
be remitted, State departments be paid, or, il
this aid was divided among the cities and conn
ties, their expenses would be proportionally di-
mished.
In a table annexed to- his letter, Mr.. Blaine
gives the proportionate share of each State and
Territory on a basis of its population.