Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1883-11-30

- - Z. ss..Blalne'sss Proposition. &
MIR. Blaine writes to the editor of the
Philadelphia Press in disapproval of the
plan of Mr.. Wharton Barker, endorsed
by the Republican party of this state,
for the distribution of the surplus reve
nue. Of the nation, among the several
states Mr.. Blaine did not intend with his
letter to condemn this idea, which never
had enough life in IL to attract his fire,
but he desired to use it as text upon
which to suggest plan of his own,
which he seems to think is novel. He
proposes that the tax on spirituous
| liquors shall continue to be collected by
| the United States, and that 1t shall be
| distributed among the states per capita.
| He publishes table showing what part
| of the $4,000, 900 collected each state
| would receive rs an annual revenue,
Maine would get Sl,l34, 900, which is
very good for state that does no. let
| liquor be made or sold within her borders.
Pennsylvania would have seven and
a.half millions, Illinois over rve millions
Indiana three and a.half, Kentucky
nearly three, while New York would
| only get nine millions.
This is evidently very seductive pro
position to the states that do not manu-
facture whisky. We do not know how
MIR. Blaine could have better pleased his
fellow citizens of Maine than by acquhiHg
for them million Of dollars contributed
by some other people in the consumption
of a beverage which Names morals ban
ish, Mr.. Blaine's proposition is entirely
novel in its suggestion that the United
States shall serve as the agency 70 dis
tribute to all the states tax realized
from the products of few of them
There is no novelty in his proposition
that the tax shall be KEEP. on spirits for
the benefit of the states That is
the position of the Pennsylvania
Democracy, as we understand it..
We are not in favor Of abolishiug
the tax on spirits we want the Use Of
that tax ourselves now that the United
States can dispense with it. As Mr..
customs duties, which the states have
not, and from these the national govern
melt should draw its revenue. Direct
tIXeS are for the states. We entirely agree
that upon spirituous liquors should be laid
as heavy a tax rs can be collected {:
because such liquor is not only luxury
but 1t is harmful one. So in tobacco.
We would have whisky and t]bacco
pay the whole cost of our state and
county governments TO the end that
real estate and personal property may be
relieved from it.
There isn0 doubt at all about the poll.
cy and benefcence of tax upon tobacco
aud whisky but where does the United
States get its power to come into Penn
sylyania TO tax our products for the beDe.
tit of the people of Maine Pennsylvania
claims the revenue from her products as
her own. But Mr.. Blaine says that she
cannot collect whisky tax, since she
would drive the manufacture into
another state. There would be diff
Guilty of this kind If the whisky produc-
inT states did not unite in the imposition
o. the tax; as it would be to their interest
t. do this, it may be assumed that they
would do it. They would certainly pre-
fer to collect their revenue themselves
than be dependent on the United States
for it, and they get but a small part OF
what is their own. Il is altogether thC
cheskest proposition Of the day tha
Maine should get the benefit of the Ia,
on Pennsylvania distillerie3, when sh,
has no distillerie3 herself and make
even the consumption Of spirits uu!aw
ful