Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1883-12-06

THR Philadelphia Press or InufsuaH'
contains 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 Government among the
States, and proposing as a substitute, II
the National Government no longer
needs tax on spirits. that the entire
amount it yields be paid to the States.
Three fatal objections, in Blaine's
opinion, make the Pennsylvania propo
sition to distribute the Federal surplus
unwise. First, the utter uncertainty of
the size of the redundant revenue. 1t
nay be a million or a hundred millions,
and unless steady no State tax could be
remitted on account Of the receipt Of
this aid, while sporadic Federal contrl-
tributions to States would be wasted, as
was the last distribution of the Federal
surplus.
Second-A division of this surplus
would impose on Senators and Repre-
sentatiyes divided duty. For the sake
of their States, they would wish the sur
plus to be as large as possible, which
would present constant temptation to
withhold appropriations from objects OF
a really National character
Third The assumption of a cOstinu
ing redundancy of the National revenue
is opposed to all sound views of admin
istration, because it il the cause of ex-
trayagance, corruption and all manner
of schemes for getting rid of money.
The time is rapidly approaching, how .
ever, when the National revenue, yield
ing under the present system of taxa
tiOn S1OO0OO,0OO beyond the amount re
uuired for Government expenses, must
be reduced. a strong movement is al
ready on foot for the repeal of The en-
tire system of internal revenue, which
receives the support of protectlonists
like Judge Kelley, and free traders like
Cox, of New York. This conjunction
of opposing views in support OF the alb
olitien of the same tax gives rare op-
portunity to relieve taxation in the
States. Of all our taxes, State taxation
is the most oppressive. 1t is direct. 1t
falls on property with crushing force.
In few communities it is less that l
per cent, and in most it is over 2 per
cent. Why, therefore, should not States
not be permitted ia have tax on spirits
for their own benefit, if the National
Government does not need it? Can it
be wise to continue direct tax on
property and at the same time commend
a hurtful luxury like spirits to go free
luxury whose taxation oppresseS no
OneP
Customs revenues the National Gov
ernment monopolizes; excise is 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 bor-
ders against whisky from other States,
or make an economical collection of
such tax within its own revenue. The
Federal machinery for the collection of
this revenue is in full operation, and a
bill ef ten lines could direct the Secre-
tary of the Treasury to pay the whole of
it, less the small expense of cOllection,tU
the States and Territories in proportion
to their population, and continue it
permanently as part of their regular
annual revenue. Such plan would
give the revenue from the specific tax
wholly to the States, and would not de-
pend upon chance surplus or accident
al remainder in the National Treasury.
1t would make the tax on splrituous and
malt liquors a permanent resource to all
States, enabling them thereby definitely
to readjust and reduce their own taxa
tion. Each State could most wisely use
its share according toits own necessities.
The total return of the tax on spiritu-
Gus and malt liquors last year was over
SS6.0OO,O00, an amount which would
tend to increase rather than diminish
as each State saw the suppression Of il
licis distilleries was TO its advantage.
With this revenue State taxation could
be remitted, State debts paid, or, if aid
were divided among cities and counties,
their own expenses could be proportion
ately diminished.
In the table annexed to the letter of
Blaine shows that the share of the large
States, on basis of population, would
he S., 900 for New York, $7.493,O0O
for Pennsylvania, S5,2S5,OOO for Illinois,
and S5,5O0O0O for Ohio, the smaller
States receiving in proportion.