The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1883-12-07
MR.. BLAINE,S SCHEME.
He Favors the Distribution OF the Revenue
from the Whisky Tax Among the Several
States.

mDs D4AA1NE'G 0GhEMGa
he Favors the Distribution OF the Revenue
from the Whisky Tax Among the Several
States.
PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 30.-The Press
publishes the following letter to its editor
from Hon. James G. Blaine: II have re-
ceived your note, inquiring whether / would
be willing to i've, in the more authentic
form of letter over my own signature, GER
tain views which, expressed in conversation
several weeks since touching an important
financial question. understand you to re-
fer to some observations Imlde to one Of
your assistant editors on the proposition Of the
Republican State Convention of Pennsyl-
vania for the distribution Of the surplus
revenue of the National Treasury among
the States / understand you to refer still
more particularly to suggestion of my own
as substitute for the Pennsylvania propo-
sitionS, to which / thought | saw fatal OBJ
jections. have no reason for Withholding
my views, and admit the wisdom of your
suggestion that l would better state them
myself than to have them possibly nistated
by others.
The proposition of the Pennsylvania Re
publican Convention is to distribute among
the States any surplus in the National
Treasury that may arise from redundant
revenue The first objection which see
to this proposition is the utter uncertainty of
the amount Of redundant revenue. 1t may
be $1,0OO,000 or it may be 800, 900.
Here in Maine they made an absolute per
capita distribution of it among the
entire p0pulation-a trifiing sum to each.
That, of course, threw contempt upon
the whole measure. There is a sec
ond objection to the Pennsylvania PROPOSE
ton, which, in my Judgment is still more
serious. 1t would be unfair to Senators anG
Representatives to lay upon them obliga-
tons and motives which would constantly
tend to turn them from the straight path of
duty to the National Government. You
can not have the National Government and
the State Government joint owners of the
same treasury without miscellaneous conflict.
Such partnership is at war with the we'll
being of the State and Nation. A third
objection to the Pennsylvania propo-
sition is that it proceeds upon
the assumption of a continuing redun-
dancy of National revenue. This is opposed
to all sound views of administration. The
Government wants just enough revenue. A
redundancy always leads to extravaganza,
to many forms of corruption and to all man.
ner of schemes for getting rid of money.
The time is rapidly approaching, however,
when, by reason of the terms in which the
National debt is funded, the payment of the
remainder must of necessity be postponed
for years-the larger part of it, indeed, to
the next century. This brings with it the
necessity of reducing tho National revenue.
''The present system of taxation is yield.
ing more than $1O0,000,000 beyond the
amount required for the ordinary expense Of
Government Its reduction will soon be-
come an imperative duty. Indeed, strong
movement is already Oh foot for the repeal
of the entire system of internal revenue, on
the assumption, which is justified by facts,
that receipts from customs will afford
abundant revenue for the needs of the
Government. The Protectionists desire this,
but not they alone. Judge Kelleyis not more
earnestly i'll favor of it than is Mr.. Cox, OF
New York, who is most intelligent repre-
sentative of the free-tfade interest Many
of the leading free-traders in Congress are
opposed to the continuation of the tax on
spirits. 1t is, therefore, quite eyident--it is
at least highly probable--that coalition of
men holding antagonistic views on the ques-
ton of projections will, at the first opportu-
nifty, effect the abolition of the system of i'll
ternal revenue.
s'Our state and municipal taxation is di-
rect 1t comes upon the property with
crushing force. There are few commune
ties in the United States that pay so little
as one cent per annum on the actual value
of their real property. There are many
communities that pay more than two cents
on the actual value. The houses, the farms,
the factories, the stores, the shops,
all feel it is heavy burden-a bur-
den unrelieved 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 Ma
tional Government does not need it? The
National and State Governments, as / think
I have shown, can not safely share the same
revenue; but if the National Government
has no longer need of the tax on the spirits,
why should not the entire amount which it
yields annually be paid over to the States?
Could it be regarded as wise craftsmanship
to continue the heavy, oppressive direct tax on
all property under the State Governments,
and at the same time command hurtful
luxury like spirits to go free ? That would
be a folly which no other Government on
the globe could by any possibility commit
The tax on spirits Expresses no one. 1t is
paid only by consumers, and the most ex-
treme advocate OF temperance can not main
tain that taxing the article increases the
consumption.
'"The more / have reflected upon it the
more evident it has become to my mind that
it is wiser to tax whisky than it is to tax
farms and homesteads and shops, and that it
would be an act of incalculable folly to re-
NIT the $50, 900, instead of giving it to
the States for the relief of oppressive taxa
ton. trust / have made the differences
between this proposition and the Pennsyl-
vania proposition sufficiently plain. The
one which l have suggested gives
the revenue from q specific tax
wholly to the States, and does not
depend upon chance surplus or an acct
dopfo1 raw ir,Iar 81, 4ha No4;ovoI T,.ooerrYy