Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1883-07-06
TIE SURPLUS REvENUE-WHAT
SHALL BE DONE WITH Irs

SAA LII BE DONk "AA
The national debt was reduced S134,-
OOO, 900 in the fiscal year that closed
last Saturday, June 80. The debt Is now
81 ,2O5, 600, 900, and the interest thereon
is SIS, OOO. 600 q year. The Sl34, 000, 900
paid on the debt last year represents
the surplus revenue Of the government
that Is, the revenue which the Govern
ment has no particular use for, after
defraying all current expenses and pay
ing out about 500, 000, 900 in pensions.
Under the new tariff and revenue law
passed by the late Congress this surplus
will not be as large as IL has been, but
it Will be sufficient, probably, to pay off
the debt in eight years, and leave the
country as free of obligations as it was
before the war.
What then? This is an interesting
question, and il will probably bec)m
one of chief concern in ourpolitics. The
Government cannot keep on collecting
500, 1000, 900 to $50, 100000 year over
and above what il needs after the debt
shall have been extinguished. The
money must be left uneollected CT got
rid of somehow. To leave it uncollected
certain parts Of its present revenue sys-
lGlIl Ut
tant tariffs or internal revenue taxes
must be repealed, Either this, or the
surplus must be still collected and dis
tIibuted among the States.
Why not the latter? The internal
revenue taxes were devised for the sole
purpose of paying the national debt.
They have nearly done it; the day Is
near at hand when the work will have
been accomplished, so thoroughly and
gently as to have been scarcely felt by
the people. But State aud local debts
are quite as oppressive as q national
debt and why not, therefore, divert the
internal revenue taxes to the extln-
guishmpnt of these debts 81 ,O06, 900,
0OO)?-S. Louis Republican.
The internal revenue now collected
by the federal government rightfully
belongs to the States when it is no
longer needed by the general govern
ment. The States should have it. And
there is very easy way for the States
to get it.
When the federal government ceases
to collect it the States will have it. If
A owes b note of so, and forbears to
collect it, \ will always have as much
money as if the obligation to b did not
exist. 1t is not necessary that A should
collect the note and then pay it back to
3 in order to place b in possession Of
the amount of the debt. And if the
general government does not take from
the States the internal tax now drawn
from them they are in just as good con-
dItion as if ii was takeu.and then dis
tributed. They are in better condition,
because they do not have to support the
costly machinery used in collecting it.
We know of no more effective schem
decentralization than TO have the State
revenues filtered through the nationa'
treasury; to have the administration
at Washington made the distributing
point for the money needed by the re-
spective States for their current ex-
penses; to have Republican admins
tration or q Democratic administration
aging out to this or that State an an
nual stipend in a patronizing way, with
which to keep the State machinery in
running order.
The internal revenue tax is a war
measure. 1t is levied upon few arti-
cles. 1t operates unequally upon the
States. If the chief product of State
is tobacco, its laxes are largely in ex-
cess of another State that raises princi-
pally wheat or cotton. If States
chief industry is distilling whisky, it
must pay to the federal government,
perhaps, four times the sum paid by an
adjoining State that is engaged chiefly
in agriculture. Thus very few States
pay the bulk of the internal tax.
What Is meant, therefore, "by col
Letting and distributing this tax among
the States" Is it that the revenue
collected from all the States shall be
distributed equally among all the States,
without reference to the amount paid
in by the several States? That would
probably work no greater inequality
than the present system, but is it fair?
Would the State which now pays
million dollars tax to the federal Gov
eminent be willing to have the revenues
divided equally with other States that
pay less than half that sum? True,
that is the practical effect now; for one
State derives no more benefit than
another from the taxes paid for the
support of the national government.
Yet, would the states submit when it
came to this practical application of the
system to which they are now submit
ting? And if it is designed that the
revenues, when collected, shall be paid
back to the States ia amounts corres-
ponding to those collected respectively,
less the cost of collection, of what adj
vantage is it that the collection be
made
The whole internal tax machinery is
undemOcratie-at war with the genius
of our Government, and could never
have obtained the endorsement Of the
country in time of peace. 1t is un-
reasonable to presume that the people
will seek to preserve the machinery
after it has outlived its usefulness.
m q m