Morning journal and courier., 1884-03-27


The demand of the whiskey producers o.
| the country for an extension of the bonded
period is, to say the least. decidedly cheeky
They are in their present predioament by
their own fault. They miscaleulated tht
whiskey consuming power of the country
and materials being very cheap, they made
much more spirits than could be worked of
excessive production was carried on under
laws the import of which were well known
and which provided for the spirits remaining
in bond for three years, at the end of which
period the excise tax must be paid upon
them. This is the second time the distiilers
have asked Congress to help them. Prior to
1878 the bonded period was only one year,
the law was then chansed to allow three
years. Under this new law over-production
has again ensued, and the distillers again ask
to be relieved.
The true state of the case was well and
powerfully set forth by Congressman
Long in his speech against the bill which
proposes to grant the desire of the distiliers.
In the course of his able argument he said:
The fact is, asd We all know it, that this
resort ismade to the government rather than
to anybody else, because 1t Is thought to be
the easiest way out of a difficulty. Suppose
the parties in interest could not look to the
government What would they do? They
would look elsewhere. just as they will now,
if We refuse to pass this bill. What viii be
the result of its rsjsction2 The result will
be wholesome. The production of whiskey
viii be stayed, just as the refusal to pass
similar measure in 1882 stayed and reduced
It. The present stock will go its normal
way: If it 60 out of the country, escaping
taxation by expert, the country will bid it
good riddance. If it remains the govern.
mont will get its tax and 60 on paying its
debts, and 1t needs every dollar it can get for
this purpose. But perhaps you say that this
loan cannot practically be obtained from
the capital of the country, because the
creditor knows that il he should de-
mand its payment at any time, the
price of whiskey might be reduced to song
by its sacrifice, and SO payment made impos-
sible. But that depends. 1t depends entire
ly upon the purpose with which this bill is
passed, and the probable action Of the parties
who are interested in It, If this bill is not
sought with the sure and honest purpose of
staying production-if this bill should, as
believe it will (and rs was the case before,
stimulate production and thereby glut the
market still more and reduce the price by its
surplus, then to pass the bill would certainly
be to promote the very evils from which re-
lief il sought. On the other hand, If there is
an honest purpose to stay production till the
present excessive supply is distributed and
consumed in the ordinary channels that re-
suit can be obtained by the voluntary act of
The parties themselves and without any BILL
The passage of this bill would not aid in that
result. Any capitalist holding the money and
taking the amount of the hands Of the gov
arnment would be secure with things Jest as
they are, SO that taking either horn of the
dilemma there is no justification for the BILL
There is no answering this. The request
Of the whiskey men is not fair one. To
grant it would not be just or wise. Those
who appeal for relief have only themselves to
blame for their troubles, and the rest OF the
people of the United States ought not to be
saddled with their burdens.