Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-02-11
The Liauor-Tax-A Letter from In.
diana.

To the Editor Of the Dispatch:
Some time in January my attention
was attracted to your discussion OF
"the Blair BILL" which proposed the
distribution by Congress Of some seventy
million dollars in the next seven years
among the several States on the basis
of illiteracy, to be used for educational
purposes. 1t seemed to me that if an
appropriation could be made by Con-
gress on the basis OF illiteracy, other
occasions for class legislation might
with equal propriety be found, and
so vicious principle in Federal
legislation, which has been constant and
uniform from the beginning, could now
be made perpetual. To avoid this OBJ
lection il was proposed that instead Of
Congress distributing a meagre s70,-
100000 for the benefit of the illiterate
in the several States, that it should ex-
ercise its concurrent authority with the
States in taxing production of all sorts
Of spirits and manufactured tobacco,
and distribute the proceeds Of the tax
among the several States on the basis Of
census population, to be used for gene
raj purposes Of the State governments.
Instead of s70,000,000 in seven years
for educating the illiterate, this proposal
would provide yearly aggregate of
not less than $50, 100000 for general
purposes of the State governments in
perpetuity, and each State might then
meet all claims upon it for education as
well as for other purposes without re-
sort to existing heavy rates of direct
tax on property and occupations.
Your objection to the foregoing pro-
posal was stated at the time to the cf-
feet that it was in substance the same
that had been proposed by Mr.. Blaine
and abandoned by him and his party
without word in its favor by either
Of them in the course Of his presiden-
tial campaign, and it is mainly for the
purpose of correcting this misstatcment
of the proposal that trouble you with
this communication.
The essential difference between the
foregoing proposal and that of Mr..
Blaine, as stated in his letter to the
Philadelphia Inquirer Of November %,
1888, is that the first includes the Fed
eral tax on production of both spirits
and manufactured tobacco. while Mr..
Blaine's proposal includes only the tax
on spirits. | believe you are right in
saying that neither Mr.. Blaine nor any
of his party had anything to say
in favor Of his proposition du-
ring the last presidential campaign.
| do not. however, agree with you in
ascribing this silence to a conviction
that his proposal was believed by them
to be untenable. Just why Mr.. Blaine,
after publishing his proposal and forti-
flying it with an elaborate argument.
which, to my apprehension, has not yet
been successfully controyerted, chose
toabandon it without further word to
induce its adoption, can, in my judgment,
be explained only on the theory that his
proposal was found on further inquiry
to be hostile to the interests, principles,
and policies of the party he represented
as apresidential candidate. That party
has always sought to "provide for the
general welfare Of the United States "
by congressional appropriations for To-
cal and particular objects rather than
those Of general and national charac-
ter; and the probability seems to be
flor none can speak positively of
the motives for another's action
that when Mr.. Blaine realized that
his proposal would effectually defeat
his party's policy Of class legislation, as
well as strip the Federal Treasury of
the funds most available for its practical
exercise, he concluded the best way out
of the blunder Of having inadvertently
proposed such a thing was to say no
thing more about it, but keep as shady
as possible in the hope that Democratic
aversion to doing anything under .the
general welfare clause" would keep
them, too, from disturbing the old order |
of things.
As to the Blair BILL" il may be |
said that il not in strict agreement with
constitutional provisions, it is at least
in harmony with long-sstablished prac- |
tice under them and that if that prac-
tice is to be perpetual, the States having
largest percentage of illiteracy would |
be warranted in profiting to the full ex-
tent Of its provisions. We here in In
diana would be no Indifferent beneficial
ries under it, though | confess to feel
ing of reluctance about accepting the
quota under it in full acquittance of a
juster claim for many times the amount |
Of it on some other ground.
WILLIAM ii. JONES.
Fort Wayne, February 6, 1885.