St. Paul daily globe., 1888-05-31
THE TWO TARIFF BILLS.
Mr.. Mills Bill Regarded More
FavOrably Than RandalI's.

Hon. Louis Schade, of Washington,
D. c., the attorney of the association
and publisher of the Sentinel, the Off
cial organ of the brewers at the national
capital, in his report stated:
During the past year nothing of a
legislative character has occurred at the
capital in any way Injurious to the brew
ing trade. Last fall some Western
revenue officers insisted that the
monthly returns must be signed and
sworn to by the brewer himself, thus
preventing the latter from being absent
from the brewery for any length of
time. Upon the question being submit
ted to the treasury department., it was
held that such statement must be
signed by the person by whom it was
rendered, and if not verified by himself
he must cause it to be verified by some
person having personal knowledge of
the business, and being otherwise fully
qualified by his position to make the
oath.
TARIFF MATTERS.
There are two tariff bills before the
house, one introduced by Mr.. Mills, the
majority bill, and the other by Mr.. Ran
dali. Mr.. Mills bill is more favorable
to your interests. 1t provides that "rice
flour, rice meal and broken rice that will
pass through sieve known CONNER
cially as No. 10 wire sieve, shall pay 20
per cent ad valOrem," which is an i'm
provement on the present rate-it being
also the same rate contained in Col.
Morrison's tariff bill of last congress.
Mr.. RahdalPS bill is step backwards.
for it provides that ''rice flour, rice meal
and broken rice which will pass through
sieve known commercially as No. II
wire sieve shall pay one-half of l cent
per pound"
A reduction of the duty on corks was
frustrated by the cork manufacturers,
who appeared here in great force. In
every other respect your wishes were
complied with in the Mills bill.
The abolition of the retail spirituous
and malt liquor license tax, as proposed
in the Mills bill (the Randall bill de-
mandS the repeal of all the internal rev.
enue taXes), is rather one-sided, as it
still leaves the wholesale spirituouS and
malt liquor license taxes III force. If
those license taxes are to be touched at
all, let all of them be wiped out, or
leave them as they are, as they now fur
nish the best proof that prohibition does
not prohibit.
do not think, however, that any
Idlln Uill w LII pdoo
session.
HOW PROHIBITION Is KEPT ALIVE.
The prohibitionists, as such, have not
made our prohibitory laws. The latter
are the work of one or the other of the
two great political parties. Even the
leading prohibitioniSts and their papers
do no longer claim that prohibition is a
mere moral or temperance question, al
though with them it is less a political
than a mOney-making affair.
Business is the true backbone of pro-
hibition. 1t is on that account that the
professional prohibitionistS refuse to
ally themselves with either of the two
political parties, as by doing so they
would be swallowed up and lose their
identity, and with it their business.
They want to keep up their separate Or
ganization, and Prof. Dickey, their
principal travelling agent, is now form
ing separate prohibition organizations
which will support the prohibition
presidential candidate even in such pro-
hibition states as Iowa and Kansas, and
that to the great indignation of the Re-
publican leaders of those states.