The National tribune., 1893-09-21
DAVID A. wEtase ON REVENUE.

Hon. David A. Wells, who is supposed by
many-aud especially by Free Traders-to
know more of the finances of this country
than any other man in it, was some time
ago asked by Secretary Carlisle for his
"opinion as to the expediency, from strict
ly revenue point gof view, of maintaining
or changing the present internal revenue
taxes on distilled spirits, malt liquors, and
tobacco" This was doubtless in view OF
the probability of the Governments having
to make up in domestic taxation what may
be lost by reduction of the duties on
imports.
Mr.. Wells has replied at a length of sew
eral columns, and his reply is attracting
much attention, as it will to great extent
shape the opinions of the financial leaders
of the dominant party in Congress. In the
first place, he would not increase the tax on
distilled spirits. That is now as high as is
consistent with good administration. To
make it higher would offer too much en-
eouragement to Illicit dstillatiOn.
But the tax on beer, he thinks offers fine
field for raising revenue. The tax OF 81
barrel ON 30 gallons has never been
changed since 1865. In that year it yielded
q total revenue of only 1861 ISL, while last
year it paid $31 ,962 ,743 This enormous in
crease has not been because of the increase
of population. Population has not quite
doubled since 1866, while the consumption
of beer has increased ninefold. The con-
sumption of beer was only SO gallons per
capita in 1863. In the next 10 years
it sprang up to ZIG gallons; in 1883 it
was 1925 gallons, and this year 1903
gallons for every man, woman and
child in the country. The tax on beer
is only about 20 per cent, which is less than
the average on other articles, while that on
whisky is over 800 per cent. There are 1876
glasses or halfpints in barrel, and the
present tax is only one-fifh of a cent per
all the way from S. TO So barrel, and re-
tails it Tor about S25, so that his profit is
enormous. Beer making is regarded as one
of the most profitable industries in This coun
try, and for this reason English and other
foreign capital is being largely invested in
our breweres. He therefore recommends
that the tax on beer be increased from 81 to
So barrel, which will, be direct increase
in revenue of S32,000,0 900. He believes
that this could be pdone without materially
diminishing the profits of the brew ers, or
wholesale and retail dealers" These latter
are likely to dissent very strongly from this
view. 1t is hard to see how any class of
manufac' urers and sellers can give up
$50, 100000 a year without considerable
reduction of theirFprofits, unless they make
a much cheaper article, or give less quantity
for the money.
Mr.. Wells says with much truth that the
proportion of saloons the population shows
that beer selling must be very profitable
business, and therefore in position to stand
heavier increase of taxation than would be
| dared on any other business.
He comedies that possibly cent on the
gallon might be added to the spirit tax,
which would bring an additional 81 900 900
| year. This is rendered more feasible by
| the concentration of the distiliing business
into the hands of a few great corporations
| which are easily reached, and which are
interested in preventing Illicit distllation.
Then the moonshine" district has be-
| come greatly dimenished in recent years.
| Next, Mr. Wells would restore the tax on
tobacco 10 the schedule of 1882, which
would increase the revenue from that source
| S28,00O,000 a year He defends this on the
ground that our tobacco tax is much less
than that of other Nations, aud that being
in the nature of luxury, the revenue from
it is in the nature of voluntary contribu-
tion.
! We do not approve of Mr.. Wells's plan.
1t is device to shift the revenue burden
from the shoulders of foreigners to those of
our own people. Whatever may be thought
of the consumption of beer and tobacco, at
least the money paid for them stays in the
country, while to reduce the duties on i'm
ports is to drain the money from the coun-
and put them on our own seems like crmi-
nal folly.
A STRIKING commentary upon the claim
of Catholics that they fear to send their
children TO the public schools lest they may
l. Z