The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-09-27
s2ls.00,9o

Tobacco .-.-.s........-... S2,eD1e0 oos,v0
Total .sIse,eoo,ooe s2ls.oo.0o
Mr.. Wells woaid also make some changes
in tie customs duties on these articles
whereby the revenue would be increased
about from 81, 10000 20 $4,000. 90, max
ing altogether an increase OF <s4.0Qo,0ol.
This total estimated revenue of s2s5. 0oo, 600
from taxes on liquors and tobacco would
suffice to pay ell expenses Of the govern
ment as now being incurred. aside from
pensions, and leave a surplus OF near $50
ooo, 900 year TO so With customs duties for
pensions. These taxes on only three COM
modities. says Mr.. Wells, can be collected
more certainly. more economically and
with less burden and disturbance 70 the
people than by any other form of levy.
theoretically Mr.. Wells IL right. but
practically his increase Of the tax on
malt liquors would lose the Democracy
the German vote and the liquor dealers
vote generally both East and West. Mr..
Wells has acuteness to perceive that It will
not do 10 increase the present tar OF 90
cents gallon on distilled spirits, for il
increased il would lead to such an increase
OF illicit distilling a. TO defeat the purpose
Of increased revenue.
When the government in 1855 increased
the tar TO 81 a gallon. production, 30 far
as the payment Of the tar indicated, fell
off over one-half. But far from showing
an equal reduction of consumption, il
simply indicated that illicit distilling and
frauds on the revenue increased in vastly
larger proportion. Under this tax OF So
the government collected revenue on less
than 1000. 600 gallons, where. Mr.. Wells
states, production and consumption could
not have been less than SO. 00o, COO gallons.
Any increase in the present tar would,
Mr.. Wells fairly argues. be followed by
the e0-cent tar on distilled spirits alone.
This 10 good sense. but Mr.. Wells
seems to think that the taxes can
be safely increased on malt liquors
because the present tax amounts TO
hardly % per cent. of the cost OF beer,
against over $40 per cent. on distilled
spirits-and Is thus about the lowest rate
imposed on any commodity by the Fed
cral government. not excepting iron,
woolens and other useful and necessary
articles. Consumption of beer has con-
stantly increased from about 1.s3 gallons
per capita in 1858 to 1903 in 1898, and
will probably continue to increase, as con-
sumption In Great Britain is now about
thirty gallons per capita and in Germany
forty-tive. Furthermore. beer can now be
retailed at q profit at la cents per glass,
and doubling the tax would add but one
fifth Of cent to the cost. Hence Mr..
Wells concludes that an increase in the
tax of 100 per cent. or to 81 q barrel, will
not affect consumption particle, and
hence that the government will be able
exactly TO double its revenue from this
source by such an increase OF the rate.
This Is all true. but Mr.. Wells forgets
that the constituency of the beer sellers is
likely to be swayed by prejudice, so that
congress Is not likely to vote increased
taxes ON either distilled or malt liquors.
Mr.. Wells proposes increased taxes on
tobacco. Our people consume about four
| pounds per capita yearly, or more than
any other people outside of Germany. But
the taxes on 10 are now much less than
those imposed by most nations-63 cents
per capita against $3.50 in England and
| si.7l in France. Here again Mr.. Wells
does not allow for popular prejudice and
| ignorance. We have noticed at length
the views of Mr.. Wells because the in
crease OF the internal revenue tax on
! whisky is q point on which both Demo-
Gratis and Republicans agree.
Andrew Carnegie of Pittsburgh, Pa,
| favors the increase In the internal revenue
tax on whisky--an even more radical
| increase than had been seriously proposed.
double the tax on whisky. :" he said, ''and
the duties on foreign wines and Havana
/ tobacco, and there will be plenty oi
revenue" Mr.. David A. Wells advises his
party 10 double the internal revenue tax
on beer and raise the tax on tobacco 20
| the rates of iss2. Thus. he believes. an
additional revenue Of s0o.oo0. 600 may he
/ obtained.
The New York San denounces Mr.
Wells scheme Of taxation on the ground
that IL does violence to the Democrats,
theory and principle. and the S,,n is righi
when IL argues that II is not fair to tax The
producers and consumers of beer and to
baeeo more than other people. The Sea,
says;
mo greater proportionate contribution
| 90 the expenses OF the government should
be exacted from them than from the res
Of our citizens and under Democrats,
doctrine IL cannot be exacted without ex
toFtior. The people have been allowed {,
get their imported luxuries of tea, COTE.
and sugar duty free and IL woaid be an ab
sardity TO make them nav taxes on thei
iuxuries of domestic production, beer ans
tobacco"
/ -----~-----------