The record-union., 1897-07-06

The beer tax, he said, would not have
cost the consumer a single cent. 1t
would have been borne by the beer
manufacturers, who had been prosper
Gus throughout the years of industrial
stagnation.
But" continued Teller, "a great
election was held in one Of the States
where large proportion of the voting
population did not believe in a tax on
beer, so il was sacrificed
Teller argued that there were other
methods of raising revenue without
laying inordinate taxes on the neces-
saries of life. He said he had once
been greatly impressed with a remark
of Allsion to the effect that we had in
this country more untouched and un-
taxed means of revenue than any other
country in the world. Teller contended
that if the Finance Committee was
looking for revenue, from S20,000,OOO
to SO 100000 could be obtained by
reduction of the internal revenue tax
on whisky to the old rates, or even
lower. His argument was that the high
tax of 81 10 gallon, which was in re-
ality tax of 1,500 per cent, stimulated
illicit distilling.
Teller charged that the wood alcohol
manufacturers We're closely connected
with one of the great trusts of the
country, in fact one of the greatest
manufacturers Of wood alcohol was
owned by a trust. Il might as we'll
name it, said he, "it is the sugar
trust, which has boasted that it pos
sessed strength enough to prevent wood
alcohol from being placed on a footing
with grain alcohol, and of preventing a
reduction in distilled spirits. The dis
tillers of spirits have been threatened.
They had been told, gentlemen, if you
interfere with wood alcohol we Will re-
duce your bonded period to nothing
The whisky men feared the vengeance
of the powerful combination against
them
Have we not the skill or have we
not the courage to take the S2O,000,OO0
revenue which is offered to us here?"
asked Teller. Have we reached the
point where the American Congress is
powerless to do its duty as it sees it?"
Lindsay of Kentucky followed with
a severe arraignment of the wood al
cohol trust, which he said was reaping
millions a year by the duty of 81 80 per
gallon on its product on the one hand
and the high internal tax which it did
not have to pay on the other.
Allen criticised the amendment as
designed to provide a partisan tariff
commission, which could be relied upon
to make a ug-handed report.
Spooner defended his amendment,
which he said Allen had not read or
completely misunderstood. Spooner
denied that the Secretary of the
! Treasury under his amendment would
have the power to suppress any portion
of the report submitted to him.
White of California thought the pro-
posed commission would be unwise He
thought the amendment was declara-
ton of failure of the bill.
Caffrey criticised the method of max
ing up the commission.
Allen contended that the Populist
party, which he said was growing rap
idly, should have representation on
any tariff commission.
Morgan opposed the committee
amendment, on the ground that Con-
gress had no right to delegate it's pow
ers. He drifted into a general dis
cussion of the bill 1T seizes the pile
of the people," said he. and divides it
among the politicians and their
friends"
Allison briefly answered the criticisms
on the SpOoner amendment, and then
said that in view of the opposition de-
velOped the committee would withdraw
the amendment
A new amendment by Morgan was
agreed to without opposition, authoriz-
ing the President, when he is satisfied
it is to the public good, to suspend the
operation of the law as to discriminat-
ing tonnage duty on merchandise or
commodities or the vessels of foreign
nations carrying the same.
At $50 the bill was laid aside and
after an executive session of ten min
utes, the Senate adjourned.