Washington sentinel., 1900-12-22

would eventually find an outlet and
] give employment to idle thousands,
I and to the Government i'm revenue.
8. Because fl is unjust to saddle adj
| ditiOual burdens upon am industry
| that has uniutcrruptedIy and uucom-
! plainingly borne the old war tax ever
! since its first imposition (aiding the
! Government i'm deyising and main
| tanning means for it's prompt collec-
| tion), while all other internal war
! taxes have been totally abolished, cN-
/ cept as to ardent spirits and tobacco,
! i'm which latter instances the rates Of
| 1865 have been considerably reduced
6. Because when the war tax of 81
! was imposed beer sold at SIP per bar
| rel, while to-day, the tax remaining
| the same, less than one-halt Of that
! amount is the average price, wages
| and the ordinary operating expenses
| of breweries and the capital required
! i'm the business having vastly in
| creased i'm the meantime.
| T. Because when this tax was first
| imposed the burdens borne by the
| traffic i'm the shape of local taxes or
| license fees did not exceed in any
| State the sum of 5000, while at the
! present time in some States these lo-
| cal taxes range up TO $4,000 for each
! salOOu--the total sum of such local
| taxes and license fees throughout the
! country amounting to probably $780,
100000, isproportiOnatcly large
share of which enormous sum must
be and is borne by beer as may be
seen from "a single example in point,
to wit. The State of New York,
where out of @ total of over SllOOO,-
600 derived from the traffic the beer
interests paid about sL0JO,oo0. I'm the
present condition of the market the
brewer would be compelled to raise
the price of his product, and the deal
cr, ON his part, i'm order to make up
the difference, would have to reduce
the size of his measures.
s. Because neither from am eCOnom-
ic nor from am ethical point Of view
does 30 appear iustiiablc TO increase
the war taN ON beer while native
wines are totally exempt from taxa
tion
O. Because as q revenue measure the
increase is based on erroneous prem
ises. for while it is true that under
the present system, which impaired
to the industry am exceedingly yalua-
Bile element of stability, the produc-
ton has steadily increased, 10 is more
than probable that the increased tax
viii produce q decline i'm the business.
I'D. Because the increase would be
most potent incentive to the tOrma-
ton of trusts, and would most assur-
edly drive out of the business q large
proportion of the smaller brewers.
The significance of this will be appre-
ciutcd If YOU state the undeniaDle fact
that One-half of the beer produced in
this country is manufactured by
about 100 large brewers, while the
other half is made in about l,oO0
smaller establishments.
H. Because, although the tax may
at first be borne by the brewers-to
be used as a means Of competition by
the stronger trade riyuls-lt viii in
the end have to be paid by the con-
sumner. I'm one way or another; and
this we deem not only unjust, but
extremely uuwise from O. temperance
point of view, for beer, whatever IA
uatics may say to the contrary, has
become and is to-day one OF the nee
eszarics of life to large part OF our
paopIa. and as sucb haze "a strong ten
deuuN to enhance the well-Oeing ut
the consumers and to modify drink
ing habits i'm the direction Of true
temperance.
12. Because the increase is calcula-
ted to place double burden upon the
consumer iuasmuch as it is imposed
i'm order to- offset a loss of revenue,
which would inevitably be caused by
the proposed prohibitiye duties on
other articles Of daily consumption,
the price of which would thus neces-
salily be enhanced, to the great dis
advantage of the consumer and for
the benefit of certain domestic indus
tries.
13. Because. instead of creating a
minimum of Industrial disturbance
a consideration which is urged by
one of the foremost advocates of the
increase as "a paramount requirement
of any change i'm the tax system-the
increase viii most assuredly unsettle
and iniuriously affect the brewing in
dustry.
H. That the tax is continued al
though the war which made its impo-
sition possible and which formed the
only excuse for levying it is over, and
that IL has been continued beyond the
needs of the Government, as an over
flowing Treasury proves, and should
be repealed.
These reasons, to my mind, conclu-
sively show that this additional war
tax is oppressive. burdensOme, and
unnecessary, and should be repealed
now. Last year the brewing industry
was taxed and paid into the Treasury
about S7j,OOO,OOO. There are about
10000. 900 barrels of beer mauutac-
tured a year, and If we return to the
taS Of 81 "a barrel existing prior TO the
Spanish American war, the industry
now being discussed viii pay an am
nual revenue of about $4,000, 900
more I'm proportion, l believe, than
any other industry i'm the country.
Now, sir, 1 contend that we do not
need this additional war tax. In TACT
all these Spunish-American war-reve-
nue. taxes should be repealed; and If
by chance there should be deficiency
i'm the revenues it is the duty incum-
bent on the party charged with the
responsibility of legislation charged
with the responsibility of raising rev
enuc for the economical admlnlstra-
tiuu of the affairs of the Government
to raise It fairly and justly and hon
estly. without favor to one industry
as against another l am I'M FAVOR OF
an income tax. That is q just tax
fair to all-and makes wealth pay its
lust share of the burdens of govern
If YOU say that the United States
Supreme Court has held an income
tax unconstitutional, then i ann i'm ta-
vor of q graduated iuhcritau tax
and a graduated corporation tax on
the stock and dividends of the great
Industrial combinations of the land.
THAT will be "a tax that can not be
cvadcd; and 10 is conceded that it viii
he "a fair and q just tax. 1t is tax
on the idle and the accumulated
wealth of the country, which now
practically escapes all taxation. lap
plausc.l
The CHAIRMAN. The time Of the
gentleman from New York has eN-
pired.
Mr.. SULZER. I hope I may be al
| lowed 20 few moments more.
| Mr.. RICHARDSON of Tennessee. !
should be glad to accommodate the