The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-01-11
MAKE HIM TOTE SQUARE.

ANY manufacturer, finding 1t necessary
to use alcohol in the arts, or in any me-
dicinal or other like compound, may use
the same under regulations to be pre-
scrlbed by the secretary of the treasury,
and on satisfying the collector of inter-
nal revenue for the district wherein he
resides or carries on business, that he
has complied with such regulations and
has used such alcohol therein, and eX-
hibiting and delivering up the stamps
which show that a tax has been paid
thereon. shall DE entitled 10 receive from
the treasury Of the United States re-
bate or repayment of said tax so paid.
This is a provision of the existing tariff
law 1t will be seen from it that rebate
of certain taxes paid by manufacturers
who use alcohol in the arts is provided
for when such manufacturers have COM
piled with certain regulations ITO b. pre-
scribed by the secretary of the treasury"
No one would hesitate for moment In
declaring that the manufacturers so US
ing alcohol are assured of the return Of
their moneys paid in taxes when comply
ing with the terms of the law. Yet such
is not the case. A recent decision of the
supreme court, in rendering which the
judges were divided. so that four out of
nine dtssented, declares in so many words
that if the secretary of the treasury does
not for any reason prescribe the reguia-
lions under which the alcohol is to be
used, there can be no rebate,
In other words in case the secretary OF
the treasury fails or neglects to perform
49, Viii l, &c 1oi, Mo IA
shoulders, of prescribing the necessary
regulations, then the manufacturers who
have paid the tax shall be out their mon
ey The language of the law is plain:
ITO be prescribed by the secretary of the
treasury" But the secretary does not
think proper 10 prescribe; and, according
ly,~the moneys paid by the manufactur rs
under the provisions of the law remain in
the treasury. ss.i1
How would a transaction of this kind
be regarded between man and man? One
man agrees to refund certain moneys paid
to him by another when the other shows
that he has complied with certain regula-
lions ito be prescribed" by an employee
of the man so agreeing. But the employee
does not make the regulations, and ac-
cordingly, the refunding of the money Is
denied. Is there a court in the country
that would hesitate to compel that en-
ploye to make the necessary regulations,
so that the other could get back his mon
eys? OF course not. Yet that is the Sit
uation the great United States is made to
occupy toward it's own citizens who have
paid their money with the express under
standing that 1t would be refunded to
them. It is pretty small piece of BUSH
ness for any decent man to be caught In
when the great United States of America
| is the beneficiary Of 1t.
There is bill before congress intending
! to remedy this legalized sharp practice,
| and to enable the manufacturers who
have been victimized through it to get
| back their money. 1t declares that the
| failure of the secretary of the treasury
| to discharge his duty in prescribing the
needful regulations shall not operate as
a defense against the claims of those who
have been assured that they will have
| their money refunded We hope that
measure will become law. If there is
no other way to compel Uncle Sam to
deal equitably by his own citizens save
| by legislation, then it seems to be high
time that the needed legislation should
be adopted.