Washington sentinel., 1900-02-03

Fermented liquors (Old and
new taxi. ..... ......... ...... b3I BooosI34'IJ
Ali other sources told and
new taxi x)......"-,....s...'. S5s I7o, $40 Ao
SII6, ,SS3. 10
Hence the proportion Of revenue de-
rived from iermented liquors amounted
to over 81 per cent. OF the total receipts
from all other sources, and to over 76
per cent. of the entire receipts.
That the brewing industry OF America,
which had uncomplaininRlv and cheer.
fully borne and honestly paid a very
high tax upon its product ever since the
War Of the Rebellion, should now be
made to pay 30 per cent OF the entire
sum raised under the new Act for
carrying on the Spanish American War,
while two thirds ofthe nations available
revenue sources remain totally unpro-
ductive, the tax upon distilled spirits is
continued at its ante bellum rate and
domestic wines are practically untaxed,
is certainly an injustice which need not
be emphasized.
In 1866. when the net expenditures Of
the Government amounted to SI,7I7,-
100000, the internal revenue yielded
$3oo. 226, 900, and of this latter sum the
brewing industry paid--st the rate OF
81 per barrel-but Ss,IIs 600. The
industry was then in a most fiourishing
condl dltIoR, increasing its annual produc
tion at The rate OF !, 600, 900 barrels, and
receiving an averaging price OF Sra
barrel. In 1897, when the expenditures
of the Government, IN >ludIng the esti
mated cost of the Spanish American
War, did not exceed one half the
expenditures OF the year 1866 the
brewing industry paid-still at the rate
Of 81 per barrel--about $3a,ooo.o 600 into
the Federal Treasury. Competition had
in the meantime reduced the selling
price OF barrel Ol beer to five dollars,
aud the cost Of labor had increased by
at least 30 per cent.
To impose an additional tax OF 81 per
barrel upon a commodity, already so
seriously handicapped and overtaxed,
virtually amounts to an attempt (unwit-
tingly made, of course) to destroy an
Industry which, from every conceivable
point Of view. it should be the aim of law
makers to protect 1t was to have been
ioreseen that such must be the effect Of
this extra tax, and the reduced produc'
ton, as shown by the official returns
clearly demonstrates 1t.
In 1866 the Special Revenue Commis
sion reported that the tax oi 81 per barrel
(sold at SG7) exceeded the rate oil anV
European State, and was fully up TO the
revenue standard This applies to
present conditions tar more forciblY than
to the conditions OF 1866. The additional
war tax exceeds the revenue standard
by more than halt its legitimate proper
ton, and to that extent it exceeds the
tax bearing ability Of the trade,
AT the present time il is difficult
almost impossible, to estimate the extent
of injury already inflicted on the brewing
and allied trades, but this much is certain
that. far from causing minimum OF
industrial disturbance, as had been
claimed, the additional tax has upset
completely the industry. causing an
astonishing proportion OF insolvencies
among the smaller producers, and
strengthening the tendency towards
consolidation and the creation OF trusts
to such a degree that, in nearly every
brewing center, the smallest not eN-
cepted, there is now pending scheme
Of this character. Everything is IN a
state OF transition; neither the producers
nor the retailers, nor, in fact the CON
Sumers, have succeeded in accommo-
dating themselves to the new condition
OF things; everything IS held in abey'
ance; sporadic and deSultory efforts to
regulate matters are quickly abandoned
on account Of the uncertainty Of sur
rounding circumstances and the vague
possibility that concerted action-such
as the formation ot trusts-may bring
relief.
In the meantime the brewer, unwilling
as vet to reduce the wages of his work
men, and equally lOath to produce an
inferior quality OF beer, can find no way
bv which to recoup losses arising from
diminished sales and an expense account
based upon the former favorable condi'
tIons. Sooner or later the exigencies oi
a desperate situation will compel him to
resort to either or both of these expedi'
ents; and, even then, Il is questionable
whether the relief sought will be oh
tanned. II is perfectly well understood
In theory that the consumer ultimately
must pay The excise tax, but when such
a tax causes decrease in consumption
both the manufacturer and retailer must
in one form or another, bear a part o.
the loss. Doubtless, the consumer
already pays part OF the tax; for while
the price OF beer by the glass or measure
has not been raised, the quantity giver
for the old prices is smaller; nevertheless
the burden ol the tax rests most heavily
upon the manufacturer. who needs
immense sums Of ready money for the
purchase OF stamps, thus investing
capital which for many weeks, and ever
months, remains practically dead, yieid'
ing no return and swelling his loss
account, caused BY delinquent debtors
to prodigious figures, The brewers lose