Washington sentinel., 1901-01-19

DEOuuGe Il
10. Because the increase would be a
most potent incentive to the forma-
ton of trusts, and would most assur-
edly drive out of the business a large
proportion of the smaller brewers.
The significance of this will be appre-
ciated if you state the undeniable 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 1900
smaller establishments.
II. Because, although the tax may
at first be borne by the brewers-to
be used as a means of competition by
the stronger trade rivals-it will in
the end have to be paid by the con-
sumer, in one way or another; and
this we deem not only unjust, but
extremely unwise from temperance
point of view, for beer, whatever fa-
natics may say to the contrary, has
become and is to-day one of the nee
essaries of life to a large part of our
people, and as such has strong ten
dency to enhance the well-being of
the consumers and to modify drink
ing habits in the direction of true
temperance.
12. Because the increase is calcula-
ted to place double burden upon the
consumer, inasmuch as it is imposed
in order to offset a loss of revenue,
which would inevitably be caused by
the proposed prohibitive duties on
other articles OF daily consumption,
the price of which would thus neces-
sarily 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 in the tax systematic
increase will most assuredly unsettle
and injuriously affect the brewing in
dustry.
a. That the tax Is continued al
though the war which made it's impo-
sition possible and which formed the
only excuse for levying it is over, and
that it has been continued beyond the
needs of the Government, as an over
flowing Treasury proves, and should
be repealed.
In all the list OF items in the War
Revenue act Of 1898 there is not
one (aside from beer) which bases
its claim for relief on the burdens
it entails-save possibly the check
tax. And as this mainly falls upon
those well able to bear it and con-
stitutes the only contribution OF
that class towards the expenses Of
the Government tor war purposes,
there is little reason why they
should be relieved. The wealth
Of the country is not oppressed to
any appreciaIole extent. The check
tax should remain.
Aside from the material aspects
Of the brewers case, there is an
other-the moral. When this tax
was levied regard was had mainly
to the idea OF quick returns. Beer
offered inducements for speedy col
lection not possessed bV other ar
ticles. 1t was an unfair advantage
to take and was so admitted. 1t
was the general understanding,
however, that when reductions
were possible this industry was en-
titled to and should receive first
and fullest consideration. First
it may have received.
But that's all. The business that
bore the brunt OF the burden, to
the amount OF more than one-thiru
Of the whole sum realized, should
have been rewarded when conces-
sions. are being made in like pro-
portion. In place Of one third it
has received about one-6iJh. Its
proportion would have
been one-third Of the total reduc-
tion, equivalent to decrease OF
40 cents barrel. In recompense
for the extra sacrifices made, and
in fulfilment of the moral obliga-
tions incurred, the Senate should
insist upon so cents decrease.
This is the figure brewers are en-
titled to and this is the figure we
hope to see them receive.