Washington sentinel., 1901-01-26
A new factor
Beer ana has been intro
u- duced into the
@""~"S'' matter Of reduc.

the proposition to reduce the tax
on tobacco. Tobacco pays a tax
OF IL cents a pound, which is
double the former rate. In this
respect it stands on the same foot
ing as beer, the tax on which was
also doubled. The similarity ends
here however.
| Tobacco's request for relief is
based solely on the fact that the
tax was doubled. 1t has none ot
the claims Tor assistance that beer
can advance. The ordinary pack
age OF tobacco, previous to the
enactment Of the War Revenue
bill, contained two ounces and sold
tor FIVE cents. The price to the
consumer remains the same, but
the quantity he receives has been
reduced from two to one and three
quarter ounces. The manufactu-
rer has put the war tax on the
consumer and made him pay it.
With beer the case is entirely
different. While the cost and the
quantity to the purchaser has been
unchanged. the tax has been paid
by the brewer. No attempt has
been made by the brewer to saddle
it on his customers or the user.
Why ihen should the manufactu-
rer OF tobacco be considered in the
same class as the manufactures of
beer7
1t is proposed to reduce the to-
bacco tax IS per cent. Tobacco
paws at the present rate about
S35, 600, 900 a year. The reduction
will amount to nearly $4,000, 900.
II this reduction is justifable in
the case OF tobacco, an industry
which no one has claimed has felt
the burden of the war levy in any
measure equal to beer, why should
not the same relief be extended to
the latter7 Is it fair to grant reliei
In the sum Of So, 900 600 to an in
dustrY which yields the Govern
ment each year S3s, ,ooo, 900 with
out embarrassment, and give only
a similar sum to another industry
which pays with difficulty S72,-
ooe. 900 a year to the Government
There is no justice in such a
proposition. II tobacco is to be
granted assistance-andw we would
interpose no obi ection to doing so,
for we believe the Treasury can
stand it and the situation warrants
it--let it be done on a basis that
will do an injustice to no other
business. If the committee sees
proper to cut off IS per cent of the
tobacco tax, let il cut off an equal
amount from beer.
Tobacco manufacturer have
borne no share of the burdens OF
the Spanish war. AS we have
shown, by manipulating the size
OF their packages and by increas-
ing the price Of their plug goods,
which every retailer knows has
been the case, they have trans
ferred their share OF the costs OF
that war to the shoulders OF their
customers, and made no doubt a
small profit on the transaction tor
themselves. Il will be no injustice
to those manufacturers to continue
this tax, nor will the repeal of it
be OF any benefit to the consumer.
A three cent reduction on a pound
Of toblcco, even if the whole sum
were given to the consumer, would
not add chew to the quantity
bought for FIVE cents by the man
who uses it in that form, nor " ould
il give an additional pipeiul to the
smoker. Besides, it is not intended
to be given to the consumer. II
it were, provision would baVe been
made tor return to the two ounce
package as il existed previous to
the levYing Of the war tax.
With beer, as we have shown on
many previous occasions, the case
is entirely different. Here the tnx
fell upon and was paid by the
brewer. He did not SHIFT it upon
the retailer or the consumer, nor
nor was an opportunity given him,
bY a change IN the size Of his pack
ages, to transfer thu burden from
his own to some one else's shout
ders. Averaging the selling price
oi pound of tobacco at 40 cents,
and this will be found a fair one,
that article pays now 80 per cent.
Beer, It has been shown over and
over again, pays 40 per cent OF it's
selling price. While the former is
sold at fair rc6t. and today
presses its claims for reduction
simply because reductions are be-
ing made, beer at the best, is not
sold at profit and seeks relief 10
save itself from further loss.
The Finance Committee, in
whose hands the matter now rests,
may be trusted to carefully con-