Washington sentinel., 1901-02-09
W AR BILL PASSED.

The Senate last Wednesday took
up the report Of the Finance Com
mittee on war revenue reduction,
and after some slight amendments
passed the measure. 1t now goes
back to the House. The bill has
been considerably changed since
it left the House, and there is
much speculation as to the treat
ment it will receive over there.
Under the rules Of the House, one
objection will preVs Mt the bill from
going to conference and will send
it back to the Wavs and Means
Committee, there TO receive such
an overhaulilg as may defeat its
passage at this session. If neces-
sary, Mr.. Payne, chairman OF 'he
House Ways and Means Commit
tee, has said that the committee
will be called together at once in
order to consider the amended bill.
Mr.. PaVne has no doubt as to its
passage at this session.
It is difficult to see on what
ground reduction OF the beer TAX
should be opposed, but that it is
being opposed is apparent from the
following clipping and many others
Of similar kind which find their
way into the public press:
1t is said that the Democrats will fight
the Senate's concession 10 the beer
interest on the ground that it is Senator
Hanna's payment Of election pledges -
Midas Criterion whisky organ)
We can state confidently and
authoritatively, that the onlVregret
Democrats have in this mater is
that they were unable to secure a
larger measure of relief for brew
ers. So far as they can they will
expedite its passage, and asser-
tions Of a contrary chsra cter are
not merely misleading, they are
false.
The concession granted to beer
by the Senate Finance Committee
Is a reduction from 81 90, as fixed
by the House, to $3.50, or IN other
words saving of IS cents per bar.
rel. The total OF the war tax cut
of by the Senate is about $40, ooo,-
900, and OF this sum beer receives
about one-Ehird.
The Senate has not undertaken
to increase the total Of the House
bill. That body has therefore no
ground for objection on his score.
If objection is made, it will be be-
cause OF the minor changes in the
bill, some irems, like the tax on
bank checks. repealed by the
House, having been rein serted by
the Senate, and others, which had
been entirely wiped out, being re-
pla led at reduced rates.
Why should any one object to
these changes7 The intention of
the bill is to extend relief where
relIei is needed. No item in the
measure passed by the Senate has
based a claim Tor consideration on
the score Of losses occasioned by
the laws operation, except beer.
Some have been annoying. like
that on patent medicines, and
others slightly expensive, like the
bank check tax. But at no time
has it been charged that the sale
OF the former has been decreased
thereby, and it is we'll known that
a depositor might have Withdrawn
every dollar oi his account, in bulk
or piecemeal, by simply using the
special blanks provided for this
purpose, without the purchase oil
a single revenue stamp. This is a
we'll known fact, and reiutes the
suggestion that the act was a tax
on savings. Bearing as lightly as
the law did in these cases, It is un-
reasonable to suppose that beer
tax reduc uction is opposed by these
interests.
In the case OF tobacco, as we
showed last week, manufacturers
never paid this tax. They saddled
it on the consumer, and made by
the transaction. and the reduction
ot7s per cent. oi their tax is mere
gTatuity to tobacco men. Were
the consumer to benefit by reduc-
tion, il would be all right: as he
does not, it is indefensible as a re-