The Yakima herald. [volume] (North Yakima, W.T. [Wash.]) 1889-1914, 1907-01-09
SHOULD Be |NEACH
VALLEY IN COUNTY
JONES ON FREE ALCOHOL PLANTS
Congressman Jones Writes Herald
Regarding Operation OF New Law
On Alcohol Production.

The following letter explains It.
self and will be interesting reading
to those who are looking up the
subject of alcohol making in this
country:
Editor Herald: Having had a
number Of inquiries in relation to
the operation of the new alcohol law,
and having noticed the criticisms
that have appeared in the papers
throughout the country, took up
with the treasury department this
matter and have just received a
letter from the commissioner of in
ternal revenue. a copy of which l
enclose you, thinking it might be OF
interest to you and the readers of
the Herald. also send you under
separate cover copy of the regula-
lions Of the department which may
be of benefit to you for future ref
erence. do not see any reason
why there should not be free alco-
hol plants in every valley in our
county.
With best wishes for most sue.
cessful year, I am
Very Sincerely yours,
w. L. JONES.
Office of Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, Washington, Dec. 26, 1905.
Hon. w. l.. Jones. House of Rep
iesentatives, Washington, d. G.
Dear Sir-Your letter of Decem-
Der 10, addressed to the secretary
OF the treasury, with its enclosure,
has been referred to this office for
reply.
The newspaper clipping is an ag-
gregation of error and misstatement.
There is no reason, in view of the
daw or the regulations, why the
farmer should not build his distillery
and engage in the production of al
cohol for denaturing purposes. 1t is
simply a question of whether it will
pay. That he must determine I
believe it will.
The article states that the pro-
duction Of alcohol at any but a
large plant is virtually impossible.
The law of June Z, 1906, changed
in no respect whatever the internal
revenue system that has been in
force for 40 years controlling the
production of distilled spirits. It
takes that product when completed
in the form of alcohol, and allows it
to be withdrawn in the form of gov
ornamental tax when there is added
to 1t materials which destroy it's bev-
erage qualities and it's use for liquid
medicinal purposes.
A large plant is not necessary.
There are today hundreds of distil-
leries in operation in the United
States whose total cost, for the dis
tillery itself and the warehouse does
not exceed $500. Some cost less.
Cooperative plants can be con-
structed today by the farmers. just
as they could have been constructed
for half century.
The article states that the plant
must have capacity of 500 gal
Ions of alcohol per day. This is abb
solutely error. A plant can be con-
structed that will produce 10 gallons
day or 10000 gallons day. The
question of output is matter to be
determined absolutely by the dis
tiller.
AS to inspection and governmental
surveillance of these plants, this is
required and is absolutely necessary
to protect the government against
fraud. Alcohol when not denatured
pays tax of about SO per wine gal
Ion. Naturally the government must
exercise the strictest supervision to
prevent the fraudulent withdrawal
of alcohol from the distillery and its
being placed upon the market with.
out the payment of the tax.
AS to inspection by the govern
ment of these plants and surveil-
lance of them, this is matter of no
financial import to the distiller. The
government pays the salary of the
inspector, whether he remains at
the distillery every hour that it is
in operation or whether he visits 1t
once a week.
So far as the denaturing agents
are concerned, and their cost, every
effort has been made to reduce that
to minimum.
Respectfully yours,
JOHN w. YERKES,