Chicago eagle. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1889-19??, 1910-10-08

more than sixty.three gallons, "in one
package" must pay tax Of two dol
lars. In the fiscal year 1906 the pro-
duction Of malt liquors in this coun
try was 54,774.553 barrels-the largest
Of record up to that date. In the
year ended June 30. 1907. the malt
liquors produced here paid into the
United States treasury q total Of
$59.567,s1s; during the period of the
imposition and collection of the spe.
cial Spanish.American war taxes, the
brewing industry yielded yearly rev.
enues to the government ranging from
$6S.000,000 to almost $76.000.000. and
during the last twenty.eight years the
annual internal revenue tax on the
business has never been less than 912,.
100000. Since 1880 the aggregate con.
tributions to the federal treasury from
the tax on malt liquors has been
around 1870. .0oo. 900. Andyet some per.
sons. both in and out Of Congress.
seriously suggest cutting down the
tariff duties to the last limit and max.
ing up the consequent shrinkage in
public revenue from additional taxes
on beer and other malt liquors-the
drink Of the American masses. the
least harmful Of any that are made,
'the tipple OF the poor man.!
But this tax Is not all the business
Is called upon to pay-not by any
means. Brewers whose annual prod
uct Is less than 500 barrels must pay
Uncle Sam $50 year for the priv.
ilege; where the output IL more than
800 barrels the tax Is 500 q year.
Wholesale dealers In malt liquors must
pay an annual tax Of $50 to the gov.
ernment and retail dealers tax OF
$50. At this point the Federal gov.
ernment lets up on the brewers and
dealers pockets. but the State then
confronts them with It's taxes-and IN
some localities the city and town steps
up behind the State and claims its
share Of the "excise."
The liquor licenses in non.prohibi.
tion States range In cost from around
500 year to upward Of $1,000. Here
In New York the fee runs from $3.50
to $3.50. according to population
and all cities and towns are under the
direct regulation Of q State board Of
excise. In New York City alone. dur.
ing the year ended with April 80,
1907. there were 1854 liquor licenses
In force, and they paid into the pub.
lie treasury $l1,620.744-a very large
proportion Of which came from deal.
ers whose principal trafic Is in malt
liquors. Why add to their present
burdens and those OF the brewers and
wholesale dealers in order to make
hides free, for instance, and satisfy
a popular demand for tariff revision
downward? The question Is being
asked to-day by myriads Of men with
no interest whatever In the brewing
or the liquor business.
I'VE are not making a prohibition
bill" says Chairman Payne. I'VE are
raising government revenue. We
must not treat this matter from
moral standpoint. but from q bust.
ness standpoint. It seemed to US that,
with a dollar a barrel on the beer
and the tax on the brewers and the
wholesalers and the retailers, and
then the tax on these saloons, which,
In my State. frequently-perhaps not
enerally-amounts to as much as
81 900 year, this business was taxed
about to Its limit as a tax-producing
business"
And so 1t seems to everybody not
STEPPED in prejudice.
~9A
Oscar Hebel has made splendid
record as County Assessor and Is de.
poular with the voters of Cook
County.
~4A
Charles s. Cuttings honest and ablo
record as Judge of the Probate Court
Insures for him reelection next
by big plurality.
~
No lawyer In Cook County is better
lifted for a seat on the Superior Court
bench than Thomas c. Clark. The
Democrats couldn't have named a
stronger man.
~
Edward Osgood Brown will be elect |