Chicago eagle. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1889-19??, 1910-09-17

have the voter believe that the "Cor.
rupt Practices which are really dan.
gerous are:
Promising man a Job.
Giving a voter carriage ride.
Buying a voter glass Of beer or
cigar.
Asking a man to vote for q person
on election day.
Giving a dollar to a church.
Betting hat or pair Of gloves on
an election.
The Corrupt Practices Act ought
be called IAN act to show that Feeble
Minded Reformers have standing in
politics."
The Initiative and Referendum
ought to be called an "Act to install
popular tyranny, in the place Of de.
Lucrative justice and to destroy the
rights of minorities."
The Recall should be dubbed IAN
Act to forbid public officials from ny.
ing in the face Of public clamor even
when public clamor is wrong, as 1t
generally is."
It was popular clamor and the fear
of the Recall which actuated Pontlus
Plate, the Roman governor, when he
reluctantly ordered the most awful
tragedy Of all time.
Questioned during the first day Of
his speech In explanation Of the sched.
ules in the new tariff bill as to why
the internal revenue tax on beer had
not been ncreased-that Is, In re.
sponse to an alleged popular demand
for such ncrease--Chairman Payne,
Of the ways and means committee. an.
swered promptly and emphatically
that the beer or brewing industry had
appeared to the committee to be taxed
already about all that the business
would bear.
It most certainly is. Every barrel
of beer, ale or other "fermented
liquors." 80 designated In the act,
that Is produced here in the United
States and contains not more than
thirty.one gallons must pay into the
federal treasury tax of one dollar;
halves, thirds, quarters, sixths and
eighths Of barrels must pay at pro.
portionate rates; barrels Of more than
thirty.one gallons capacity and not
more than sixty.three gallons, "in one
package" must pay tax Of two dol
lars. In the fiscal year 1905 the pro.
duction of malt liquors in this coun
try was 54.774.563 barrels-the larges,
Of record up to that date. In the
year ended June 30. 1907. the NAL,
liquors produced here paid into the
United States treasury . total Of
1885,. .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
| S6S.000,000 to almost S76.000.000 and
during the last twenty-eight years the
annual internal revenue tax on the
business has never been less than 812,
100000. Since 1880 the aggregate con
tributions to the federal treasury from
, the tax on malt liquors has beer
around Il $40, 900. 900. And yet some per
sons. both In and out Of Congress
. seriously suggest cutting down tn,
! tariff duties to the last limit and max
, ing up the consequent shrinkage II
public revenue from additional taxel
, on beer and other malt liquors-th'
/ drink OF the American masses. tn
. least harmful Of any that are made
} ''the tipple Of the poor man.!
, But this tax is not all the bushes
Is called upon to pay-not by an,
means. Brewers whose annual prod
, uct Is less than 500 barrels must pa,
4 Uncle Sam $50 q year for the pri,
ilege; where the output is more thai
J. 500 barrels the tax Is 500 yeal
: Wholesale dealers In malt liquors mus
J. pay an annual tax Of $50 to the 90,
!. ernment and retail dealers tax q
Q $50. At this point the Federal go'
ernment lets up on the brewers an
}. dealers pockets. but the State the
}. confronts them with its taxes-and 1
4 some localities the city and town step
up behind the State and claims II
J. share OF the "excise."
The liquor licenses In non.prohib
l. tion States range in cost from aroun
t 800 year to upward Of $1,000. Her
9 in New York the fee runs from SIS
to $1,250, according to population
= and all cities and towns are under tn
g direct regulation Of a State board {
g excise. In New York City alone. du
ing the year ended with April 81
8 1907, there were 1854 liquor license
in force, and they paid into the pu1
g lie treasury $11620,744-a very lare
proportion of which came from dea
si ers whose principal traffic is in ma
It liquors. Why add to their presel
T. burdens and those OF the brewers an
wholesale dealers in order to mah
o hides free, for instance, and satisi
J. popular demand for tariff revisio
IT downward? The question is beiu
r asked to-day by myriads Of men wit
IS no interest whatever In the brewin
10 or the liquor business.
x 1--WE are not making prohibitio
BILL" says Chairman Payne. I'VE al
10 raising government revenue. v
4 must not treat this matter from
moral standpoint, but from but
Is ness standpoint. It seemed to us tha
with a dollar a barrel on the be'
u and the tax on the brewers and Il