Evening star., 1934-02-18

wv trade" though not within,
the meaning of the anti
trust laws, has been op-
Grating in the newly legalized liquor
industry. 1t has affected these
groups:
Taxpayers who hoped the liquor
taxes would tighten their burdens.
Thirsty souls, hoping to get good
liquor at Reproduction prices. with
out delay, evasion or lawbreaking.
3-The Treasury Department, con-
fldently counting on not less than
$500, 100000 a year from distilled
spirits alone.
Director of the Budget Douglas, as
long ago as last July. when repeal
was certain by the end of 1888, fig
ured on $3.50 100000 tax revenue from
distilled spirits alone. But he was
figuring on a rate of SO gallon. So
of course, his estimate should be
shaved to two-thirds of that amount
in view of the present Federal tax
of 81 a gallon.
There was a great deal of wild
propaganda aimed at the taxpayers
by the wet enthusiasts during the re-
peal fight. For obvious reasons they
talked about the highest rate Of
liquor tax imposcd-and that for war
purposes-S850 a gallon. and figured
consumption on a pre-war. pre-pro-
hibition basis as though the high tax
would not either curtail consumption
or encourage bootlegging Which,
of course, is another explanation of
why there is so much disappointment
at the revenue figures so far.
1913 Revenue S223,O00, 900.
1t is interesting, therefore, to ex-
anime some of the figures Budget
Director Douglas has been studying
during these tax discussions. One set
is for the year 1918 1t Is set Mr.
Douglas likes to use because it was
the last year before the European
war complicated everything In that
year the revenue of the Federal Gov
eminent was 1923 900, 900 from liquor.
beer and wine. The tax on distilled
liquor was $1.10 a gallon, and only
IS States we're wet! incidentally,
most of the Is States were wet only
in spots. Many of their rural coun-
ties were dry.
Reverting to pre-repeal estimates.
John G. Gebhart of the Association
Against the Prohibition Amendment
estimated a consumption after repeal
of 1884 ,627 gallons a year. This
would produce revenue at 50 a gal
lon IA figure which Gebhart did not
mention) slightly in excess of s175.-
100000 a year from distilled liquor
alone. But he figured. only on the
Is States which were wet prior TO
prohibition.
Here are few present facts as
against these theories in advance:
Treasury figures for the month Of
December show a total revenue from
distilled spirits and wine of 11,480,-
06158. Beer turned in sl2,867 ,068.69,
and produced $50, 1886 additional in
special Federal taxes.
This contrast is very interesting for
several reasons. The beer traffic, on
80 variety, of course. was in full swing
when the month of December opened.
1t was in operation in all but four
or five States. It had been in op-
Grafton for months, and there was
no delay while organizations, special
regulations, ETC., were adopted or ar
ranged.
Beer Bootlegger Goes.
Also, 80 beer, while far from sat-
isfying the old-time beer drinker, was
good enough and cheap enough to
put the beer bootlegger out of busi-
ness. He simply disappeared. 1t
also put the home brewer out of
business. He was tired of the extra
trouble anyhow. The xew beer was
not strong enough, but it was better
made. Moreover, the home brewer
had lost the incentive Of trying to
master the art. He knew the real
beer was coming back in few weeks
Why bother? Whereas the liquor
drinker found obstacles on every
hand, except at the drug store, and
there prices we're pretty high. 1t
must be remembered that not many
drug stores we're selling blended
whisky in December, the month for
which these figures are cited. The
medicinal requirement was for whisky
aged four years in the wood. Nothing
was said about blends"
Repeal came December 6. 1t was
known to be coming on that partic-
ular date for long time. But meth
ods of providing drinkers With
whisky were nebulous. Nobody in the
trade knew in advance what local
restrictions and regulations would
have to be complied with.
The second biggest liquor consum-
ing State in the Union hung back,
wobbled about, and finally decided to
have its own stores and distributing
systemI This was Pennsylvania.
Michigan did the same thing. So did
Ohio. While New York, No. 1 on
the estimated consumption and there
fore taxpaying list, wavered and de-
layed, with special regulations which
finally required the relabeling and
marking all liquor offere' for sale.
Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio
did not actually begin the sale of
whisky and other distilled liquor
until more than five weeks after re-
peal became effective. They got under
way about the middle OF January.
Thus they do not figure in the De-
cember tax figures at all.
New York Disappointing"
And New York was so slow get
ting down to business that its con-
tribution to the December figures was
far from what it should have been.
In Massachusetts,, also a big con-
suming State, according to normal