INT

be invested in whisky at 15 or 20 cents per gallon, but add 90 cents tax and then it takes five or six times the amount of the original coat to handle that product and put it upon the market.

-THOMAS, Kentucky, Record, 4663.

Internal revenue-Not for free whisky and tabacco.

No 460.-But the great cry of the advocates of the whisky ring is that the repeal of the internal-revenue laws will give free whisky and tobacco to the people of this country, which will be a great curse to them, and therefore the benevolent distillers, who have the great interests of the people supremely at heart, insist that Congress continue to collect by law from them 90 cents a gallon on whisky, which tax does not cost them a cent, and which they charge to the consumer. Now, if we were to repeal the internal-revenue laws and make whisky as free as thesereformers insist it should be, that would only put us back where we were at the beginning of the war. There would be no more whisky drank than there is now, there would not be half as much kept in bonded warehouses or in stores, tempting people to use it, as there is now by the whisky ring, and there would be no greater temptation to get drunk on whisky that might cost but 50 cents a gallon than there now is to get drunk on whisky that costs $3 a gallon.

But I do not advocate free whisky, and there is no sort of reason why we should have free whisky as a result of the repeal of the internalrevenue laws, unless we want it free.

When the charge is made, the tax, whatever it might be, imposed by the State upon whisky and tobacco, would not go into the Federal treasury, but into the State treasury, and to that extent reduce the tax now collected from the people for the support of the State government. As it now stands we virtually pay a double tax.

-Senator BROWN (Dem.), Record, 2152. Internal revenue-Not “free whisky," but State control, the Republican purpose.

No. 461.—The gentleman, when he undertakes to put the Republicans on this side who favor the repeal of the internal revenue laws and the wiping out of all those specifically war taxes into the category of favoring free whisky, makes an egregious mistake.

The proposition, as I understand it, involved in the repeal of the internal-revenue tax upon whisky and tobacco is to remit to the States the right to tax not only the liquor traffic (as many of them are doing now), but, ultimately, the manufacture and wholesale dealing in liquor, and to permit the States of the Union, in that respect, to take the place of the General Government, and to deal exclusively and exhaustively with the whole subject, either by taxation, restriction or prohibition, as the people of the several States may decide.

-GROSVENOR, Record, 4647.

Internal revenue-Partnerships with whisky ring.

No. 462-On each galion of whisky the distiller pays to the Government a tax of 90 cents, but not when it is made nor on the amount then made. It is first put into a bonded warehouse owned by the Government, and kept three years at the expense of the Government, guarded by Government officers; and on every barrel of 40 gallons 7 gallons are deducted for leakage, whether there is any in fact or not, and on the balance, then ripe and mellow for the market, the tax is paid, but not if in the mean time the whisky is destroyed by fire or other casualty. In that case the tax is wholly remitted. All these privileges have been granted at the dictation of the "whisky ring,"

200

which has its sentinels on constant duty here at the Capitol to see that no harm comes to its interests. I would have this tax repealed at the first practicable moment, because I do not believe the American people can afford to remain in copartnership with these "969 whisky barons" in this nefarious business and divide the profits by taking 90 cents as often as the "barons" take $1. The terms is not the point of my objection; it is the character of the business. I am for its repeal also, because of its neutralizing effect upon prohibitory laws in prohibition States.

The effect of this can not be otherwise than demoralizing upon local prohibitory legislation. For these reasons and others that might be given I can not look with favor upon the whisky tax or any part of it, and can tolerate it only so long as absolutely necessary.

-GROUT, Record, 4409-10..

Internal revenue-Protection to whisky ring.

No. 463.-Senators say they prefer to collect over $100,000,000 a year on internal revenue, because it all goes into the Treasury and protects nobody. But this is not true. The whisky ring is protected against all foreign whisky by a tariff of 1,000 per cent. on what it costs the registered distiller to make it, and pays 90 cents a gallon internal revenue, leaving a net protection of over 500 per cent. on its cost at the distillery. The tariff is prohibitory, and therefore gives the registered distillers the control of the market.

They are protected on one side by a high tariff, and on the other side by a law making it criminal for people to compete with them.

It is guarded for them at the expense of the Government for three years without paying either tax or interest, and they then sell it at from two to three dollars a gallon. All over $1.10 is net profit, a net profit levied on all consumers, obtained how? By reason of the enormous. protection which the law gives them, which amounts to a monopoly. -Senator BROWN (Dem.), Record, 2145.

Internal revenue-Reduce the whisky tax-Why?

No. 464.-But to the question of reduction, we must cut off from present revenues $60,000,000. I have already given some reasons for the repeal of the tobacco tax, and others might be given, the principle of which is that it is a home product and consequently a direct tax upon one of our industries This is $30,000,000 and would reduce the internal revenue force about one-third, and the expense of it probably over $1,000,000 annually.

But what of that other $30,000,000? The tax on distilled spirits and fermented liquors was $87,509,200 in 1887. If this tax were only about $30,000,000 I would make the reduction here.

What," says some one, "take the tax off from whisky?" "Yes." "And have free whisky?" "No; I would have prohibition." But why take the tax off from whisky? Because it has produced a powerful combination, known as the "whisky ring," which has done and is doing more to debauch public sentiment and corrupt political action than all other causes combined. This ring makes enormous profits out of the business, which are prostituted to the worst of purposes. It has a way of strangling temperance and other wholesome legislation, not only here at the national capital, but in the States where it is most powerful. The report of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shows 969 distilleries in operation, which produced, in 1887, 75,974,376 gallons of whisky. This would be an average of 78,404 gallons to each distillery. It is susceptible of perfect demonstration that at least $1 profit is made on each gallon by

the distiller. This would give each one $78,404 net profit on an average -some more and some less. The amount of money makes the "whisky baron" capable of much good or evil.

-GROUT, Record, 4409.

Internal revenue-South should throw off the whisky ring. No. 465.-Instead of lagging behind and crying out against a policy which has greatly enriched a sister section of the Union, let us go forward as a determined competitor, and with our greatly superior advantages finally bear off the palm of victory in progress, development, and wealth. But we can never do this, Mr. President, while the South is dominated and dictated to by the whisky ring, and while the 969 capitalists of whom it is composed, strongly intrenched behind legislative enactments, levy tribute upon the whole 60,000,000 of the population of these United States.

Let us rise in our might and break the cords of this giant monopoly which now blind us, and repeal the internal-revenue laws, and thus stop the drain of surplus into the Treasury. This would restore peace, prosperity, and happiness to the whole country.

-Senator BROWN (Dem.), Record, 2154.

Internal revenue-Whisky and free-trade combine.

No. 466.-If the naked issue, which of these two systems should be abolished, were submitted to the people, no well-informed man can doubt the result would sweep from the statute-book every vestige of the hated internal taxes. But unfortunately an opinion has taken possession of temperance advocates that the tax on whisky (although less than one cent a glass) lessens its production, and, of course, consumption; and that opinion has been studiously cultivated by the free-trade interest to aid its purpose of abolishing the duties on imports. But the overproduction of whisky has compelled its holders to ask the Government to relieve them of present payment of taxation, and that is a complete answer to that theory. This alliance between taxed whisky and tobacco also exposes the insincerity of the assertion that free trade will relieve agriculture of its so-called burdens. This insincerity as to agriculture is made still plainer when we remember the very men on this floor who speak in behalf of agriculture have within a short time refused to give any relief to wool-raising, one of the largest agricultural interests which the socalled protectionists attempted to protect.

-RANDALL, May 6, 1886.

Internal revenue-Whisky dominates Democracy.

No. 467.-The politics of this country are now dominated by the whisky trust as absolutely as they were by slavery before the war, and King Alcohol is proving that he is as hostile to national development as King Cotton ever was.

But let the writers speak for themselves. I submit first so much of the letter of March 17 as is pertinent to the question under consideration, and will follow it with an equally pertinent extract from the other letter to which I have specially referred.

"Do you know fully (I know you know in the general way) why the internal-revenue tax on whisky ought to be wiped out?

"It is because so long as the internal-revenue law exists it bands together the wholesale dealer in whisky, the distillers and hangers-on, such as bank presidents who loan on whisky, making them a close corporation upon which the Democratic wire-pullers and managers can,

whenever the Democratic party here is in danger of being beaten (and it has been so several times lately) call upon it for money in bags and in sufficient amounts to turn the scale against the Republicans.

Wipe out the internal-revenue law, and they can't find another source where money can be had in bulk, at the moment of defeat, in sufficient amounts to turn the defeat into a victory."

Internal revenue--Whisky vs. wool,

-KELLEY, Record, 3200.

No. 468.-To give protection to the manufacture of woolens equal to that given to the registered distiller it would be necessary for the Government to license a certain number-say twenty factories-who are engaged in making woolen blankets, put a prohibitory tariff on woolen blankets, and enact a penal law making it criminal for anybody else to engage in the business of making woolen blankets, and then impose a license fee or tax upon those who make woolen blankets, to be paid into the Treasury. This would protect them by a tariff against foreign manufacturers; it would protect them by penal statute against home competition, and it would give them the power now possessed by the whisky ring to add the amount they pay as internal tax to the Government to the price of the commodity, and then, as they control the market entirely, to fix their own profits in addition to that. So far as competitors not belonging their organization are concerned they would have no chance to come in competition, and so far as competition among themselves is concerned, they regulate that by a trust. So that in every sense there is no other class of manufacturers in this country so extravagantly and so thoroughly protected as the whisky ring. The Senator from Kentucky says that no Democrat is in favor of protection, and still the Senator from Kentucky defends the whisky ring, which has more protection than any other protected interest or monopoly in this country, and desires the continuance of the present state of thinga.

-Senator BROWN (Dem.), Record, 2146.

Internal revenue laws, repeal of.

No. 469.-I could load down the Record, Mr. Chairman, with tables to show the injustice of this tax upon the farmers of the country, but it is unnecessary; enough of that has been done. I only desire to say, sir, that, so far as my State is concerned, the demand for the repeal of the internal revenue tax is universal. It comes from every one, of all politics, without regard to race, color, or previous condition of servitude. There is not a voter in the State of North Carolina that does not demand this repeal. There is not a man, be he Democrat or Republican, who dare advocate the retention of this tax before any audience in North Carolina; and this, Mr. Chairman, is the highest proof possible of the statement I heretofore made that President Cleveland has the Democratic party by the throat. He wants to retain the internal-revenue tax; North Carolina Democrats want it repealed; and yet these same North Carolina Democrats propose to advocate the renomination of President Cleveland, and when that is done they will throw up their hats and shout for him as though they wanted him elected.

Some of them will even go so far as to vote for him, but the number will be ridiculously small in comparison with the number of Democrats in the State, and those that do shout and vote for him will do it with a mental reservation. They will be in the condition of a Western man who made a bet that he could eat crow. When the dish was prepared he sat down to it and commenced his task. He swallowed a few mouthfuls, and said, “ Yes, I kin eat crow, but I'm blamed if I hanker after it.” -NICHOLS, (Ind.), Record, 4579.

Internal revenue or tariff-Which?

No. 470.-The revenues of the Government are derived from two sources, that is internal taxation and a tax on imports. From this it will be seen that we have a double system of taxation-the one direct, the other indirect. It has not been the settled policy of the Government to permanently maintain both systems. The founders of the Republic bad a choice of the two methods, and they determined to raise the revenue which was necessary for the support of the Government by imposing a duty on imports from foreign countries. While that method has undergone modifications, it has never been wholly abandoned at any time, and I think I can safely say that it has been the approved method of raising revenue to provide for the ordinary expenses of the Government. While direct taxation has been resorted to upon two occasions before 1862, to meet great national emergencies, it has always been abandoned as soon as the necessity passed away.

In 1791 direct taxation was resorted to in order to replenish an empty Treasury of the new Government, and in 1813, in our second conflict with Great Britain, we again resorted to direct taxation to raise the nec essary means to carry on that war. The act of 1791 was repealed nine years after its passage; and the act of 1813 was repealed in the year 1817, during the administration of President Monroe. From the organization of the present National Governmen, in 1789, to 1862, a period of seventy three years, not more than $22,000,000 of all our revenues were derived from direct taxation.

-THOMAS, Kentucky, Record, 4557.

Internal revenue tax-To be made permanent.

No. 471.-I am of opinion that the internal-revenue taxes should be reduced, but not abolished; and this is no new opinion with me, begotten of recent debate, but one long entertained and (I may add) deliberately formed.

We need a more stable, uniform, and reliable support to Government credit than is afforded by customs duties, which fall off and partially fail when most needed, in times of panic and public distress. Importations decrease at such times, for the people are unable to buy and merchants afraid to import, and as the customs revenue becomes greatly reduced Government credit suffers and new devices of taxation must be resorted to for its support.

Now at such times the consumption of whisky, beer, and tobacco will not be much diminished, and consequently revenue income from them will be maintained at nearly the ordinary amount, furnishing a basis for loans on fair terms or for a temporary issue of Treasury notes.

An increase of fifty or sixty millions from such internal taxes is therefore a proper object of government policy and may be properly maintained in future,

-BUCKALEW (Dem.), Record, 4988.

Ireland-What free trade has done for her.

No. 472.-Ireland once supported in reasonable comfort 8,000,000 of* people. Her manufacture of linen, silk, wool, and cotton, protected by tariffs, and encouraged by subsidies, absorbed her capital, employed her laborers, promoted a diversity of industries, and insured prosperity. England, was her next friend, advised, cajoled, and flattered her into the belief that she could raise raw materials on her fertile soil, sell them to her, buy of her the manufactured products more cheaply than she could make them, and that free trade would be a national blessing. Beguiled by her, Ireland consented, her tariff was gradually repealed, borizontally destroyed, her subsidies withdrawn. Since then she has been