202 



CONGRESS. (ALCOHOL USED IN THE ARTS.) 



proposes to repeal the helpful clause and leave the 

 rest untouched. 



" Mr. Chairman, there seem to be three parties 

 interested in the repeal of this law. First, the 

 whisky trust, from profit; second, the wood-alcohol 

 trust, from the same motive, but, as I think, mis- 

 takenly; and third, the Democratic party, from 

 principle, honestly believing in large internal reve- 

 nues and low customs duties. In full accord with 

 this idea, immediately upon the passage of the law, 

 when manufacturers applied for regulations as re- 

 quired by section 61, a positive refusal was given, 

 based upon the puerile excuse that the department 

 was unable to formulate regulations that would 

 protect the Government from fraud, and this in the 

 face of the fact that such regulations for accom- 

 plishing this object had some time before been pre- 

 pared in the department at the request of a Senator 

 and had been submitted by him as an amendment 

 to the bill while it was pending in the Senate. 



" Oh, for one straight, square, outspoken, honest, 

 manly declaration of Republican tariff principles 

 by a House of Representatives elected by the people 

 on that issue and on that alone ! 



" This is our opportunity to say to the industries 

 of this land, ' We can and will at least stop the in- 

 crease of internal-revenue taxation now, and if you 

 stand by the party in November another Congress 

 will enact a tariff law that will bring again to the 

 American people the prosperity of 1892.' 



"Let me give you a practical illustration of the 

 effect of this bill upon a single industry in this 

 country. I refer to the manufacture of hats. The 

 cost of a proof gallon of alcohol is 15 cents. Com- 

 mercial alcohol is 188 proof and is worth 28 cents. 

 The tax on a proof gallon is $1.10, and on the com- 

 mercial article is $2.07, or between 700 per cent, 

 and 800 per cent. The competing English manufac- 

 turer is allowed to use methylated spirit, or a mix- 

 ture of 10 per cent, of woo'd alcohol with 90 per 

 cent, of grain alcohol, free of tax, which costs him 

 30 cents. The cost of alcohol for stiffening a dozen 

 hats thus becomes $1.25 here as against 15 cents 

 there. Aside from this the labor cost is more than 

 four times as much here, and the use of machinery, 

 contrary to the prevailing idea, is far more preva- 

 lent there than here. In this country a man who 

 works at stiffening hats gets $25 per week, whereas 

 in Stockport, England, and in Brussels, in Belgium, 

 he gets $6 per week. And yet the Wilson bill at 

 the same time that it added to the cost by increased 

 taxation here reduced the duties 15 per cent, on 

 the imported article, thus seriously handicapping 

 the American producer. There have been more 

 failures in the hat trade in my own district in two 

 years under the Wilson bill, both in number and 

 amount, than in any ten years before. The high 

 tax has compelled the use of wood alcohol except 

 in the finest work. Prior to 1894 wood alcohol sold 

 at $1.40 per gallon. Immediately upon the passage 

 of section 61 the price dropped to 70 cents, but 

 when Mr. Carlisle refused to enforce its provisions 

 it advanced to 90 cents now $1.05. What our 

 manufacturers now fear is that if this section is re- 

 pealed it will go back to $1.40 as before. I said 

 that the wood-alcohol trust was urging this repeal 

 mistakenly for their own interest. I believe that 

 the untaxed use of methylated spirits would make 

 a larger demand for their product than now." 



Mr. Dol liver, of Iowa, said, in the course of his 

 argument : 



" We say that this section ought to be repealed 

 because, unless that is done, we are inviting a moun- 

 tain's weight of claims against the Treasury of the 

 l'uiie.1 States. And for whose benefit, Mr. Chair- 

 man "i Why should this section be retained in the 

 Certainly not for the benefit of the manu- 



facturers, because they are required by the section 

 to pay an internal tax and no regulations are in 

 force for the rebate of the tax paid on alcohol used 

 in the industrial arts. It is not for the benefit of 

 the American public, because everybody knows that 

 the uncertainty about the collection of that rebate 

 has prevented the manufacturer from extending to 

 his customers any advantage whatever by reason of 

 this law." 



Mr. Knox, of Massachusetts, said : 

 " We should, Mr. Chairman, have a Republican 

 bill, drawn and completed on Republican principles, 

 ready to be offered when the extra session of the 

 Fifty-fifth Congress comes in, in March, 1897, with- 

 out compelling the people to wait till the coming 

 fall for such provision to be had. We have very 

 little to do, in the discharge of our duty with the 

 Senate ; and we have very little to do with Grove r 

 Cleveland. 



" But. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to any partial 

 or piecemeal change in the present law. I am op- 

 posed to the repeal or substantial change of any of 

 its important provisions without changing other 

 important provisions, especially those which relate 

 to the very enactments sought to be changed. I 

 say it is not right or just to repeal this section and 

 give no consideration whatever to the other pro- 

 visions of our tariff and revenue laws which depend 

 upon it and are connected with it. The rates of 

 duty upon many articles of manufacture, it is to be 

 presumed, were considered in relation to this tax 

 upon alcohol. If that is not so, then it is fair to 

 presume that when the tax on alcohol was fixed its 

 effect upon these articles was considered. We at 

 one sweep undertake to repeal this single section, 

 caring nothing and considering nothing as to what 

 or whom it affects in this country. Now, we have 

 done very little for the manufacturers of this coun- 

 try. We have done nothing for its industries. 

 Let us be very careful that we do not, in addition to 

 that failure, strike a blow and do an injury to 

 already existing industries." 



Mr. Bartlett, of New York, said : 



" Let me, before passing on to consider the merits 

 of this bill, call the attention of the committee to 

 the fact, that only a few days ago we had a bill 

 passed hurriedly through this House, under the 

 guidance of the gentleman from Kentucky, a bill 

 in the interest of the distillers of Kentucky and 

 of the whisky trust ; a bill which will do incal- 

 culable damage to the city of New York, which 

 I have the honor to represent in part. I am told 

 that it will deprive the Federal Government in 

 licenses of $750,000; and for what purpose to 

 give the distillers of Kentucky an opportunity to 

 bottle their liquor and sell it for their own added 

 benefit and advantage, and not through the dealers. 



" That was the measure passed last week, and now 

 we have another measure proposed in favor of the 

 distilling interests and the whisky trust. 



" The only objection which I understand the com- 

 mittee made to the existing law is that it is im- 

 practicable to execute. Can it be possible, Mr. 

 Chairman, that we, the Congress of the United 

 States, confess our incapacity to frame adequate 

 laws ? Can it be possible that the Secretary of the 

 Treasury or the Commissioner of Internal Revenue 

 finds it beyond his brain power to frame regulations 

 adequate to control this matter? 



" Let me call your attention to the fact that section 

 61 of the Wilson tariff bill of 1894 is very broad. It 

 leaves the whole matter to the Secretary of the 

 Treasury. He has absolute power in his discretion 

 to frame proper regulations. Then the collector of 

 internal revenue in each district must, be satisfied 

 about the manufacture. So that it is first only 

 necessary that the Secretary of the Treasury should 



