The problem which the still tax had set before the distillers 

 soon bore fruit in great technical advance. Improved stills 

 were invented by Pi storms and Dorn, 1 which permitted 

 direct distillation from the mash, and shortened the time very 

 materially. But these advantages were chiefly for the larger 

 city establishments, which could profit through the best ap- 

 paratus and the most economic conduct of the business. On 

 the other hand, country distilling was a business secondary to 

 and dependent on agriculture. The extent and time of dis- 

 tilling was largely controlled by the amount of land cultivated, 

 the number of cattle, the harvest, the fodder, etc. In addi- 

 tion, the farmer could not give the attention to distilling 

 necessary for its most economic conduct, nor could he utilize 

 fully the improved methods. Consequently, the burden of the 

 tax rested more heavily on the country than on the industrial 

 distillers, and the former began to complain very loudly of 

 the unjust taxation. It was recognized that if agriculture 

 was to retain the benefit derived from distilling, a reform 

 must be brought about which would make the farmers 

 stronger in competition and burden all equally. So in 1820 

 (December 1st), after careful consideration, the still tax was 

 abandoned and a tax on the capacity of the masli tub (Maisch- 

 raumstener) introduced as an experiment and definitely 

 adopted January 20, 1822, after experience had shown that it 

 was an improvement over the other system. 2 



Of all forms of taxation that upon the capacity of the mash 

 tub is the best for building up the industry, technically and 

 mechanically. It sets the problem before the distillers of 

 producing the most alcohol possible from the smallest volume 

 of mash, in order to evade part of the tax. To accomplish 

 this, more alcohol-producing materials to the same amount of 

 water must be mashed in the same size tub than before, or 

 thicker mashing must be resorted to. But in thick mashing 

 the fermentation was not complete and a loss of materials re- 



1. S. Meyer, Die Internationale Spiritus Production; art. i., p. 145. Viertel- 

 jahrsschrift fuer Volkswirtschaft, 1883. 



2. Wolf pre. cit. p. 55. At the rate of 52 marks a hundred hectoliters of mash 

 tub, 2 per cent, of pure alcohol being taken as standard. 



