Search America's historic newspaper pages from 1789-1963 or use the U.S. Newspaper Directory to find information about American newspapers published between 1690-present. Chronicling America is sponsored jointly by the
National Endowment for the Humanities and the Library of Congress. external link Learn more
Image provided by: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library, Urbana, IL
Newspaper Page Text
-Beer Revenue—Who Would Pay It?
jl* 2 |CONTINUED FROM PAGE 4] * Pa«num- (P- 1309, Hearings on Prohibi C~ftion Amendment, 1930.) ^ An interesting letter from T. W. Phil lips, Jr., former congressman from Penn ^l^sylvania, to Pierre S. duPont, was intro ^ ^duced in the testimony in the lobby investi m ^gation. In it one millionaire says to .^another: * “Recently Major Curran had a long in 3terview in the New York Tribune in which ^ ^ I am glad to see he called special attention .to the fact that if it were not for the ex ^ pense connected with enforcing (?) pro a inhibition, and the loss of revenue occasioned ^ Jby the Eighteenth Amendment, the income ^taxes could be eliminated entirely or great ly reduced. . . . "As I look upon this matter, I realize that prohibition has indirectly cost me already probably several hundred thousand dol lars; and, of course, if it continues in definitely, the amount that I will be as sessed on account of this religious and re form fanaticism will amount into the 7 figure column." (P. 3992, Lobby Investi gation, 1930.) Only about one in fifteen of the persons over twenty-one years of age in this coun try pay income taxes. Some of the bil lionaires at the head of immensely wealthy corporations are looking with envious eyes upon the fourteen, the workingmen and farmers, the poor in congested slum dis tricts, who pay no income taxes. These billionaires are financing the movement to legalize beer and tax it so as to raise $14 per capita. It would relieve the rich of the necessity for paying so much to the support of the government which protects them and makes it possible for them to amass their swollen fortunes. It would in crease the wealth of those who manufac tured and sold the beer. It would provide more money for the luxuries of the rich from the thin purses of the poor if the lat ter could be persuaded to pay the tax by consuming the beer so thoughtfully pro vided for them. THE DRY BOARD OF STRATEGY | CONTINUED FROM PAGE 5] larger constituency. At no time in the history of the prohibition movement has there been any united effort even re motely approaching that which has thus been created. Not only are the thirty three dry organizations of the country, grouped together in this national asso ciation and represented by this board of strategy, intent upon the same aim, but they are so corelating their forces under a united effort that duplication may be avoided and the full effect given to their endeavors. Through the cooperation of the various state organizations with ex isting state headquarters and with the local units already existing and func tioning in counties, towns and cities, it is believed that almost the entire voting strength of the American people can be reached with accurate information and stirred to organized effort through ma chinery whose effectiveness'has already been demonstrated. If the return of beer would so benefit the farmer why doesn’t he speak for him self? LIQUOR MANUFACTURE AND EMPLOYMENT It is claimed that opening the breweries would provide employment for many. One enthusiast claims that a million persons would be employed by the booze and allied industries. The largest number of wage earners employed in the manufacture of liquor and beverages was in 1914, when 88,152 were employed in 7,562 establish ments. (P. 199, Statistical Abstract, 1922.) The small wage formerly paid by the liq uor interests was notorious. The following table, prepared long before national prohi bition, shows the relative amounts paid for labor and material in certain manufactured products: Unemployment and consequent want is a great burden, which falls heavily on the payer of state and local taxes. In one small rural county of Michigan the amount spread on the tax roll for the current year is $38,000, of which exactly one-half, $19. 000, is for poor relief. It is not clear how that county—or any other—would be re lieved if saloons were opened to sell beer to all comers. Unemployed men would have plenty of time to hang about the bar and spend there the money that should go for food. The taxpayers are asked not only to feed the unemployed, but to fur nish them beer, and to pay the tax on that beer in order that the rich need not do it. It is a great scheme for the wealthy wets, SALARIES MATERIAL, 8ALA AND WAGES MATERIAL RIBS AND WAGES PRODUCTS PER CENT PER CENT PER CENT Boots and shoes . 24.29 72 11 Men’s clothing. 19-90 52.21 72.11 SSSS agoTlne.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: iff g:?| Leather^0???::::::::::::::::::::::: 5i:$! ?i:5? IS:1I Slaughtering . 3.67 ef t? 89 34 Flour and grist mill products. 3.80 85.54 89.3 Liquors . 13.27 PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT PAID FOR WAGES AND MATERIALS 85.94% BOOTS AND SHOES 72.11% MEN'S CLOTHING 77.47% WOMEN’S CLOTHING 84.44% WOOLEN GOODS 87.18% COTTON GOODS ss.13% LEATHER 92.49% SLAUGHTERING 89.34% FLOUR AND GRIST MILL PRODUCTS 41.17% hhhhhihhbhi LIQUORS ENFORCEMENT MORE THAN PAYING ITS WAY IN OHIO Out of 4,838 arrests for liquor viola tions made by the state prohibition de partment of Ohio in the year ending September 1, 1931, 4,097 convictions were obtained. These facts were given in the report of Prohibition Commissioner Clarence H. Sears filed with Governor White, September 22. Total fines assessed under the state liquor laws were $828,929 of which $217,350 went into the state treasury and the balance into county, township and municipal divisions. The cost of oper ating the state prohibition department was $126,537, there being therefore a prefit to the state of $90,813. During the year inspectors seized and destroyed 831 stills and arrested 190 persons for transportation of liquor. CAUSE FOR DIVORCE An exchange says that a wine-producer, Raoul Sandrassa, obtained from the French courts a divorce against his wife because she was a prohibitionist. He de clared his wife’s “pernicious prohibition doctrines, got from the United States,” had made his life a curse. but is it to be majority rule of dollars or of sense on this tax question? NO AID TO THE FARMER • The claim frequently made that reopen ing the breweries would aid the farmers invariably ignores the benefit that has come to the farmers through prohibition. The growth of dairy farming is a typical illus tration. Under prohibition the people are not spending so much money for beer and other liquor and they have the means to follow the suggestion of physicians and nutrition experts to use more dairy prod ucts. The United States Department of Agriculture reports show that the per cap ita consumption of milk was 42.4 gallons in 1917, and 55.3 gallons in 1926, and is constantly rising. Ice cream produced in factories rose from 122,900,000 gallons in 1917 to 240.750,000 gallons in 1930. There were 818,175,000 pounds of butter produced in factories in 1918, and almost double that in 1930, or 1,594.826,000 pounds. If a tax on beer would solve economic problems Germany today would not need to ask the United States for a moratorium on the payment of her debts. No nation can drink itself rich any more than an in dividual can do so. From an economic standpoint the beer revenue plan is un sound, selfish, and oppressive. Washington, D. C. September 23, 1931.