Mr. McKEE. Mr. Chairman, I do not know that I shall occupy the attention of the House for even the ten minutes allowed for general debate. I desire to say a few words in relation to the topic discussed so ably by the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. DARLING] and to give my assent to all he has said upon this subject. I have examined this bill thoroughly, and it strikes me that if the committee had sat for 6 months, and had been the whole time endeav oring to devise a system by which frauds might be perpetrated in the distillation of spirits, they could not have accomplished their work more thoroughly than through this system of appointing an inspector for each distillery; Sir, if I had not had some experience and some personal knowledge of these things my assertions might go for naught. I reside in a district altogether rural, in which there is not a single city, a district where all the distilleries are very small concerns and always have been. I know something about the character of the inspectors who are appointed. The recent investigation of the committee of which the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. DARLING] is chairman must certainly show conclusively that these inspectors are men put over distil leries for the purpose of enabling them to perpetrate frauds rather than prevent them. An inspector who is under no bonds, under no obligations, who owes nothing to anybody, who is accountable to nobody for his action; and, Mr. Speaker, the corruptions of human nature we all know, and it is a fact which these investigations when published will certainly bring to light that in one single distil lery yes, I will venture the assertion in one single distillery in the city of NewYork or Philadelphia or Brooklyn more frauds have been perpetrated than in all the small distil leries throughout the length and breadth of the land. One other point in regard to this measure. It strikes me d. it is a law made for one other purpose: to throw the distillation of spirits (which as a branch of manufactures is perhaps more profitable than any other in the country) into the hands of a few men of capital to crush out those who have not large capital, and to prevent the poor man, who would honestly desire to make a few barrels of whisky which, if any such liquor is fit to drink, is the only kind that is from pursuing the business of distilling. So far as I am concerned individually, sir, I cannot be accused of any personal object in this matter, for if I could have my own desire gratified, and could by a single effective law sweep away this, whole traffic, I would make, the law and strike the blow. But I do not believe such a thing practicable; and if this branch of manufacture, which is a curse to all concerned, is to be indulged in and recognized as a legitimate business, then I protest against this policy, which strikes down the honest poor man and places the whole business in the hands of a few men of moneyed interest. While the possession of money does not necessarily make men rascals or dishonest, I have yet to learn that money alone has ever been found to be a rom.oter of honesty. Although distilling is a that I would never engage in, yet I know that as a general thing the men who are engaged in it in a small way are as honest as any in the land; and I do not wish to see them driven out of their business by the power of capital aided by this law. Again, sir, I repeat that this inspection law, the whole machine from beginning to end, is a measure to create fraud, not to prevent it. It is a law in the interest of a few favored men in this nation, who by their immense capital can establish great concerns and pour out their 1000s of barrels of poisonous liquor, which runs daily down the throats of millions, leading them to destruction, and it prevents poor honest men, who would almost of necessit make a pure article, from engaging in the business at all. In my own district the advocates of this measure say that it is to increase the revenue; but the records show that by its operation the revenue has been diminished. nder the operation of the law of 1865 vastly more revenue was collected than has been collected under the operation of the Present law. Does any man therefore suppose that less whisky has been made, that less whisky has been drunk, or that less is consumed daily? By no means, sir; the only difference is that much of it is now smuggled under the working of this law. Let the law be open. Put on whatever tax you please, as far as quantity is concerned, but let. law be open. To show how it affects the revenue, let me give one or 2 examples. In my own congressional district, under the law of 1865, the revenue collector calculated that it would produce $240,000 revenue. Under the law of 1866, his estimate is that it will produce less than $60,000. And notwithstanding this fall.ing off in revenue more whisky is consumed throughout that section of the country, twice as much, perhaps, as was consumed the preceding year. And is there any less made? Not at all. But this law prevents them from making it in such a manner as that they can report what they do make. I have a letter upon my desk from the collector of that 3rd congressional district. He says that in 1865, under the operation of that law, for the year the total amount of revenue would approxi mate to 275,000 dollars. Under the operation of the law of 1866 for the next year, the revenue, he says, will fall below 73,000 dollars. Take the State of Kentucky alone, and you will find that under the operation of this inspection law we lose more than 600,000 dollars revenue. And the same op. all over the land. only make these general remarks in regard to this subject. I believe, as the Gentfrom NewYork has intimated, that a law may be prepared by which we may collect the rev. enue from this source upon the material which is put in to be manufactured before it goes through the process of fermentation at all; and by doing that we might evade these frauds.