Mr. McKEE. My colleague [Mr. TRIMBLE] yields to me to ask leave to have printed as part of the proceedings some remarks I have prepared on the revenue law in relation to distilled spirits. No objection was made, and leave was accordingly granted. [The remarks will appear in the Appendix] Mr. McKEE. Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to make some remarks on a subject not at all exciting when discussed in the manner in which I propose; a subject of common interest to the whole country, to those who so lately fought against this country and those who fought in its defense. A subject, I repeat, not at all exciting, but the matter of.too often excites men of all classes, and in high and Ilow places, improperly used, does much harm. refer to the “whisky question, ” and my remarks shall pertain to the law regulating the manufacture of this article. The law framed at the last session and now in force is one which bears with great hardship and severity upon a very large portion of the people of the U.S. . law was framed by those who had the subject in charge ostensibly to prevent fraud and secure the largest amount of revenue to the Government from the manufacture of this article, which is regarded as one of the non-essentials of the community, not necessarily entering into the articles of daily consumption for man. I know that there are very many who in practice at least refute this theory, yet I think the theory a sound one. But.in reality this law was framed for another and that neither more nor less than putting the manufacture of spirits into the hands of a few men of capital, and thus enable them to monopolize the whole business and have the whole control in their own hands. If whisky is to be made at all, and I apprehend the country will not very soon come to the rule that it shall not, why not allow all men who desire to engage in this business a chance to do so with whatever means they have? Why make a distinction between this and other branches of manufacture? Why make a law that in its operations will compel a man to make a great deal of whisky to enable him to comply with the law, or not permit him to make any at all? Of course a man who owns a large distillery, from which he produces through his machinery 25 to 100 barrels of poisonous, drugged liquor per day can easily afford to pay 5 dollars per day for an inspector to watch his machinery, and with this monopoly crushing out all the small makers of whisky and enabling them to send their villaine us stuffs through all the hand to supply the want of pure drinks, they can also afford to pay the inspector not to watch their movements. Instead of being a law to prevent frauds on the revenue this is really a law to encourage fraud; a law which sends a Government spy into every man's establishment, who is responsible to nobody for his acts, is under no bond and under no penalties, whose only interest is to get the 5 dollars per day from the poor distiller for his work of 2 minutes, perhaps, or get ten to 20 times this amount from the rich one for not doing what the law requires, he should do. True, he can be displaced if he proves not honest, but is there any reason to suppose that his successor will not be likewise? I know that details are dry; but as I am certain few men in this House understand where, to what extent, and in what manner whisky is made half so well as a very few know how to dispose of this article when in hand, I propose to show the practical workings of the system. I take my own district in Kentucky, simply because it offers a fair example, and the same rule that applies to this applies equally to all districts in which the population is sparse and the people poor where whisky is made. These poor people, it must be borne in mind, in all the mountain portion of our country bordering on the theater of the late war, and even in its sweep, were generally the people who remained true to the country. From a statement made to me by the late collector of my district, at my request, I present the following facts: Up to the date when the present law went into effect—that is, from the 1st of May to the 1st of September, 1866—there had been made by distillers of the district application for license to the number of 109. These distillers had applied under the belief that the license tax would be the same to them, as distillers under 300 barrrels, that it was in 1865, namely, 25 dollars. Not one of them had the means or facilities to make more than 40 gallons of spirits per week. The general average was from 15 to 25 gallons per week. This embraces only 13 out of the 16 counties in the district, leaving out 3 of the largest and most populous, from which latter the returns are not all in. This number is not the total number of small distillers in the district, for this reason: the great majority do not commence operations until the months of September, Octo ber, and November, consequently do not make application for license until they are ready to commence. The number of these others by whom application for license had not been made, for the reasons stated and because of finding out the onerous workings of the law in time to prevent being entrapped, is estimated from the reports of previous years to be 191, making the total number of small distillers in the district about 300. These men each about aver age making 20 gallons of pure whisky per week, aggregatingjand 80 gal lons during the stilling season of 6 months, many not working more than 2 to 3 months. Total whisky produced in the district by the 300 distillers 144,000 gallons. Assuming that the average product is estimated too high by one half, which is perhaps true, these 300 small distillers produced 72,000 gallons, which brought an annual revenue to the Government of $144,000. The reason for stating that the product of 480 gallons each is too high is, that these men frequently run no more than 2 or 3 months or dispose of their stills, and under the action of the old law could transfer their licenses, and the transfer in a few instances above had been counted as an issual of new license. Out of these 300 distillers who have heretofore pursued the business, as yet but 2 have prepared to run under the new law; the great majority of the others declaring their inability to comply with the new law, for the following reasons: 1. They are required to build bonded ware houses of their own, although general bonded houses are convenient, for the protection of Government, thus involving an expense to each of several 100 dollars in the erection of the building. 2. The necessity of employing an inspector at the rate of 5 dollars per day, and forbid ding them to run without his presence. Entailing an expense in paying wages greatly o: to the value of his services and the value of such like services of any kind according to the rates of labor wages in this country. 3. The necessity of running their high wines or doublings immediately into the receiving cistern under the lock and seal of the inspector, by a series of tubing unapproachable to them, thus compelling them to purchase expensive scientific instruments for the purpose of testing the proof of their spirits and separating the high wines or doublings from the low wines or backings. 4. Being compelled to erect in a suitable room in the distillery, which is not to be entered by the proprietor, except in company with the inspector, as it is under his lock and seal, 2 or more receiving cisterns for the spirits, from which it is to be taken every 3rd day and placed in proper packages in the bonded warehouse,?. further entailing unnecessary trouble, vexation, and expense. To show the trouble and expense to which these small distillers are put, all of which is a part of the plan for crushing them out, I subjoin a circular from the revenue dept: TREASURY DEPT, OFFICE of INTERNALREVENUE, WASHINGToN, October11, 1866. Information has been received at this office that officers of internalrevenue in various parts of country are permitting distillers the to continue under the new law the old practice of separating the low and high wines by allowing them to run into separate open tubs placed near the outlet of the still or worm. It is understood that the almost universal custom in grain distilleries has been to place near the outlet of the worm two.open tubs, into one of which the high, wines, are conveyed, and into the other the low wines—theformer connectedby pipes with the high wine cistern, and the latter with the still or doubler. This arrangement is not consistentwith the terms of the actj.13, 1866. Section 34 (para graph 125) of that not provides that all the spirits distilled during each day, of 24 hours, shall be conveyed on that day into one of the receiving cisternsE. for that purpose, and that such cisternshall be the outlet of thestill bysuitable pipesconnectedwith or other appa ratus, so constructed as always to be exposed to the view of the inspector. This languageclearly prohibits the use of opentubs for separating low, and high wines. The outlet of the still or worm must be connectedwith the cistern by pipes or other apparatus exposed to the view of the inspector. Open tubs are not. pipes or apparatus” contemplatedby other law. The intention of the law, as is well known, is to cut off the opportunities for the commission of fraud heretofore existing. To this end the design was to keep the spirits, as it were, under closeguard continuously, from the worm to the bonded warehouse, by the use of a pipe connecting the worm with the cistern, by having the cistern in a safe room under the lock mindseal of inspector, the and by having thespirits, under the imme diate inspection of which, that officer, drawn off into casks after being duly gauged, proved and marked, he is to see removed, into the onded warehouse, which, again, is under his lock and key. Now, to permit the spirits to be run from the worm into open tubs, for the ostonsible purpose of separating the low from the high wines, would be to frustrate the grand object of safeguards provided the law, and renderall other }. the law wholly, nugatory, Consequently distillers must in all cases be required to connectthestill or wormwith the receiving cistern by pipes or otherowhich must be so constructed as to convey the spirits directly to the cistern. As it is necessaryfor the interest of the distiller to prevent the low wines from running into the o: wine cistern, and as the use of the open tubs for this purpose cannot be allowed, it becomes necessary to adopt some arrangement by which this can be done. It is deemed entirely feasible to separate the low from the high wines by the use of a glass vessel which shall be connectedwith and made a part of the pipes or apparatus connecting the outlet of the still with the receiving cistern. The preciseform of this appa ratus for separating the low and high wines is not now prescribed, but distillers must be immediately notified that some such arrangement mustbeadopted Aanndy dpiusttililneruys which the 15th day of Noyomber next. after that date, shall be found without such apparatus must be closedup and proceeded against according to law. THOMAS HARLAND, Acting Commissioner. In order more fully to understand the objections to the law urged in this objection an explanation of the working of these small cop per stills is needed. The grain is 1st prepared by being ground op into meal or mash; this with a small amount of barley, wetted up, is allowed to ferment, when it is placed into the still and allowed to run through the windings of its worm, and finally into a small tub or half barrel at the mouth or the outlet of the worm. This tub is called the “singling tub, ” and the spirits run into it “singlings.” This is only half made spirits or whisky; its proof only being 20 or 25%., (proof whisky is spir its which will show 50%. of alcohol at 60 degrees temperature, Fahrenheit's ther mometer.) The contents of the singling tub, after the spirits or, more properly, liquid has ceased to run, are poured back into the still. The singling tub is placed aside and the doub ling tub put to the outlet of the worm; and when the spirits begin to run they are received into the doubling tub and the result is whisky. Doublings is only a technical distillers' phrase for whisky. In the language of the dept, doublings are high wines and singlings low wines. Where the hardships of the new law falls particularly heavy is here. After the doublings have run until the experienced distiller judges from the quantity run that proof is about exhausted he takes out the bung of the doubling tub, inserts his proof vial, and judges that proof has ceased when a bead no longer forms. As soon as this period arrives, he removes his doubling tub, containing proof whisky, and places his singling tub at the mouth o“fbathcekinsgtisll.”agaIinf. What run now are called he were to permit this to run into his doubling tub it would spoil his whisky completely, ruin the taste and reduce its proof until it would not be decent grog, (old drinkers, I believe, do notindulgeingrog, buttake whisky straight.) But these backings are too valuable to be lost, and are placed back into the still, run through again, and come out doublings or }. "; The use of the proof vial is never dispensed with, but is in constant use while the operation of doubling is being carried on, whether produced from singlings or backings. According to the new law as explained by a cir cular (special, No. 46) from the revenue office, this manner of having the spirits run into 2 movable tubs, or “open tubs, ” as it calls them, is strictly prohibited. The distiller is not allowed to have access to the spirits at all, but they must be run into sealed and locked cis terns and the proof determined by some scien tific instrument, which would necessarily entail heavy expense, and the high wines (doublings) thus separated from the low wines, (singlings and backings.) These instruments, which will, of course, be new inventions, and like aii new inventions, not perfect, may get out of order or may not be adapted to the small cop per distilleries of the rural districts, and if so, on failure to perform their labor, the spirits would be ruined, entailing a heavy loss on the poor of the mountain parts of our land. But I come back to this inspector, who has nothing at stake and everything to gain by defrauding the distiller in the reports of his spirits—not being under bond, while the distiller himself is under heavy penalties; heavy fines, and penalties awaiting cyery slight in fraction of the law, whether by negligence, ignorance, or intention, with a moiety to the informer—this inspector is nothing less or more than a spy paid by his victim, with great inducements in the shape of reward in moiety of fine for discovering dereliction on the part of the distiller; even if in some instances under the natural frailty of human nature he is comelled to add imagination to real violations of law to convict his unfortunate ol. 6. Under the law he is not only compelled to pay his inspector 5 dollars for his services, but in addition he is further compelled to pay him one mill per gallon for every gallon of spirits inspected, thus paying twice for the same services; or, in other words, he is by law compelled to pay for services for which he has already employed and paid the laborer: The amount is very small, but the principle is none the less worthy of attention. The great majority of the distillers in the rural districts are honest and good men, and believe their business proper, whether so or not although the product of distillers of spirits proves a curse in the land, immensely overbalancing the good derived from whisky in any manner; yet the results are infinitely more appalling from the consumption of the products of the large distilleries than that of small ones. The spirits manufactured are perfectly free from foreign or deleterious substances, and if whisky and apple brandy are to be manufactured at al under the eye of Government officials it seems as if a peculiar protection should be thrown around those who manufacture pure spirits, which if not harmless, (and they are not necessarily so,) are at least less harmful than the drugged and poisonous production of the great steam distillery which pours its 100 barrels of noxious spirits out per day. I know the large manufacturers are making strenuous efforts to have the tax increased. This is not necessary; and while it would enable the great establishments to still further grasp this whole business, enable them to commit still greater frauds—for I venture the assertion that in almost every large city an establishment can be found that has committed more fraud since this law went into effect than it would have been possible for all the small distilleries in any whole State in the Union to have committed in the same period of time — the decrease of tax, without removing this inspection, and relieving them from, building their bonded warehouses, which are wholly use less and add unnecessary expense, when they are located for the storage of the article all over the country and by authority of the government will not afford relief. The distillers through the country have become accustomed to paying the tax; it enables them simply to.this much to their price for the whisky. They cannot sell until this tax is paid, and they do not seek, after they once know the law, to evade it save in a very few instances. When the law 1st went into force they did not see how they could get on without selling their whisky 1st; but now they can understand this very well. It enables them to compel men to pay for whisky before it is consumed; to sell for cash and not on credit. But they cannot build these bonded houses and they cannot pay this inspector. In cities there may be much illicit stilling in a small way, but the amount is greatly increased by this law. Relieve them of the bur dens of inspection, &c., and they can and will pay the tax. If men are so dishonest in your arge cities that you need to prevent all men from engaging in a business recognized as legit imate, except such as have immense capital — and I have yet to learn that large wealth of itself makes men honest—throw around your cities such guards as you choose; butletus place the poor honest countryman, who has not learned to deceive, in a position where he can live on what he has, be it ever so small, and follow his occupation, while this occupation is allowed at all, without being ground to death either by Government taxes, paid not to the Government, and from which the Government gets no reward, but into the pockets of greedy individuals, or by having his enterprise crushed entirely out by men who can command capital in abundance. I urge, as a matter of justice to the poor men of the land, a modification of this law., Let all those who make less than 20 barrels per annum be relieved from the provision requiring inspection and bonded ware. houses. Let the law be to this class as it was before the act of the last session of 1866, since not only no harm can come of it, but great good. The revenue will be increased largely from this source. Frauds will diminish; and, as whisky will be drank, men can get an article which is pure and fit for man to drink—that is, if any at all is fit. For myself, if all men were like me little whisky would be required. Coffee houses, sa. loons, and bars would close, not by law, but because no man went into or near them. Dis. tilleries would also cease to make spirits to drink, because no man would drink their prod ucts. But all men are not s;o and as they will drink whisky, let us not by oppressive laws so hamper its manufacture that only those who know, or have the means to enable them to learn, how by poisonous matter to so adul terate and increase its quantity from substances which do not enter into its legitimate make can produce this article. Put the law back as to these small distillers as it was in 1865 and you will get more money for taxes, be less annoyed by frauds, and save a vast amount of vexation not only to the revenue officer, but also to the manufacturers of pure liquors. I know very well that the revenue commissioners and some others have been waging a relentless war against small distillers. remember the effort to put the tax up to $1,000, so that only men of great wealth could make whisky. But this or any other similar project is awar against the poor. As well, say a man shall not make “wooden pails” unless he makes to the amount of $1,000 per month. Then again, I have heard this talk of the English system, where the Government itself makes or controls the manufacture of all the spirits or owns the distilleries. Let us in this country have none of this English system, where the poor are ground to the very dust by the wealthy lords of the land; where men of capital have absolute control over all enterprise. Let us by wise and beneficent laws give the poor an equal chance with the rich to engage in whatever business the laws of the country allow to be carried on. The theory of our Government is that no class shall be privileged. Let us put it in practice. Let the tax on the product remain as it is; but let the law be so modified as to bear equally upon all. I trust that this House will see the propriety of this modification of o;justice to the poor, whom it is the duty of the Government to care for and protect. One word further as to how this law affects the revenue. By this burdensome law now in existence the product of whisky in my own district alone is decreased from 75,000 to 150,000 gallons per annum; and the loss to the rev. enue of the country is certainly $150,000, perhaps as much as $300,000; and my own is but little more than an average for my State. So that the decrease to the revenue alone from that State is not less than $1, 350,000, and most likely to the extent of $2, 500,000. Has the Government gained anything by crushing out these small distillers? Absolutely nothing. Other grain growing and sparsely settled States, like my own, are affected in the same manner. The revenue commissioners are appalled at the apparent enormous decrease in the production of whisky. The decrease is only an : one, not real. So modify the law that the honest, poor man can engage in the manufacture, and fet his reports be added to the reports of the honest man of wealth, and the increase offer enue will beas great from this source as hasbeen the apparent decrease in the product of whisky. The revenue commissioners will not be ap" palled, except that frauds will be only one where now 100. If by this law as now existing any less whisky would in the end be made, and any less drank, I should not ask its modification. Less is made in certain localities; but this only gives the large manufacturer the chance himself to make the more, which he does, and sends it forth into all these rural districts, and by having the whole matter in his hands is enabled to cheapen whisky, because he can sell the more, and the consumption instead odrfinbkeiinnggless is vastly more, and the effects of this poison vastly more appalling. If this evil of making and drinking whisky—making is not an evil in itself but the drinking—is to be put an end to by law, let that law crush the great as well as the small maker.