288 REPORT OF THE INDIAN HEMP DRUGS COMMISSION, 1893-94. [CH. XIV.
for taxation commodities of which the consumption is not likely to be
restricted to any great extent through the desire to avoid payment of the tax,
as all such restriction increases the excess of the loss to the public caused by
the tax over and above the gain to the Treasury, since the persons who are
driven to consume commodities which they do not like so well suffer a manifest
loss of utility. But there is one exceptional case very important in our own
system of taxation in which this principle does not apply, viz., where the
commodity taxed is largely consumed in excess of what is salutary. So far as
such excess is prevented by the tax, the restriction of consumption is positively
beneficial to the community; and though legislative interference with the sole
object of limiting the consumption of dangerous commodities is emphatically
condemned by advocates of natural liberty, they have not for the most part pushed
their antagonism so far as to maintain that the selection of taxes ought
not to be partly influenced by this consideration." In the opinion of the
Commission, the general principle may be fearlessly asserted that it is right to
tax intoxicants; and the higher they are taxed the better, provided the considera-
tions mentioned in the last paragraph are not lost sight of. The primary object
of such taxation should not be the enhancement of the revenue, but the control of
the habit; and, if this end is kept in view, the revenue which flows into the Treasury
from this source need be viewed with no more suspicion than the fines on
criminals for breaches of the law. If it is necessary to put briefly in words a
description of what the policy of the Government should be in regard to
the hemp drugs, it would be somewhat as follows: To control their use, and
especially their harmful use, in such a manner as to avoid a worse evil, and,
subject to this proviso, to tax them as fully as possible.
Systematic treatment necessary.
588. In order to bring about such control as will enable Government to deal
thoroughly with the question, systematic treatment
is necessary. The system approved for one province
must not be reversed in the next. A standard of administration consistent with
itself must be put before the Native States, which in many cases are interlaced with
British territory, or it will be impossible for them to co-operate. On this subject
the evidence of Mr. J. W. Neill, Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces,
may be quoted. He says: "I think in the case of a drug so generally consumed
as ganja, the system of taxation and control should be, if not uniform for all
provinces, yet on somewhat the same lines, and that the tax should fall, if not
at the same rate, still at such rates that there should be no great temptation to
smuggle from one part of British India into another." It is doubtless owing to
the same feeling that Mr. Cadell, Member of the Board of Revenue, North-
-estern Provinces, records his opinion that "the present system of taxation
(in those provinces) is not worthy of maintenance," and that "other Governments
should not alter rates of taxation where other provinces are concerned without
consulting them." This is also no doubt what underlies the opinion of the
Madras Board of Revenue given in March 1892 that "restrictions will gradually
have to be placed on the cultivation, possession, and transport of ganja." In this
connection the opinions of Mr. Vidal, Chief Secretary to Government, and Mr.
Reid, Commissioner in Bombay, may be quoted to the effect that there is no reason
why the hemp drugs should be cheaper in that Presidency than in other provin-
ces; and that of Mr. Rivaz, First Financial Commissioner in the Punjab, that
hemp drugs in that province are insufficeintly taxed.