New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1866-01-16
The Des,rucsive Il xacsiess Of the Rcvcsue
Tax on Dress.lnaiers.


The late determination of the Reyenue
oacers to enforce the unjust exlcioD of The tax law
on dress.makers-as It row stands-als occesioned
widespread CONSERVATION amorg 'hcm. Tie majority
see before them an absolute closing Ny Of their only
business while lilo few who eaioy successful dress
making in connection VITA other branch of bust.
ness--snrh az millinery or fancy goods otcin which
hcr cop al Is invested have the prospect Of being sol
out TO pay the tax due on their drcssmekrg.
Tho section OF the Revenue Law requiring SIX per
ceat on tie gross value OF the articles Is absolutely des
trueivc to the whole dres..mskIng business The lag
stands tlus ION ready made clothing, boots SHOES.
gloves mttens and moccasins caps, hats and bounes
or other articles OF dress otherwise assessed and
taxed sucl for the wear Of men, WOMEN children
Ave per cent sd valorem.' A further amendment de-
cares; Ores makers making articles "a order.
custom work. and not for sale gcneraly, shall 10 the
amount Of u, 600 be exempt from duty. and FOR any
excess beyond o. coo ak per cent"
Now, OF all tho manufactures Hentloncd-'alnrs
sboemakors iliners furniture makers. ETC.. cfcthe
only which provides no materials, and therefore
derives Profit from the goods used is dross. making
There appears 20 have been Interpretation the
Part q legislators IN regard TO ;his nater-aDd
reasonably enough there was no representation Of
tie making Interest in Congress. IS In the Of
dres lakors toe ether aud say all should be taxed at
The same rate. The ta,lors and mlEers keep stock
Of materials and trimmings ON hand, which bought
fflf@efft
we'll as or The making amounting from 80 70 per
cent on tie whole. But. with dEesslnakcrs not one IN
hundred ever provides the material for dress for
customer and, even In the Instances IN which she
does So size LAS 70 purchase tie dress a. retail prize.
the Customer merely remburslg her for ihe actual cost
OF tie article. Frequently she drcssIiaker finds lDngs
sometimes tie trimmings; but often rich llce such az
Point, Chanti!iy, GuipuTe. etc. etc. nre rc'rlAlqsa
on dresses, over and over again. and yet rs tie law
stands, tie dress maker IS called upon 10 pay tax the
fH ydue Of tie lace eyery tine II Is thus used and H.
IA lD hf
tween the cost of materials nnd tie price rcce ed Tor
making them mp, We viii give nm example: lady
brings rich ;nofeau!uc W her dress maker costing
FOR the TX alone sl2D: tue poiut lace Heb she brings
10 trim H. the value OF which is eco Gan ordinary sul)
the dresmaler charges her for making sl5 Which the
customer thinks pretty heavy SUN for making dfaJs
on which tLesc is no trimming but lace. There is
about 81 more for Innings luttols, sewing silk, etc.
making IN al. for goods and work. S3i2, tie tx on
which Is SO o. III Is plain that busncss can o0u
time that Las 10 pay so u for tie privilege OF
doing Slj worth OF work. Nor can II be- supposed
that any lady vii bo willing. 10 rag her dress
maker s35 20 for simply making heI dress 80
90 ~ allow her to meet the tax, especially vixen
ladies' can avoid the tar bv having drasmaklng done
ct home Thus the whole dress.nakiug business is in
danger Of being destroyed. Again take an ordinary
tlaci silk dresr, the ik will cost say s50 trimming
$40; Innings. etc. 81; meLinc s5: the whole value
s7l. Tie tax on this viii be ~ g. leaving Gle to
delay the expense Of tho assistance and rent La yv
Of this unequal bearing Of the law the Revenue officers
hare from Tho first been reluctant believe that IL was
intended 10 make sBch extraordinary demands of a
Ils oi ptfsOh 20 btfcfhll unable 10 earn Than
meet their expenses and who in most instances aye
women depending eaiirely on dToss-making for the
support OF themselves nnd families and who generally
have no knowledge Of any other business This con.
sderation, together with the very meager urieos
usually paid for that kind OF work has led the Revenue
officers TO ieira DIN from enforcing the law on dress
makers except IN very few Instances. In every case
wLe-e tho law has been enforced tao dreesnakrr has
been sold out by tho Sheriff aud but small propOrt up
of the tax realized. She is compelled either 10 ye 10
the business resort 10 every sort Of sabiar.
fnge to conceal tue amount OF her business ana
perhaps make false report Of tho same These
are her only alternatives. IL Is very certain thai
the community are not willing 10 See slca
injustice uOro To industrious working women
and i surely could not have been the design of our
legislators to put such prohibition on dress ma ing as
busnesL Now all loyal people agree that tho taxes
"a general thing. are Just aud ought be paid nm.
grudgngiy and cLeeriu.iy. Is not this rather KILN
the goose 20 get the golden eggsf Already Tie IN.
Justice OF the tax has been in the case OF
jewellers, vno are occasionally liable 10 have the value
OF TIC material sent immensely dhproporlinnel 10 The
work placed u.on III hrt t.o Injustice OF The tax s t
Bi.aier Ia me tse VI dlessmaleIs. II nav be Thought
qniie az prohtIbe Tor dTes akers % work y Tie dy
In private iamics,es M large dfes, making estahli,t
meb'S I'M perhaps Is very true OF few who INV
be expert ~ cutting and fitting and ll tae tho h,,
Tesl"ut'DllN oi the hnsaess; bar VIII n to bccor
OF the hIge class who only work under direction
VINO are me soNcrs doing the very best work bpt
laYe no trirnt Ilr DIm cutting II IL well "a ,u
III al estaOhhnenis both ta ring aaL Dir, s.nniib,
Thai Lot one ~ twenty of The lrst hands a,e co,upsts
W ut oud bt mo best vinss Of work r sls an ontr
garment lEess mere sewers, ta.y rsfy be deg,g
en'co ~n,t bc provided Tor and how tb,s " be or.