Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-03-28
SCARCITY OF GOLD WATCHES.
Has the Internal Revenue Law Scared
Them into Hiding?
From the Boston Advertiser.

From the Boston Advertiser.
The internal revenue tax on gold watches
brought to light some singular facts in re-
gard to this article of general diffusion and
common convenience. In 1866, for instance
gold watches valued at a hundred dollars
or under, paid tax of Slower one hun
dred dollars the tax was 81. During the
first half of that year the aggregate of the
one dollar tax was 1927 ,554 A, and of the
two dollar tax $751; 99 %. In this esti-
mate the States of South Carolina, Florida,
Alabama, Mississippi and Texas were not
included.
Assuming that the returns were honestly
made, we find that there were rather more
than three hundred and forty thousand
persons in the returned States and terrific
ries, who wore gold watches in the year
1866. At the average value of SIS these
were worth nearly $29,000,000. 1t may,
however, well be doubted whether one-half
of the watches actually in use were given
in to the revenue officers. We question
whether seventy-fve millions dollars would
have bought all the gold-cased time keepers
which were that year in use.
When we compare the returns from dit
ferent States we find remarkable differences
suggestive of curious questions az to the
relative means, habits and morals possibly
of different communities. Would any one
suppose that the little State of Rhode Is
land, with about one-thirtieth of the terri
tory and one-ffth of the population of the
great State of Maine wears az many gold
watches as her gigantic sister in the North !?
The difference of tax was only eight dol
lars. Poor frugal, hard-delving, wood
chopping Maine How many of her toll
worn sons must still put up with silver
cssed watches or cheap clocks, or even
with the old noon-mark upon the kitchen
window sill.
But here comes Connecticut thrifty,
calculating, clock-making, tin-pedding
Connecticut She, certainly, is too pru-
dent-not to say too penurious-to indulge
in the luxury of gold watches. Let us see.
The tables show that she paid into the ma
tioDal chest for this single indulgence as
much "a Maine and Rhode Island both
paid. Now, if she pleases to wear watch
of gold, and even a chain of the same ma
terial, who has better right? Connect
cut, according to recent statistics, is the
wealthiest State in the Union. In other
words, she has the largest amount Of prop
erty compared with her population. Until
quite lately, this distinction belonged to
Rhode Island
While Massachusetts for her gold watch
rs paid fifty thousand dollars, the great
State of Pennsylvania, with all her wealth Of
soil, and coal, and iron, and oil. was cred
tied with only forty thousand dollars.
Without this record could il be imagined
that there are more gold watches on the
ten square miles of the District Of Colum-
bia, than in all the vast territory of the
odd Dominion ~ True, the Washingto-
mans live close by the Treasury, and could
very easily hand in their little assess-
menis But this surely could not make all
the difference. Oh no; for in this simple
statement lies compressed a whole volume
Of moment0us history.
The amount OF gold watch tax paid by
North Carolina was only sixteen dollars.
AT the foot Of the descending scale we find
the once wealthy and powerful and proud
State of GeoTgia-Georgia, whose very
name was reminder OF gold, when the
plscers of California we're yet unheard of.
Well may a tear follow the inevitable
smile with which We read that she paid in
10 the exchequer Of the nation the pitifnl
sum of one dollar, for the only gold watch
remaining 10 that Commonwealth.