The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-01-26

We took occasion, few days ago, to COM
ment upon the vague and contradictory
character of the rulings and decisions which
emapate from the mammoth brain of ''a party
by the name of" Rollins who presides over the
internal revenue bureau at Washington. The
loss, annoyance and interruption to business
imposed not only upon the industry of the
country, but upon subordinate government
officials, owing to this commissioners cratic
conduct, is far beyond our ability to properly
sum up in this brief article. Suffice it to state
the gratifying fact that he is fast rendering
himself unbearable even to his whilom back
ers both in and out of Congress.
Before us is 20 specimen brick which we
suggest that the honorable senators who are
considering the nomination of a successor to
Mr.. Rollins should "make a note on" at this
time. If it will not convince them that he
fails to comprehend the commonest principles
of law as utterly as he ignores the commonest
principles of honesty, it is certainly difficult
to divine what they would demand in the way
of proofs. We will premise by saying that
during two years past, similar misconstruc-
ton of law touching the same class of deal
ers, has given grievous trouble to thousands
of merchants, compelled the government to
refund hundreds of thousands of dollars il
legally collected as taxes, and afforded rare
harvest for the claim agents and harpies who
crook the pregnant hinges of the knee" at
the commissioners court.
The law and ruling with which we propose
to illustrate Mr.. Rollins's stupidity and inefi-
cheney are as follows. Section 50, act July
20, 1869, says:
Wholesale liquor dealers. whose annual sales do
not exceed $4,000, shall pay $1,000; and if ex.
ceediDg s25 900, shall pay in addition ten dollars
for eUeTy $1,000 Of sales Of such spiTts, mines
liquors an e1cess Of $4,000, and on other sales
shall pay as wholesale dealers /; and such excess
shall be assessed and paid in the same manner as
required of Wholesale dealers. Every person who
sells or oilers for sale distilled spirits, wines
malt liquors, whose annual sales shall exceed
$4,000, shall be regarded as wholesale liquor
dealer.
In circular No. 172, Mr. Rollins defines the
meaning of the above very plain enactment as
follows
Any person who sells spirits, etc., and
whose sales of such spirits and all other merchan-
disc exceed $4,000 per annum, :becomes
wholesale dealer in liquors. When his
sales Of all merchandise exceed SIS, 900, then his
liability to the additional rates of tax begins, and
he must pay ten dollars for each Thousand dollars
of his sales of spirits in excess of said $25 000 and
one dollar fer each thousand of bis sales of other
merchandise in excess OF such s25 900.
Under this ruling it is possible that no two
dealers, even though doing the same amount
of business, would be compelled to pay the
same amount of tax, and its operation, there
fore, must be partial and unjust. For exam
pie: John Doe takes out a wholesale liquor
dealers license (S100) on the 1st of May, and
during that month sells liquors to the amount
of $4,000, and other merchandise amounting
to $1,000. Richard Roe, under a similar
(S100) license, sells S24 900 worth of MEL
chandise and $1,000 in liquors. According to
Rollins's decision each of these dealers has
exhausted his license, and his liability to
the additional rates of tax begins" During
the next month (say June) the business of
Doe and Roe-a very likely occurrences
reversed. The former sells but $1,000 of
liquors and S24, 600 merchandise, on which
his tax amounts to thirty-four dollars; while
the latter sells S24 900 of liquors and but
$1,000 of merchandise, on which his tax
aggregates tloo hundred and fory-one dollars
Here, it will be seen, two neighboring mer-
chants, in the same space of time, do bust
ness eSdetly the same in extent, (s25, 900 each
of spirits and of other merchandise,) and yet
Mr.. Rollins would levy upon one tax of
three hundred and forty-one dollars and upon
the other only one hundred and thirty-four-
q difference in favor of the lucky Doe, in one
sixth of the year, Of two hundred and seven
dollars
Comment upon such palpable and gross
laundering would be superfuous; but, in con-
clusion, we will for once heartily concur in an
opinion expressed by Greeley in the Tribune, |
to-wit: 'fThat it is high time Mr.. Rollins be |
permitted to retire from public life to the |
bosom of his airing and anxious family in