The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1874-02-21
An Opon letter TO the General Assem-
bly-How Certain Taxes Ought to be
Levied.
CLOVER HILL PRS, }
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA, ,
February II, 1874.

CLOVER HILL PRS,
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA.,}
February II, 1874. }
To the Editors Of the Dispatch:
We desire to make through the columns of
your valuable paper some suggestions to the
Legislature in reference TO the tax on liquor
merchants, whereby, We think, the persons
engaged in that business would be protected
and benefited, and the State receive largely
increased amount of revenue. By section
II of chapter 30 of the Code of 1873 the
specific license-taX to every person for the
privilege Of selling liquors by retail is $50,
and By section 10 Of the same chapter re-
tail liquor dealer is construed as being one
who sells Gin quantities CT gallon or less " !;
and in addition to the above specific tax OF
$50 retail dealer is required to pay, " be-
tween tho 1st and 18th OF July and Janu-
ary," an additional tax Of five per cent. upon
the gross amount of all sales made by retail.
An Ordinary-keeper Is required to pay about
S25.
Now, we would suggest that a specific
license-tsx of $50 be imposed upon all per-
sons who engage in the sale of liquors,
keepers,-this would put all persons upon
tsx of FIVE DER cent. be not upon sales Gin
quantities Of gallon or less" but upon or
binary or sales by the drink in excess of
21UO per month; that is, the licensed person
shall have the privilege, by paying specific
tax OF $50, OF selling liquors either By the
measure or the drink 10 the amount Of 300
Der month; and if he sells in excess Of that
amount he shall be required to pay five per
nopt upon NIL sales nv the drink
In the county and in most Of our cities
large number of dealers take out the present
ordinary license, and yet sell both ways.
They have in the county particularly but lit
tie risk to run, and if detected or reported,
which seldom occurs, small dealers can
make away with their small stock of goods
before the slow process OF the law can reach
them. BY making every person engaged in
the liquor business take out this license,
other than wholesale dealers, the Govern
ment would certainly gel $50 from every one
who sells at all, be it little or much. If his
sales are small, he should only pry the speci-
fc Iicense.taX !; if his sales are large, let him
pav the additional tax Of five per cent. upon
all sales by the drink in excess Of
500 per month. The last Legislature
made grave error in imposing the tax Of
five per cent. upon the "sa!eS of the retail
desler.' 1t should have been upon the
"ordinary- keeper" for any one engaged in
the business will admit that the profits are
five times greater on liquors sold by the
drink than when sold by the measure. If the
profit by the measure should be 100 per
cent, the profit by the drink is certainly
500 per cent. This injustice is SO plain anu
obvious as to require but little argument to
convince any one of its unfairness. Take,
for example, country merchant, who under
the present law pays $65 for selling by the
measure and by the drink; his sales, say,
are 1900 per month. A city Ordinary or
restaurant keeper pays only S25, and his
sales are the same. Yet the country mer'
chant, whose sales by the drink may only De
$50, has to pay five per cent. upon Tue oaianee
$3.50 of his sales, when bis proht on thts
portion of the sales (by the measure) Is only
100 per cent, and the profit OF tie ORDINARY
keeper upon every cent OF his safes 10y tne
drink is 500 per cent. ls not this plain ana
nalpable injustice? We believe by making
The specific license tax equal and UNIFORM,
the State would realize larger amount or
revenue, and more equally and justly u.s.
tribute the burden Of taxes imposed on The
merchant for the maintenance and support
of the Government. We would also re-
spectfully suggest specific tax of $50 upon
any and all persons selling goods, wares,
and merchandise by retail, whether they are
| keepers of stores or not, and the repeal
of the present ad yalorem tax upon stock OF
goods and merchandise, &c. In reference to
| this matter we would state that since the re-
peal of the old law, which required this spe-
cific tax, every saW.mill man, Woodcutler,
barrel.maker, and Rell-to do farmer has turn.
ed merchant in small way that is, they keep
what they call commissary or thunderstorm
and sell to aud furnish not only their own
employees, but to the laborers in their own
| immediate neighborhood, for which prlvl-
lece they pay the Government nothing at all
for if they do not sell liquors they have nc
specific tax to pay, but only the ad oalorena
which amounts to nothing, because thei
goods are of perishable nature and they d.
not lay in large stocks at time, but rep!en
isb every two or three weeks or keep but {
small amount of capital in this bust
ness, and yet their aggregate yearly sales ant
profits arc considerable. These persons ar
moaopoliZlpg the trade that belongs to th
merchant, aud are absorbing the profits tina
are his due, and the State derives no benefit
from one and yet imposes heavy taxes on tn
other. BY the passage of law in accord
ance with the above suggestion the revenue
would be largely increased, because if th
parties engaged IN the dnmissary" bus
ness decline to pay the "speciic tax" NOR
country stores would be opened, and th
revenues would be proporlionaoly increased
We have conversed with good many mel
chants 10 reference to the above evils, an
we believe these views embody the sent
ments and wishes of the majority in th
county, and we earnestly trust the Lesisl
ture will give them the consideration the