The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1878-06-07
PLANTATION STORES.

The decision rendered by the Su-
preme Court ON Monday, 9th ult., rs to
the liability of plantation stores to
license-taxes Is OF great importance to
the whole planting community. Here
tofore this license tax has operated as
a very irksome burden to planters who,
from one cause or another, found 1t de-
sirable to keep small stocks of goods
ON their places. In most cases the
amount of the tax was entirely out of
proportion to the extent of the business
or the profits accruing from its con-
duct. Persons planting on advances
or with capital limited narrowly to the
immediate wants of the business often
find it impossible to meet the outlay
required for full set of licenses and
are thus compelled to forego what
would be great convenience to them AS
we'll rs to their hands. There are
many reasons why it is an advantage
to a planter to be able to keep stock
Of staple merchandise suited to the
daily ordinary wants of his laborers.
1t facilitates his monthly settlements
very materially, for ono thing, while
on the other hand it serves to keep the
men more at home If, indeed, they do
not thereby get u better and cheaper
article for their money. One of the
greatest nuisances the planter has to
deal with is the continual running
backward aud forward between tho
place and the nearest village for such
petty things as tobacco or whisky or
shoes or coffee which the negroes use
as constantly as they do bread and meat
and which he could supply In just as
good quality and on just ns favorable
terms were not the license tax so largo
ly out of proportion to the amount of
the business rs to forbid his incurring
the expense. 1t has often happened
that planters living remote from the
country towns have found it difficult
to hire tho full number of hands need
ed on account of the distance from
"the store'' and tho consequent trou-
bic and expense involved in going to
and fro.
This decision, however, removes all
tho difficulties growing out Of tho store
question, and while relieving tho larger
planters of an inequitablo burden, is
a positive boon to those smaller ones
who would not otherwise have been
aDle to avail themselves of tho benc-
fits ofa store. They can now keep on
hand a stock of all tho articles COM
monty required by plantation laborers
without being liable to any license tax
III consequence, and thus add largely
to the facilities and convenience of
their business.
But while the decision will be a
great relief to planters it will be the re-
verse to country merchants who arc
not planters. 1t illustrates tho Difficult
tics, inequalities and injustice of the
license tax and presents another argu-
ment in favor of its abolition. A
license tax of $3.50 on a small planta.
| tion store is an intolerable extortion
but to take it off in such cases and still
impose it on neighboring country
stores presents glaring case OF un.
equal taxation. A., planter, can sell
goods to b., c., d., ctc., laborcrs, with
out license, while e., II country mer-
chant, must pay $3.50 for selling the
same goods, ut tho Same price, to the
same persons. 1t is not strange that
the Supreme Court should relieve PLAN
tatiOn stores from such u license, but
it is strange how under any reasoning
it can be cNactcd from other country
stores. Ii this docs not present Il case
of want of uniformity, within the
meaning OF the constitution then no
such case can be presented. The whole
system is Il nuisance and inherently
unfair, and every attempt to enforce it
brings the executive officers and courts
in contact with such anomalies us the
abovc.-N. q. Times.
THE NATIAE