Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-07-28

be heavily taxed-taxed seventy-iye per
| cent. ofs its value. Ia 1870 We imported
100000 dozen OF spool thread, valued at
s., 222. Az, which paid duty tax TO the
government Of 1891 1896 05. The value OF
this cotton thread was nearly fifteen cents a
dozen and the tax nearly eleven cents a
dozen. The cost laid down in New York
was twenty-six cents, 10 which add two cents
for insurance, freight, etc, making twenty
believe for fifty cents a dozen. The profit
of the importer, jobber and retail merchant
together is about seventy-fve per cent. Now,
then, leave off that tax and the cost laid
down in New York would be seventeen
cents, and add seventy-fve per cent. profit
and we have thirty cents. So it ia apparent
that were there no tax on spool cotton it
could be cold at thirty cents a dozen just as
profitable 10 the merchants as it is now at
fifty cents. The tax imposed by the govern
mem, while only eleven cents a dozen, really
adds twe5ss cents to the cost OF the article.
Our peskss could get spool cotton twenty
cents cheaper per dozen than we now do il
Il was not for the tax levied by the govern
ment. And yet the perfumery Republicans
take the tax eff hair oil, etc, and leave it on
spooI-cotton. But then il may be said that per-
hsps the government derives much money from
the tax on spool-cotton and but little from
hair oil, etc. The reverse is the case. The
perlumery tax yields the government,
we believe, 81 100000, while the tax on
spool cotton brings in to the government
only trile. In 1880 the government
received from this tax only S25,693. Why,
then, should this tax be retained? There
were imported in 1880, 253,700 dozen Of ordi-
nary spool cotton, valued at S34, 800, on
which tax of S25,67S was collected. That
was all the government received from this
tax; and since then the receipts have proba-
bly, been less. The Il, 100000 families in the
United States use at least 100000 dozen
spool cotton rear; two dozen and a-half of
spool cotton to family is certainly a small
allowance year, is it not? Besides, these
figures show that in 1870 we manufactured
100000 dozen and imported 100000, |
making 10000 000 dozsn consumed when our |
population was only 36,e00,C00. Now with |
a population of $4,000, 600, we could consume |
30 O00, 900. These retail for fifty cents a |
dozen, and the additional cost because of the |
lsriff tax is twenty cents dozen. The peo-
pie thus pay Sc, 600, 900 more for their, spool |
thread than there is any necessity for |
and the government collects only $685. |
1913. While the people are burdened
to the extent of S6,O0O,000 the government
. benefited only to the extent of S25, 693. /
Why then is the tax continued? Who gels
he benefit OF it? That it ia not continued
n the interest or the people is clear; and
hat it is not continued in the interest OF the
is equally clear. II is an ar
angement TO make the people pay q big
,onus 10 three or four Northern msnuisc-
urers. They get the benefit; they pocket
he 10000 The people ere burdened TO
nrich them. Congress has been asked to
epeal this tax, but the Republicans prefer
0 repeal the hair.oil tax and retain this
ontrivance whereby the people are forced 10
'ay tribute to these manufactures who sup
'ly Republican leaders with money for cam
aign purposes.