The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-01-10
The Tobacco Tax.

III. Amherst Ne.o Ira does not think
-th,f the repeal OF the tobacco TAX wo"'o
vr any relief TO the totncco-p'sn'ers o.
virginia. II says that It might be wen 'or
other reasons to repeal that tax, : but Ger.
tainiy not for the reason thst i's reieM
would benefit the planter pee""'"''s
The Nee Era adds:
mwhss hiss the sarner TO do with tne
TAXI He docs not pay II. lie pays no ps.s
Of n. and gets exactly the Same p,'se rsa
his tobacco whether the tax Is hign' Tow,
or none. Even IS consumer ne pays
none Of II. because he uses BIS own no".-
spuu.' Every cert Of the revenue thaI Is
derived from tobacco Is paid py the co,r
sun,er and nobody else, and he alone woaio
be the beneficiary il itwere repea'eo'
How would the Ne1 Era like to see aus
teachings carried into effect in regard 70
newspaperss suppose the Government
were TO make It's editor pay five dollars a
wear for each subscriber to whom the -ve'o
Exa Is s,nt: what would he the result!
What would the editor haveto do with TINS
taxY He would not pay 1t out OF his pocket
and would get the same price Tor his paper
whether tlie tax was high, low, or nome
Every cent Of such tax would be paid by
ahe Consumer and nobody else, &C., DC. Or,
IN use a better illustration, suppose wheat
were taxed two dollars bushel whist III
The hands of the men who manufacture II
into Genr: would the farmer get as much
for his wheat, or find half as many custom
ers for il, as nowY
Tobacco-planters are injured by the tax,
II in no other way, in these two First,
because of diminished consumption; and,
secondly, because the heavier the tax the
less the competition among manufacturers
in the purchase OF the leaf. II the tax were
nut at a dollar pomd-as 1t might Just as
well be 80 far as the planter is concerned,
IL the Nen Erals theory be correct-there
would not be half as many men able to en-
gage in the business OF manufacturing as
are now able to do so, and the absence OF
competition In buying the leaf would OF
course be detrimental to the interests oil the
planters The Government receives more
revenue from manufactured tobacco now
than IL did when the tax was much higher.
What does that fact indicate? An increased
consumption. Surely it initiates against the
interests OF the planters to levy upon tobac-
co tax that causes diminished cOnsump-
tion. II the planters raise $50, 900 hogsheads
of tobacco n year, and the tax reduces the
demand so that the public will purchase
only 200, 900 hogsheads, the extra 10000
hOgsheads would cause a very sensible
diminution in the price per pound paid for
the tobacco. There were 434, 600, 900 pounds
tobacco raised in the United States in 1850,
and only 262,OO0,O00 in 1870. There was
no tax I'm 1860. There was heavy tax In
1870 and for several years previous. The
tax made il less profitable TO raise it by
diminishing consumption, and the dimin-
ished consumption necessitated a dimin-
ished crop.
II there are ten thousand manufacturers
now engaged in buying tobacco, there
would be probably less than five thousand
il the tax were raised to fifty cents per
pound. None but rich men could afford to
lay ont fifty dollars on every hundred
pounds of tobacco manufactured and sell
upon time, TO Tom, DICK, and HARRY, here,
there, and everywhere. The millionaire
L0RILLARDs, who buy and sell an immense
quantity OF tobacco annually, expended
thousands Of dollars few years ago in en-
deavoring to prevent reduction OF the
fax on tobacco
There are now enterprising young men,
having not much money, who are engaged
in the manufacture Of tobacco. There
would be few or no such manufacturers II
the tax were fifty cents pound. There
would be many more such il the tax were
entirely removed.
In a word, If there were no tax on to-
bacco. there would be demand for five
hundred millions Of pounds of the weed
every year; and the demand being so much
greater, not only would the price be higher
but more persons might engage in raising
Il and manufacturing it.
Down with the tobacco tax.