Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-01-11
The Louisville COurter-Journnh o."
Internal Revenue aud raria.
~ IA EdLior al az Dispntch

tobacco tax. paraded to the front the ven
cradle chestnut which many time and
Oft before has done like dnty. lttold you
that the consumer pays the tax and not
the people OF Virginia. He does pay
the tax in the sense that 1t Is collected
from him. but it is easy TO show that the
Courier. Journal and its class misapply
the proposition to Justify an odious. sys-
tenn of taxation. II is not true that the
burden falls entirely on the consumer,
and with any other meaning the PROPOSE
ton is valueless for the argument OF the
COuriCr-JoUJndi.
WHY is it not true? Because the con-
sumer will not consume. The demand
for any article depends very largely
upon the price. The tax by raising the
price shuts off part OF the consumptive
demand. Now the elementary propo-
sition is that the market value OF all
articles is regulated by the cost OF pro
duction and supply and demand. 10
diminish the demand, therefore, will
drive down the price to new lower
point. to which the cost Of maDufactu-
ring and the price of the leaf will have
to adjust itself The planter will have to
sell his leaf lower or stop making 1t, or
both, IN part.
Does the C0Wicr-JoHrnaL yield the
point? If not let us see again. Sup
pose the Government should tax all daily
newspapers on every copy sold, all street
railways and railroads OF the country on
every passenger, fixed rate equal say
l l. &c tI., a.
newspapers and railroad fares IN the
United States. AS the tax would be
added to the cost of its production IN
the price paid by the subscriber, would
the editor object that any burthen
fell on him? And yet would not
there be q curiaiment of newspaper en-
terprises. and would not many a news
papers big profits cease to exist? Would
not the business Of those who furnish
the raw material of paper be injured ?
Would not the present ever-swelling
profits OF many very valuable street
railways and Interstate railroads vanish
into thin air, and would there not be
complete revolution and large injury to
the railroad business and travel of the
United States? Would not maledic
tions loud and long from the owners OF
newspapers and railroads and their sub
scribers and passengers be heard through
out the country in thundertones not
soon TO be forgotten?
You tell us, Mr.. Coricr-JoUrRai
editor, in Harpcr'S Magazine for Janu-
ary. that those who do not agree with
Your views are tariff men first "and
Democratic afterward." Let ussee what
youare.
If the burthen of taxation is shared
by the producer and all engaged in
/ handling the article taxed along with
the consumer, as | think has been shown,
then the tillers of the soil share the
burthen Of the mternal-revenue taxation
which vou seek to perpetuate.
Your cU-hborer. the Charleston Ners
and courier, although agreeing with
You that the consumer pays the tax, was
/ led some time back to make the state
ment that the tariff tax laid by Great
/ Britain on tobacco SIS not borne by the
British consumer alone. The American
/ farmer who produces the tobacco pays
part Of the enormous tax, inasmuch as
| tobacco suitable for the English market
is sold at much lower prOportionate
price than tobacco which can be sold in
markets where the tax is light" This is
all true, and since true, settles the whole
question. At the present time il is sup
posed that the proposition to reduce the
tax on tobacco in Great Britain from
eighty four to fifty cents will double
British consumption, and, of course,
enhance the price OF leaf in consequence
Thus whilst the internal revenue bur
thens the American producer, the for
eign manufacturer shares the burthen of
tariff taxation.
You, Mr. CoUricr-JoWndl editor, talk
much OF the robberies of the tariff.
Large reductions ought to be made
there and much injustice ought to De
corrected But You and extremists like
Won are the difficulties in the way. You
shall know how.
A tariff of 80 per cent. average
duty will yield more income than 80
per cent-too much income if the
whiskey tax is retained quite enough for
Government needs if the liquor tax is
abolished
You will not agree, as understand it,
to a revenue tariff on the condition of
abolition of the excise tax on liquors.
Why not In 1867 your State OF Ken
lucky distilled less than per cent. of
all spirits made in the United States.
Illinois distilled Il per cent. In 1886
Kentucky distilled over 20 per cent. and
Illinois nearly 81 per cent. ; and together
over 81 per cent. of all spirits made in
the country were distilled by these two
States Thus, under the enormous ex-
else tax on spirits, the consumptive de-
mand for grain for distillation has been
so congested that you and your neigh
Dor, Illinois, control to-day the major
part OF the distlling business Of the
country. Above all else, do you not de-
mand that this tax shall be continued?
To'reform Government taxation large
reduction on the basis OF revenue tariff
would be impossible if the liquor tax
we're retained 70 continue internal
revenue taxes it is necessary to adjust
the tariff by a very large addition to the
free list or to make it quite prohibitory
III many cases.
As the latter is impracticable you de-
mand the abolition of the duty on many
articles and the putting of many others
below the point of revenue tariff,
although you confess in your article in
Harper that manufactured goods are
lower in this country to-day than in
1860.
This is due largely to what you and
your free-trade faction are blind to-the
fact that other than foreign competition
is possible-the home competition
amongst Americans.
Mr.. Carlisle, in the October Forum,
speaks euphemistically OF tobacco and
spirits as injurious Injuries" and you
and the large distillers OF your section
join in the demand to "tax the vices.
Your and their appeal to the temperance
element of this country to assist you to
lay this tax, but for the weighty interests
involved, would be really a laughable
farce Are you frank in stating this as
the real reason for your position? Does
not the fact that you control the distilliug
business through this tax chiefly induce
you to seek its perpetuation II so,
may | not say that you are for internal
taxation first, and, incidentally after