River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1888-05-17
Would the Repeal of the Internal Reve-
nue. Taxes Increase Drinkings

Strange as it may seem to the great
majority, IL is nevertheless true that
there are some earnest, active. cOnsci-
entlOuS temperance men, and women
too, who are opposed TO the repeal of
the internal revenue taxes, because
they think that ''free whiskey -
which, they assume, would result,
would lead to its increased consump.
ton, and, therefore, to an increase of
the evils of the traffic. Hence they
favor their retention until such time
as prohibition can be secured.
We believe that little thought will
convince those who are honest and
conscientious in this belief that they
are mistaken. 1t is not our purpose
TO argue this question in this article
from a moral standpoint, but it may
be pertinent to state that there is not
an argument that can be urged on
moral grounds against license that
does not apply equally against the in
ternal revenue taxes.
Not considering this question in its
moral aspect, then. in the first place,
it does not necessarily follow that the
removal of the internal revenue taxes
would give the country free whisky"
1t Is more than probable that in states
where prohibition does not exist a tax
would be levied upon the manufacture
and sale of liquor. So that those
people who favor restriction and not
prohibition, could as well secure what
they desire with the tax removed.
Those who accept regulation tempo
rarily and seek prohibition ultimately
national law, while those who are OPP
posed TO regulation, either temporarily
or permanently, will certainly favor
the repeal of this system of regulation.
In the second place, it is claimed
that the repeal of these taxes, by
cheapening liquors. will make it pos
sible for many to enter the business of
selling liquor at retail who cannot do
SO now by reason of the expense. and
that thus the number of saloons would
be increased. There are a good many
sufficient answers to this. In the
first place, in the United States reve-
nue. laws there is no limit to the num-
Der of saloons that may be licensed eX-
cept the ability to pay the tax, which
is very small; there are no require
ments as to character or endorsements;
no restrictions as to when and where
liquor shall be sold. All the National
Government demands when it issues
the license is the amount of tax, and
that certain rules as to stamps, pack
ages, etc, should be obeyed. Most
state licenses or restrictive laws make
conditions that limit the number of
saloons, and that forbid the sale of
liquors to certain persons and on GER
tain days. SO that, leaving the traffic
entirely to the State restrictive laws,
is much more likely to reduce than To
increase the number of saloons. In
the second place, the chief cost of
starting a saloon is, in most cases not
the liquor, but the rent, furnishing
and embellishing of the saloon. A
very few gallons of liquor, a barrel of
water aud some drugs will start a sa-
loon as far as the beverages are con
cerned. The cost of the liquor never
did and never will decrease the num-
Der of saloons.
Again, and in the third place. it is
claimed that the repeal of the tax
would reduce the price of liquor to the
consumer, and hence, increase its con-
sumption. But very small portion of
the cost of glass of liquor to-day.
with the tax of 90 cents, is the cost of
the liquor, but the cost of rent. help.
profit, etc. Removing the tax would
not reduce the cost of glass of liquor
one cent.
But if it did, it is not cost that de.
termines consumption, but appetite.
A man that drinks now will have all
he wants. He will have no more did
it cost but one-half as much, and if it
is cheaper, when he has all he wants,
there will be possibly more left in his
pocket for his wife and children.-Ihe
White Ribbon.