The times., 1899-06-15
THURSDAY, JUNE Is. 1899.
Department Store Taxation.

Department Store Taxation.
Tomorrow there is TO be hearing before
a committee of the New York city coun-
Gil on a bill which proposes license tax of
five hundred dollars on each separate de-
partment of every department store, and
the occasion is looked forward to with
considerable interest in metropolitan mer-
camille circles.
For several years efforts have been
made to induce various State Legislatures
TO enact laws in this direction, but they
have been successful only in Missouri
where. al its latest session, the Legislature
passed bill providing that every depart
ment store in the cities of St Louis, ST.
Joseph, and KanGas City, employing If
teen persons or more shall pay a license
Of not less than three hundred nor more
than FIVE hundred dollars upon each de-
partment or group Of goods. Reviewing
this legislation. the New York Tribune
says editorially:
The law divides merchandise into twenty
eight groups, and subdiyides these groups into
classes. Proprietors OF dry goods stores must
fine their stocks 10 dress goods, staple products
of The loom, such as cotton goods. prints, table
linen. etc. For ribbons, notions, millinery,
gloves, ready-made garments, boots and shoes,
art works, and all other groups OF articles which
are put into departments, a license must be paid.
A license commissioner for each city appointed
by the Governor. ard paid by 10 per cent conf
mission all his collections Is TO decide upon
the amount Of the tax in each city, making it
uniform on all stores
The practical working Of this law will be an
interesting subject for contemplation. While II
is the first experiment Of the kind in this country
-. g.. Sv Fhss Iasra
stores have been taxed in France SINCE lsis. but
on a quite different basis from that adopted IN
the Missouri law. tax Of . francs (si-s3) was
first imposed upon every enplore, and another
of onc-teuth Of the rentable value Of the prem
ises occupied. Later, these rates were doubled
Tor all stores in which the number Of employees
exceeded 200, and irebled where they were more
than 1909. Under this amended law, the Bon
Narche OF Paris pays annually $4,000 francs
tssi. .s32), the Nagasns du Louvre 4S3, 900 francs
(ss3. .559) and the Priytemps Il7,0Ol francs (s22.
aSI In lsss the law was again amended by re-
ducing the proportional tax on the largest class
OF department stores and increasing it on the
smaller ones, which have less than 200 employees
The French law, which Was enacted in response
10 the cxcrtions OF organization OF 1000 re-
tail merchants who complained, As similar mcT-
chants in this country complain now, that the
department stores running their business, has
been virtually Ineffective Ii has been amended
repeatedly. always in the supposed interest al the
retail merchant, but IN spite OF It. the business
Of the department stores has steadily increased.
As final effort to check their growth. 1t was
proposed 10 increase the tax by IL per cent Dui
public opinion condemned this excessive and
the measure was defeated.
In connection with the foregoing, a re-
cent report of our Consul General at Ber-
lin. Mr. Frank y. Mason, gives an ac-
count of a debate on the subject of the
department store competition with small
traders, which took place in the Prussian
Diet last April. number OF retail deal
ers in various parts of the Kingdom had
petiticned for the imposition Of a tax upon
the combination concerns which should
operate to reduce their advantage over
smaller business houses dealing in single
CT few lines of merchandise. This was
not the first agitation OF the general ques-
zion in Germany. In 1896 the Royal Cham
Der OF Saxony had imposed tax on depart
ment stores of not exceeding two per cent
Of their gross annual sales. which the COM
munes and municipalities Of the Kingdom
were empowered to levy and collect for
the purposes of local revenue. While in
number of localities advantage was taken
of the law the cities OF Chemnitz. Stol-
berg. Frankenberg. and Meerane refused to
apply It. as an unjust discrimination
against one class OF legitimate business
enterprise. Referring to these, and the
French experiences in dealing with the
subject. DR.. Miguel Secretary of the Prus-
sian Treasury. said:
personally am OF the opinion that existing
conditions IN the different communities are 80
various, their relations 70 the great business
houses so different. that the only safe method j.
70 let them decide for themselves what is the
best 10 be done. il would be extremely difficult
- make general Government law Tor large and
small cities alike. since the development Of bust
varies radically in different countries and Dis
tTCts. One thing Is certain. social and political
iuTiicc coul9 only I've approximately reached BY
iasaiion; no tax can cover and fit exactly every
HDcup0liiical condition. ENaggeration ia this di-
iiuns and cuusncTciai relations ly taxation alone
might lead 30 dangerous consequence. The whole
road Is besct with dangers and difficulties that can
he only dimy foreseefi. II the smaller merchant
IS projected against the oyclshaho9ing depart
sTrnt Store, the mechanic might with equal JUS
sice demand protection from the great industrial
factories The blacksmith might ssv. u demand
protection from the great forges and factories tiaI
Jaanuiacture wrought-ir0n products SO cheapIg
that cannot exist" The shoemaker would de-
niand high tax upon the shoe factory that turns
ut shoes by machinEry-and il would 60
lhere should we draw the line;
In view OF the prospect that strong pres
sure will be brought to bear upon the law
making bodies in many OF our States, to
impose taxes more or less onerous upon
department stores, IL IS as well 10 look at
the question from all sides. OF one thing
DIR. Mieuels remarks remind us very point
ediy. The department store, whatever may