The Saint Paul globe., 1900-04-10

ernment receipts. in excess of all ex-
penses, for eight months, were as fol-
lows:
August. 1899 ............... 81 455, 561 IS
September 1899 .................. d,I5d'I W W
october, 1893 .................... 3,S59. oil Sz
November 1899 .................. 6,175, 724 68
december, 1899 ................... 7.6l3,544 81
9Tahuaay; tgg0 S.S5SoSs 1Ss ~ ~
March, 1900 TREASURY state
ment, March 3D................ 16,o5S, 5ST 81
Total for eight months. =. So. .635, ,173 2S
surplus war revenue for the last three
months, $50. .275, $500.
With $l56, 600 900 on hand and usuead
the government is still collecting not only
taxes enough to pay all necessary ex-
PenSes, out Is exacting from the taxpay--
ers ihllllons Of dollars every month in ex-
cess or all needs This is true even
II we assume that the present military
expenses will continue; whereas there is
every prospect that they will decrease
ana no prospect Of their increase Under
these circumstances why should not the
harassing and oppressive stamp tax upon
medlcfnal preparations, perfumery, etc.
Whlch Is an enormous and oppressive
burden upon few manufacturers and
upon all the druggists, be repealed? The
| government does not need this money.
why then continue to single out a few
no
| other class of people?
10 say that q tax of 2% per cent
| Is imposed upon the nominal retail price
OF medical preparations, perfumery. etc.
conveys no adequate idea of the burden
IN the hrst place, the manufacturer sells
ms goods at two-thirds or less than two
thirds of the nominal retail price, so that
the tax amounts on an average to at
ieast per cent of his gross receipts.
q -
per cent, and in many cases to IS ner
cent or 40 per cent of his net receipts.
Where the manufacturer can add the
TAX TO the wholesale price, the burden
can Do shifted; but trade conditions are
such that many manufacturers are Who'll
iy unable to do this. In such cases the
stamp tax is equivalent to an income tax
upon them OF more than 80 per cent 1t
Is impossible to believe that congress
ever intended to impose such a ruinous
burden upon any class of American citi-
zens. If levied in the form of an in
come tax it would arouse the Indignation
of all thinking men
When congress. by the act of
1894 sought to impose a tax
of only 2 per cent upon in
comes In excess of $1,000, the financial
centers arose in arms against the law,
and the act was finally overthrown by
|
enue act imposes tax upon many man
ufacturers of medical preparations, per-
1umery, ETC., more than fifteen times
greater than the general income tax
which was overthrown by the supreme
court. For any civilized government to
claim one-third of the earnings Of any
citizen is an unparalleled injustice and it
Is wholly improbable that congress ever
intended to do this; yet such Is the ef-
feet Of this law.
In addition to this stamp tax, many
manufacturers are forced to pay the
heavy tax uIon alcohol, which is an es-
sential ingredient in some medical pre-
parations and in nearly all perfumery
Many of them are thus subjected to
double taxation Of the most burdensome
character.
The idea that the receipts Of the man
ufacturers of proprietary medicines, per-
fumery, toilet articles etc., are mostly
profits is a delusion, and any tax
based upon this theory must result in
very great injustice. The manufacturing
establishments necessary to produce
such articles are large and costly; much
of the material used Is Of the most ex-
pensive character; labor of all kinds is
employed; advertising expenses are
large; and freight charges, printing box
ing and a thousand other expenses incl
dent to carrying on business are all to
be taken into account. The rules of bust
ness are the same as in any other legiti-
mate enterprise. Some manufacturers
succeed others fail. But among the
most successful, man whose profits
equal u per cent of his receipts is ex-
ceedingly fortunate; while in most in
stances the profits fall far below this
figure.
1t was apparently assumed that the
burden Of the tax upon the articles men
toned would fall upon the consumers.
and thus be widely distributed; but as
stated above, trade conditions are and
have been such that this entire tax is
borne either by the manufacturer or the
retail druggists. 1t Is not shifted to the
consumers, and this fact Is the best DOS
sible evidence that It cannot be shifted
Where this tax is shifted to the retail
druggists it is said to be equivalent to an
annual tax upon their gross profits from
all sales of this class of goods of 25 per
cent-an enormous burden inflicted upon
a most loyal, Industrious and reputable
| class of business men,
The tax itself is grossly discrimina five
| and unjust. Three or four articles are
singled out for excessive taxation. while
hundreds Of others (Which upon precisely
| the same line of reasoning should be
equally subject to taxation) are left out
| Why should hundreds of proprietary and
| patented compounds and articles sold IN
| der trade marks go absolutely free of tax.
| Whlle household- remedies used In thou
| sands Of homes are the subject of on
pressive taxation? Why should the man
| ufacturer Of perfumery be singled out for
| burdenSome taxation, when the manu-
factuFers of hundred other and far
more costly luxuries pay nothing? WHY
| should the manufacturer of such articles
as camphorlce' cold cream. tooth powder,
| talcum powder. ETC., pay an enormous
| tax upon his product, while his neighbor
who makes the fancy and high-priced
| soaps, goes free? Why should f1avorine
| extracts, meat extracts, ETC., go untaxed
| while extracts of malt, witch hazel. ceF-
! cry, ETC., are heavily taxed merely be-
| cause they are sold as medicinal pro-
prietary articles? It is impossible to be-
! lieve that congress will continue a sys-
| tenn so essentially unjust
Nothing but the supremest exigency
| of government could ever Justify such
! taxation; and no reason now exists to
| justify its continuance
| Collector Treat, of New York. who
| probably has more to do with the adj
| n1inistration of this law than any other
| collector advocates a total change In
| collecting the tax on proprietary goods.
| and, among other things In support of
| his contention, he is quoted as saying:
| "We have more trouble in collecting the
proprietary tax than any other item. .
BY change in the law he thinks the tax
could be reduced one-half; and, if the
change he advocates is made, he thinks
| the government would 'get as much rev
enue from IA per cent as we do now.
and at less irritation and expense to the
department" This is cited merely to show
that there is more vexation, trouble and
| expense to the government, as well as to
tho taxpayers, in connection with this
a -. 4l,a,, -nr,r, he.