The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-09-04
PROHIBITION AND REVENUE.

PROHIBITION AND REVENUE.
After a discussion of the existing State debt
Of Virginia the Newport News Daily Press makes
this statement
In spite Of our big debt, however, and year
ly interest charge of approximately three quarters
Of million dollars, State taxes are low
and we are raising enough revenue to meet all
Cur demands without depressing the people.
Virginia. is amply able to abolish the liquor tar,
so far as that feature Of prohibition Is concerned
The Daily Press opposes Statewide prohibition
bat 1t has It's head sufficiently clear to realize
rather that the consideration of revenue has
proper place In the discussion of the present
Issue
The saloon costs Virginia in cold cash twice
as much MS It pays into the treasury. In lost
efficiency, destroyed manhood and wasted lives,
The loss is ncalculahly more than will ever
te known Some people find it hard to under
sand how IT is that the loss Of the saloon revenue
VIII not result In raising of the tax rate 1t is
only necessary to state what the liquor dealers
themselves told the legislature of Virginia The
liquor business does an annual business in this
State Of thirty millions of dollars Every
cent OF this money represents expenditures for
;hings that unessential and amounts that
might be saved. Two-thirds of 1t goes out of the
State TO other localities. It is easy to under
stand this basis two things: first, the eager
ness of tho liquor traffic to maintain its hold
en- Virginia at all hazards and second why ii is
not necessary to raise taxes to make up for the
saloon revenue.
The Roanoke Times contends that the liquor
forces are opposed to prohibition not because IT
viii decrease their sales. but because they do
To- care TO be placed outside the protection of
tic law. The liquor interests told different tale
- the legislature. however and we arc perfectly
willing to take their statement of the case The
papers and the people OF Virginia who claim to
act cannot claim that the consumption of alcoholic
ii1nor will not be decreased by prohibition. Such
contention is refuted by common sense and the
testimony of the liquor interests themselves
And then there is the question of the tax
rate, IT cannot be shown that any locality of
Virginia that has abolished the saloon from its
midst has raised Its tax rate on account of losing
tho saloon revenue There cannot be shown a
prohibition State that has raised its tax rate on
account Of prohibition. These facts stand out.
Rural Virginia has long been dry territory
Rural Virginia received large license fees from
The liquo traffic Rural Virginia lost that reve-
nue Rural Virginia has always had local tax
rate After the loss Of the liquor revenue.
that tax rate has not been increased. 1t cannot
10 successfully shown that Virginia will be
forced to raise her State rate after aholishing
the lcgalized liquor traffic. The of Virginia
WHO are most familiar with her finances have
testified that no stnerease tn taxation witt be
necessary. These men have been governors,
auditors, chairmen Of finance committees, speak
cra of the house of delegates and other men of
position. They are authority II there is author
statement that State taxes will have to be raised
are the agents Of the national liquor dealers who
have a thirty million dollar trade at stake, who
have already stopped to the lowest political
scheme in their efforts to fasten this debauching
business on Virginia and who viii continue to
make statements and bring charges that Gamma.
be substantiated. The saloon contributes not
enc single good thing to the tcelore Of Virginia
II must be destroyed.