The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-09-05

good bargain II by giving up her half million
Of liquor revenue, she would thereby make her
people better off by several millions OF dollars!
A Yes. 1t looks that way.
O. Now, coming again to your own case
let repeat the question: How much higher
would your taxes be on $1,000 assessment in
order to meet the half million loss In state
revenue from liquor?
A. / unable to say.
c. Suppose, then, that you let Senator Keezell,
who is thoroughly familiar with State finances,
for you. He says that to make up the
deficit, admitting that it Will all have to be
supplied increase of five and three-ifths
cents-not cent.--on the hundred dollars.
will be reauired--hence you would be affected
On 81 900 assessment to the extent of about
ffty-four cents year-that Is to say, your taxes
instead of totaling $13. would amount to s13.54.
| A. This surprises me. somewhat. had gath
cred the impression from wet sources that my
| taxes would be doubled If prohibition prevailed.
Rut you have overlooked smething. The vets
claim that prohibition will the State to
lose 100000 in revenue that is now collected on
the plants and capital invested in the manu-
facture of liquor
@ Let's grant that contention--lets grant that
every dollar Of the capital and plants de-
voted to the liquor business would forever dis
appear from Virginia, should prohibition pre-
vail-how much would it cost you to pay your
pro rata of the 100000 in revenue thus lost?
A. canna. say.
@ Let Senator Keezell again reply The sun
posed condition would involve an increase Ut
most of twentyseven cents year--not 81 per
cent.--or YOUR tax ticket q $4,000 assessment
would be 1881 instead Of s13--taking both the
$531,000 of the States liquor revenue and the
100000 invested in LIQUOR plants into considera-
ton. What do you think about 1t, now that
you see the matter in its true light?
A. Silence.
Q. Surely you would not permit your con-
vfctfons the liquor issue to be Influenced by
eighty-one cents year?
A The question is offensive
@. OF course it is--but we do not mean II
to be, nor do the officers Of the Local Self
Government league, good that they are
intend 1t 10 he offensive-it Is not believed that
they would consciously employ arguments that
! betake OF that significance, to further their
cause. But coming down to brass tacks-re-
ducing the question to its last analysis isn't II
70 you arc now confronted with the question:
Which should most control your vo.e-honest
convictions upon moral question or eighty-one
cents?
A -?
Do not let 1t be understood rrom the above
that think any increase of taxation what
ever will be required should the State go upon
prohibition basis. We believe earnestly that this
will not happen-that the next legislature will
SO revise and readjust the crazy-quilt scheme
OF taxation that now exists as to reduce the tax
burdens eff the people whether the State goes
dry or continues wet But our effort has been
to show in the question and answer dialogue
that even concednE the anti prohibition leaders
all that they claim they have yet presented a
mere buga boo-a plea that ought not TO In
fuence 50 much single vote in the State
on the prohibition question News.