The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-05-30

take over pubic houses In certain areas
and run them or shut them up as may
seem best.
II is not dlnicult to see why the three
other schemes fell through, to realize
why liquor Is she most dangerous thing
a Chancellor of the Exchequer can
touch. A few figures will be quite
sufficient. In round figures the annual
expenditure on drink in the United King
dom is: For beer. $500, 00O. 900 tor
spirits. s25O.0oO, 900. and FOR wine and
cider. $50. 0O0. 900. From customs duties
and excise the annual revenue from this
In a normal year Is s275. 600. 600. The
drink revenue with the new war tax
on beer that Is already In operation and
nouns to . cents a half pint, is csti-
mated at $3.50, 600 200.
Brewers We're Alarmed.
Figures like these are sufficient to
indicate the trouble and even nge
to n Government which attempts any
very serious Increase OF taxation. Beer.
Of course, ranks as the king OF British
liquors. The influence OF beer is we'll
suggee' ed by the old joke about the
beerage and the peerage. Brewers and
shareholders in breweries were already
seriously alarmed by the effect OF the
additional war tax. The excise returns
show an increased di~stillation Of spirits
for December and January last. the
amount distilled in these two months be-
ing 6,i12,i00 gallons. compared with
S.4o2,1O gallons In the previous Derem-
Der and January. ON the other hand.
the output OF beer decreased In the same
period by i.Sl3.2Tt barrels, compared
with the previous December and Jan
uary.
Before the wal tax. which has now
been in force since November, was an
posed the contribution OF the brewers
to the revenue was enormous. II will
he sufficient to TAX" the figures of jus,
a few leading firms For the year end
ing March 81, 1914. the gross profits OF
the house Of Barclay II Perkins were
sl.9Si.09 out of this there was paid
TO tho Government In duties s1.oa7.js5.
IN addition to licensing duties or the
firm : public houses and license COM
pensation levics amounting to $l22,l55.
Tn total payment to the Governpent
was therefore upward OF 80 per cent,
Of the total gross profits. The total
net proht was actually $311.2S5. and
the amount distributed $4,000. so the
shareholders received barely 20 per
cent.
Another great brewing concern. Wat
ney. Combe & Reid. showed gross profts
for the year of s5.31S.S5o. OF this.
S2.o6S.510 wen for beer duty and brew
ing license and s303.6l5 for compen-
sation levy and license duties. The
sum available for distribution after
payment OF debenture interest was
$l.1l7.965. The Government thus re-
ceived more than double as much as
he shareholders.
In the case Of the City OF London
Brewery Company duties &c. worked
out ut about ISL. per cent. OF the gross
profit and ~ per cent. of the net profit.
Similar figures might be quoted in the
case of numerous other great brewing
companies.
''Tied Houscs' Were . Loss.
In spite OF all this these firms were
actually in a better condition last year
h they had been for some time.
They were just beginning to recover
from the III effects of a system into
which most OF them had rushed head
long a good many years before. rhis
was the purchase Of public houses.
When one big firm suddenly realized
the profit that II would be possible to
make by buying public houses and
keeping them under managers OF their
own for the sale of their own beer
only the others rushed In madly. The
tied house was the fad OF the mo-
hh'i' saturday the prices OF licensed
premises rushed sky high with all these
millionaire concerns eagerly competing
for them. The inevitable era sh fol-
lowed.
About eight years ago watney,
Combe. Reid & Co. had to write 10 per
cent. OF their deferred stock, equal to
the loss of about So, 200. 900. and ex-
tinguished $4,000. 900 of its reserve in
order to bring its assets into harmony
asts IN -Ae AI
Barclay. Perkins & Co. had to acknowl-
edge a deficiency OF $1,000. 900. They
reduced the $500 ordinary stock to SIS
and the $50 preference to $50, and
took $2.051 900 from the reservev. All
sopp x Sens after raorganizations In
1903 and 1905. effected a third reor-
ganization which brought $500. 900
preference down to s275.0O0 and $780,
900 ordinary to $780, $50. and reduced
the Income certificates by IS per cent.
II Is unnecessary TO quote further
examples OF this kind in order to show
that any further serious attack upon
beer by the Chancellor OF the Ex-
chequer would certainly rouse the
strongest possible opposition on the part
of the enormous interests concerned.
II may seem therefore that Mr.. Lloyd
George has met with a fairly complete
defeat at the hands OF the liquor trade.
But on the whole one is inclined to
suspect that this ingenious statesman
has perhaps achieved almost as much
as he really noped for. A leading
Liberal Cabinet Minister said the other
day In conversation with THE SUNS
correspondent Tho English public
house is a nasty place" There are few
people who know the English publ.
house who can honestly dissent from
that opinion, even II they belong TO
that great body whose text when the
liquor question Is discussed consists
OF the famous. " prefer England
free to England sober"
Aims AZ squslid Saloons.
II Is this squal!d English public
house. where no customer Is welcome
unless he stands up and Keeps drinkin.
constantly as long as he can maintain.
his standing posture, where the serving
Of anything but intoxicating drinks is
sternly discouraged. and where, in
short. the British w%orkingman Is en-
couraged in every possible way to make
himself a sOt. which one shrewdly sus-
poets the Chancellor OF the Exchequer
has marked down for his attention when
the general tidying up OF this country
Is set about after peace has been made.
II this really Is Mr.. Lloyd Georges
intention he has already done a con-
siderable amount toward helping to car
rying II out when the time comes. He
has dragged the evils OF the public house
from obscurity into the light OF day
at a time when the attention OF the
whole country was necessarily arrested.
He has obtained for the Government.