The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1917-12-18


! anticipates surplus for the year
! ending September so, 1918. OF 81
! e0e.oeo under the present plan and
rate of tamtion; and VIII recon-
mend TO the general assembly that
the tax rate on tangible personal pro-
party, which In ten csnts on the
| hundred dollars, be removed. that
1 thu tax rate on Intangible personal
, property be reduced from sixty Ave
cents on the one hundred dollars to
| MY cents, and reduction from
/ seventy to Atty cents per one hundred
| dollars on capital.
ut is not eohtended that this re-
markahie change is solely attribu-
table TO the change which the state
has made In its policy IN dealing
with the liquor question II is free
ly admitted that thu change by the
state in its methods OF taxation by
the segregation Of different subjects
OF taxation TO the state and to tho
municipalities haa had a very whole
some effect upon the states revenues,
but both changes have contributed TO
the Improvement: and let no man say
! that prohibition has increased taxes.
and let every man admit the truth
that the most pronounced improve
ment in the finances Of this state
ever known followed Immediately
upon the adoption of the policy OF
prohibition"
Business Results Unparalleled.
The commissioner then discusses
the business results attendant upon
the first years operation Of prohi-
bition. He says;
The general result Of the opera
ton Of the law upon the business in.
teresrs, criminal record, peace. order.
prosperity OF the state is without
parallel in the history OF prohibition.
business interests, which were SO
tinid With reference to this radical
change tn the pollcy@of the state in
dealing with the liquor question. have
been most sEreesbiy surprised
AT no time In the history OF the
state has the volume of business and
the profit or huSlness--not in one or
two lines but practically in all lines
been so large. and no part OF the state
shows this improvement like those
cities and towns in which the sale was
permitted by law previous to Norem-
Der ]. 1913. At the time in 1914
when this change OF policy WINS con-
templated and under discussion, it
cannot be denied that the business
interests in the cities In which The
ctAiF vi tiddti WbS tItSINeI were li'S
most insisteat opponents OF the
chs nge and. mirahle, dictu. these
same business interests have been
the chief benefciaries of the change,
In the improved efficiency Of labor.
in the reduction Of accidents. and In
the unbelievable increase In the vol
urne OF business conducted during
the first year under prohibition u
is gratifying 70 note the ETacefulness
with which this is admitted and re-
lotced In by those whose fears proved
so utterly groundiess as we'll as ny
those whose Judgment was accurate"
The report then submits testinon-
tails from a. number OF business
houses testifyirg to the excellent con-
dition OF business under prohibition,
and calls attention to the numerous
letters published in The Richmond
Virgintan from prominent men in al
walks OF life on October 25. 1917,
testtfying to the general improve
ment, constituting a perfect cloud
OF witnesses
The list of those who signed these
letters included the governor, lead
ing jurists, bankers, professional
men. and business men.
Continuing the report snys: II
anyone who chances to read this re-
port ha ppenR 10 he unacQuafnted
with the sanity. Justice and general
prohity and comprehensively repre-
sentative chara cter OF these spokes-
r. Ell, let him ask any reputable citi-
zen of this commonwealth Who's
who In Virginia
Further aud undisputAble evidence
OF the effect of prohibition upon bust-
"~"~ - the state is noticeable In the
following comparison compiled by
Mr oliver ! Sands. president OF the
'-'"-toa7 National bank. 81 Rich
mond. Va:
".he assets Of all Virginia banks
national and state, increased under
the first years operation OF prohibit
ton. s70,77T 600 In the came period
deposits increased s41,s20. 0no.
ar prohibition has hurt business +