FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179  
180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   >>   >|  
present market-value of the wine; as to the second question, he goes on to say-- We have, as so often happens in the lives of distinguished premiers, three courses before us: (1) to charge the _present_ value for each kind of wine; (2) to put on a certain percentage to the _original_ value of each kind; (3) to make a compromise between these two courses. Course 1 seems to me perfectly reasonable; but a very plausible objection has been made to it--that it puts a prohibitory price on the valuable wines, and that they would remain unconsumed. This would not, however, involve any loss to our finances; we could obviously realise the enhanced values of the old wines by selling them to outsiders, if the members of Common Room would not buy them. But I do not advocate this course. Course 2 would lead to charging 5s. a bottle for Port and Chablis alike. The Port-drinker would be "in clover," while the Chablis-drinker would probably begin getting his wine direct from the merchant instead of from the Common Room cellar, which would be a _reductio ad absurdum_ of the tariff. Yet I have heard this course advocated, repeatedly, as an abstract principle. "You ought to consider the _original_ value only," I have been told. "You ought to regard the Port-drinker as a private individual, who has laid the wine in for himself, and who ought to have all the advantages of its enhanced value. You cannot fairly ask him for more than what you need to refill the bins with Port, _plus_ the percentage thereon needed to meet the contingent expenses." I have listened to such arguments, but have never been convinced that the course is just. It seems to me that the 8s. additional value which the bottle of Port has acquired, is the property of _Common Room_, and that Common Room has the power to give it to whom it chooses; and it does not seem to me fair to give it all to the Port-drinker. What merit is there in preferring Port to Chablis, that could justify our selling the Port-drinker his wine at less than half what he would have to give outside, and charging the Chablis-drinker five-thirds of what he would have to give outside? At all events, I, as a Port-drinker, do not wish to absorb the whole advantage, and would gladly share it with the Chablis-drinker. The course I recommend is
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179  
180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

drinker

 
Chablis
 

Common

 
selling
 

enhanced

 

bottle

 

charging

 

Course

 

present

 

courses


original

 

percentage

 
question
 

refill

 

contingent

 

listened

 
needed
 

expenses

 
thereon
 

individual


private
 

regard

 

fairly

 

advantages

 

thirds

 

preferring

 

justify

 

events

 

gladly

 

recommend


advantage

 

absorb

 

additional

 
convinced
 
acquired
 

property

 

chooses

 
market
 

arguments

 

advocated


compromise

 

realise

 

finances

 

values

 

members

 
outsiders
 

involve

 
perfectly
 

prohibitory

 

reasonable