The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1872-02-26

appointment was made for the conference to
lake place In the finance committee room at
halepast three o'clock, and at that hour the
gentlemen of the delegation were on hand, out
not single member of either house was
present 10 receive them. The gentlemen
seated themselve, and waited. In about
half an hour Messrs. Nash, Smalls ana
Swails of the Senate committee dropped H.
Some time after Messrs. Bowen, Frost, crews
Bowey and Bosemon came In, and al
intervals during the next two hours Messrs'
Hunter. Whittemore, Jervey and Hayne came
struggling along, making altogether hardly q
quorum of eItl.er committee. 1t was evident
that many of the members had agreed to put
this insult upon the Charleston gentlemen III
the expectation, probably, of tiring them out
and cause them to return Without Aearlng'
The meeting was called to order, however,
at about four o'clock by Mr.. Nash, and Mr..
Porter proceeded with q statement Of the OBJ
iects of the delegation. he said there were
certain provisions in the proposed license law
that were very injurious, and would be des-
tructiye to certain kinds of business, especi-
ally phosphate manufacturing companies.
The only Just rule in taxation, he said, was uni
formlty, and this rue is distinctly enforced BY
the present constitution of the State, which
says that the rate of taxation shall be uniform
and equal. In the proposed law, however,
that principle Is in several cases violated,
thus trespasslng upon a principle which their
own party have made part of the
fundamental law of the State. The
phosphate companies are taxed upon
their capital, and they have no right to
complain of this fact inasmuch as every other
industry is similarly taxed. Now, however, it
is proposed to subject them to another and q
discriminating AJAX, for it was, coniessedly, q
tax-for revenue-and not proper license
fee. It was not proposed to tax other manu-.
featuring companies In this way, and this con-
stituted the grievance. he submitted that the
phosphate companies should be fostered and
encouraged instead of being crushed down,
that they should be given bounty Instead OF
burden, because they were engaged In de-
veloping new element Of wealth that has
providentlally been spread out at our feet.
They not only brought capital to the State aud
developed her resources, but they even now
gave employment to many hundreds OF labor
ers 1t was wise policy to diversity the 1n-
dustrial pursuits of the State, and encourage
manufactures and commerce. But the pro-
posed law would operate to discourage and
actually to destroy these companies OF
drive them out of the State. he cited
the Etiwan Company as an example. That
company, he said, had a capital OF
s35O,OOo, on which, in common with other
manufacturers, 1t paid dd ualorem tax, but
now it was proposed to demand, as the price
OF mere license, the sum OF $l7, 6Oo The
idea was perfectly monstrous, that a company
that is taxed on its cApital In common with
other companies should be compelled In addl.
tion thereto to pay out five per cent. of lts
whole capital for simple license. The argu-
ment seemed to be that thess companies were
prosperous, and, therefore, should yield
revenue to the State, but this Yves not true.
Last year only one of them had paid di7l-
dend. They were struggling for existence.
One had gone down already, and after Invest
ing $50, 900 had been sold out under the ham
mer for $4,000, aud one of the strongest
ones had recently been unable to sell its stock
at eighty cents on the dollar. Unless the
Legislature wanted to destroy these compa-
niles they should not pass this bill. If they do
so the companies must remove from the State,
and he declared that the companies which
were without acid chambers could 60 to
o.. 4, oo,r.,, with looo ovnopua than tho amOunt
of one license fee He was authorized to say
that if this bill became law the companies
could not exist in this State. They would be
compelled either to leave the State, to sus-
pend their business, or to contest the law IN
the courts. Mr.. Porter proceeded to show
that the same argument applied to the pro-
posal to license the. banks, &C.; that it was dis
crlminallng, unjust, and In opposition to the
fundamental principle of taxation.
Alderman sweegan, in behalf of the City
Council, said that the State and city taxes In
Charleston were already onerous, and that this
bill would terribly increase the burden, espe-
cially of the poor. he drew attention to the
fact that persons selling liquor were to be
charged fifty per cent. more than other mer-
chants and he said there were great many
men of small means in Charleston who made
their living in this way, so that this law would
seriously affect them; and he begged the
members to bear in mind the impoverished
condition of Charleston, and not levy an exces-
sive tax upon the poor.
Major G. Lamb Buist presented the petition
of The Charleston Board Of Trade against the
passage of the license bill, and made power.
full argument in opposition to the bill. In the
case of banks, he said that fully one-ha,f the
banking institutions in this State were ma
tional banks, which were under the egls of
the Federal Government, and could not be
reached by such law, which would conse-
quently bear solely upon the local institutions,
and tend to crush them out. The people need
ed all the banks they could have. One great
obstacle to their prosperity was the prevailing
high rate OF Interest, and he knew of no way
of breaking this down except by multiplying
the number of banking Institutions.
Major Buist was followed by Mr. Hardy Sol
omon and Major J. B. Ezell, Of The Columbia
Board of Trade, and Mr.. VIM. C. Bee and DR..
N. A. Pratt, Of the Charleston delegation,
each pointing out the unjust features of the
hill, and demonstrating against Its passage In