The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1885-01-08

supplies, and tends to raise the price of
cotton. If there were factories enough
in the. South to manufacture our cotton,
the farmer would get:as much for tsherel
as it sells for in New York OF, Liverpool.
1t is, therefore, to the interest Of all
classes Of our people to encourage the
building of factories.
Mr.. scudday says if we have any
special fayors to show, let us give them
to agriculture. By all means. If Mr..
scudday knows of any legislation which
would promote the agricultural interests
of the State, he should speedily bring it
forward; and if he can show thatit will
accomplish that result, she will have no
difficulty in securing its enactment, for
a msjorityof, both branches Of the Leg
islature are agriculturalists. 1t is no
argument to oppose doing something
/ that has definite benefits, in order to
wait and see. if something cannot be
turned up in some other direction that
would be beneficial.
There are other parts of Mr.. Scudday's
argument which We would like to notice,
but for the present We must content our.
selves with looking briefly at his Consti.
Itutional argument. He contends that
whenever a bill to repeal an existing law
lis before the Legislature, it brings the
law before the body in all of its bearings.
This is correct if the word bearings"
means its effect upon the State, but in
the sense Of bringing up the original
questions, as Mr.. scudday implies, we
do not agree with him. "A very strong
reason may have existed against law
insits passage, and yetuponas bill to re-
peal the reason might not exist at all !;
as for instance the enactment of the
stock. law might have been opposed for
Anderson County, because of the Difficult.
ty and expense Of building pasture fences,
and yet if bill to repeal the law were
now to be brought forward it would not
revive that original objection, or if it did
| it should have no force. So We contend
that the bill to repeal does not bring up,
the Constitutional question. Our laws
make it the dutyiof the Courts to decide
matters Of Constitutional law and not
the Legislature. Ifone Legislature de-
cides an Act to be Constitutional, would
it not have as much force as another
which says it is unconstitutional. The
Courts, however, can settle the question
finally. IF the opponents of exemption
believe tito be unconstitutional, why not
20 to the Courts and test the matter.
They profess every confidence in their
case and yet take good care to keep it
out of the Courts. The fact is that fac
tories are not exempt from taxation.
They pay their taxes just as other people
do, but the State annually gives them for
ten years sum of money equal to their
taxes to foster and encourge their eevel-
opment. The State annually gives the
State Agricultural Fair $1,000 to foster
and encourage it, and yet it has never
occurred to Mr.. scudday, and :hose with
him, that the same principle underlies
both. It is bonus in reality, though it
is familiarly termed an exemption. It
may be an evasion of the Constitution
apparently, but it is not 80 in spirit.
The Legislature says, in effect, we wish
to give you a bonus, but cannot afford to
tax the people to do so; therefore, we
will give yon an amount equal to all the
taxes you pay, except the two mill school
tax for.the. term of ten years. We do
not pretend to say how the Courts would
decide the matter, but tits little strange
that men who are as confident that the
law is unconstitutional, IS some profess
obe, keep so persistently away from the
Courts. We believe it is good law, and
hope the Legislature will remain progress.
sive and broad enough in its views to let
the exemption, as tits faIniliarly termed,
remain as partof our law.
. q y Z. ~ IL 2 E